EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
There are also funds available for anything that is damaged by polar bears or any other animal within the community. Government of Nunavut staff can assist if somebody wants to make a request for compensation or any assistance on wildlife issues, if there is any damage done by wildlife or if they need some type of protection for their equipment. This could be by an individual or an organization.
Can the minister indicate to the people in our communities and this House how much has been used from that compensation fund for damage done by polar bears to date?
There was $41,500 that has been used for compensation for damages done by polar bears in 2012-13 and $3,130 in compensation is available.
However, to date, there haven’t been any approvals for assistance from this package since it’s the beginning of the year.
Question 615 – 3(3): Help for those at Risk of Suicide (Curley)
I would like to follow up on the question that the Member for Akulliq raised earlier. It has to do with suicide issues.
Mr. Speaker, the question today is for the Minister of Justice, who is responsible for the RCMP in Nunavut.
Nunavutmiut, families, and every young student in Nunavut have a role to play at least in helping those at risk.
As an institution, we really never know who is at risk.
It will take families.
It was take students.
It will take individuals to understand those who may be impacted by depression mentally.
The institutions cannot find out who may be at risk, but those of us in families can find out.
The question that we face today is: who is responsible for helping those at risk?
Where do we go for help?
Should it be families first?
Should it be a priest? Should it be a pastor?
Should it be the church?
Should it be the school?
Should it be the designated officials anywhere?
In short, I believe our agencies need protocols.
Exactly, when such a person that may be at risk is known, what is the protocol for the RCMP, for instance?
Can the minister indicate to this House how that procedure is followed?
Well, Mr. Curley brings up a very sensitive subject and a very disturbing subject of suicide.
It’s happening far too often in the territory right now, as we speak.
In response to who is responsible and the RCMP, I would first say that we are all responsible to deal with high-risk people and people that we feel have the need to reach out for help.
All of us are responsible to try and help them.
Right now, the previous commanding officer of the RCMP was on the Embrace Life Council and helped develop the Nunavut Suicide Prevention Strategy.
There is ASIST ongoing through all the RCMP detachments. That has been happening. I’m not sure on the status; if they have all been completed or not.
I think that if someone goes to the RCMP looking for help, it is prudent upon the RCMP to receive those people and to refer them to the proper individuals and experts who can help them, that being the social worker and the mental health worker in the communities, and even as far as to go as reaching out to the family of the people who are seeking help too.
Suicide is all our responsibility. It’s a very difficult thing to deal with.
Again, with Nunavut Arctic College and the question from the member before about providing ASIST training to not only teachers and not only health care workers and the RCMP, I think the plan with Arctic College and the departments of Health and Education is to develop a plan where the public can access that training too.
The public can get the ASIST training and they can be aware of indicators of high-risk people and suicide.
Mr. Speaker, we all recognize that there are many individuals and organizations involved in training and all that kind of stuff, but that’s good and that should be ongoing.
But Nunavutmiut, families, and occasionally students are faced with individuals who may be impacted by depression.
I believe that we need to improve our protocols so that when and if a situation occurs, help is at least found.
I think it goes beyond the ASIST training. ASIST training is one thing. We are faced with particular individuals who may need some help.
That’s exactly what I’m looking for. The minister should be prepared to indicate how you handle such cases and what protocols you use if and when you are or the RCMP is advised that someone may be at risk.
Well, Mr. Speaker, I do understand the question more clearly now.
I think that there is protocol in place and I’m not going to recite it because I don’t know it exactly, but I can provide that information to the member.
If the RCMP receives awareness that a person is high risk for suicide, there is protocol in place on what they should do and who that person should be referred to or the help that they can get to them.
I do think this ASIST awareness is very important too. I think that the more people who know about suicide and are educated about it and know what the indicators are, all of us working together and not in silos, and not just the RCMP, the health care system, and the education system, the sooner we can intervene on the indicators, the more suicide we can prevent.
That’s helpful to understand.
Mr. Speaker, suicide is final.
There is little we can do about it after the fact, but we can deal with the depression and those at risk.
There are indicators through the assessments of their health that there are certain individuals in our communities who may be at that risk factor.
At one given community, the RCMP did receive a call that he was at risk.
Can the minister review the situation and ask the RCMP to review the phone call received and what they did about it? The person did commit suicide.
Well, it sounds like a very specific incident.
I would say to the member that you would need to supply me with that information and the specifics of that information and it definitely will be looked into, with the specifics of the information.
I would just like to end by saying that yes, suicide is final, but it’s not final.
There are very many victims who are left behind to deal and cope with the issues that happen from suicide.
So it affects us all and it continues to affect families into the future.
Before we move on in our orders of day, I would just like to take an opportunity to recognize an individual in the Gallery.
Adam Livingstone, sitting back there, is a summer student working with the Department of Finance for the second year, pursuing post-secondary education in accounting and finance.
So welcome to the Gallery and keep up the good work.
Item 7 in our Orders of the Day.
Tabled Document 352 – 3(3): Correspondence Concerning the Nomination of the Back River to the Canadian Heritage River System (Aupaluktuq)
I wish to table today copies of the correspondence sent to the Department of Environment from the Kivalliq Inuit Association indicating its objections for the nomination of the Back River as a Canadian Heritage River.
As the minister will recall, I posed questions during yesterday’s sitting concerning this issue and he indicated that his department is working with the Inuit organization on this issue.
I encourage all Nunavummiut, in particular, those residents living in Baker Lake and Gjoa Haven, to review these documents with care.
Tabled Document 353 – 3(3): Correspondence from Qarmartalik School to Minister of Education (Elliott)
Tabled Document 354 – 3(3): Article from the Star: North West Co. dominates Arctic and avoids U.S. Competitors (Elliott)
Tabled Document 354 – 3(3): Article from News/North: Sharing her plan – MP sees building capacity as important step for devolution (Elliott)
I’ve had the privilege of meeting with both the administration and the district education of Qarmartalik School in Resolute Bay on this issue.
As far as I know, the school is the only school across the territory that does not have its own school gymnasium.
So Mr. Speaker, today, I table two letters, one from the school administration and the second from the district education authority, asking the Government of Nunavut Department of Education to consider providing capital dollars for a school gymnasium.
As well, Mr. Speaker, further to my Member’s Statement, I quoted a number of sources.
For clarification and transparency, I wanted to table a few documents that supported my Member’s Statement for the comments regarding Mr. Stephen van Dine there in the permanent public record and can be accessed through the Assembly website.
As well, I have a copy of the April 22 Toronto Star article titled “North West Co. dominates Arctic and avoids U.S. Competitors.”
The final article was in the May 11, 2011 News/North with an interview done with our MP.
Is that two or three things that you’re tabling there?
Clarify that, please.
Two of them?
Okay. That’s what I thought.
Tabled Document 355 – 3(3): Speaker’s List of Outstanding Statutory Tabling Requirements (Speaker)
Members, I wish to table today a list of outstanding statutory tabling requirements.
This list is current as of the end of the May 7, 2013 sitting of the House.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bills 61 and 62 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:24 and Committee resumed at 15:49
Good afternoon as well to Nunavummiut and our audience.
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 61 and 62.
We wish to commence with the review of Bill 61, followed by Bill 62.
Are we in agreement to first deal with Bill 61, No. 2, 2013-14?
Bill 61 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014 – Consideration in Committee
We will now be considering Bill 61. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, Minister Peterson, to go to the witness table and proceed with his opening comments. Minister Peterson.
Minister Peterson, you may begin any time.
I am pleased to present Bill 61, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014.
Bill 61 is a supplementary appropriation for 2013-14 capital totalling $126,379,000.
Over 50 percent, or $65,409,000, of the carryovers for this year relate to multi-year and third party funded projects.
At least $24,234,000, or 37 percent, relate to the Building Canada Fund.
This appropriation deals with carryovers from the 2012-13 fiscal year to the 2013-14 fiscal year.
Tenders for the Building Canada funded project, Cambridge Bay Hamlet Office, have closed.
In order to proceed with construction in 2013-14, $4.5 million is included in this supplementary appropriation.
This brings Bill 61 to a total of $130,879,000.
There are two types of capital carryovers in this bill.
The first, Financial Administration Manual Directive 302-5 (FAM) compliant carryovers, covers approved capital projects where there is a financial or contractual commitment to continue the project into the next fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, approval of these carryovers is technical in nature. These projects are ongoing and Bill 61 ensures their continuation.
The second, FAM non-compliant carryovers, covers capital projects eligible for carryover when application is made to the Financial Management Board in the first quarter of the following year.
Those applications have been received and approved by FMB.
Mr. Chairman, the object of this set of carryovers is to immediately reintroduce these previously approved projects into the capital plan to ensure funds are available to proceed.
There are a total of 145 projects in the carryover request. The total capital carryovers are broken down as follows:
$2,149,000 in 3 projects for the Office of the Legislative Assembly for improvements;
$1,859,000 in 7 projects for the Department of Finance in support of Nunavut Arctic College operations and includes the Kitikmeot Mine Training Centre and the Rankin Inlet Trade School and heavy equipment operator simulator;
$4,611,000 in 3 projects for the Department of Justice covering some minor capital, office renovations in Iqaluit, the Iqaluit overcrowding relief structure, and the Rankin Inlet healing centre;
$15,573,000 in 18 projects for the Department of Education, which includes repairs and renovations to several schools;
$30,139,000 in 9 projects for the Department of Health, which includes the repair, renovation, or replacement of several health centres, as well as the medical diagnostic equipment;
$3,090,000 in 13 projects for the Department of Environment covering wildlife office replacement and renovations, and territorial park development;
$52,140,000 in 73 projects for the Department of Community and Government Services covering a wide range of municipal and community infrastructure projects; and
$16,818,000 in 19 projects for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation covering a number of airport improvement projects, the Kivalliq Regional Visitors Centre, and small craft harbour planning.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have witnesses.
To my right is Deputy Minister of Finance Chris D’Arcy and to my left is Peter Tumilty, Assistant Deputy Minister of Policy and Taxation in the Department of Finance.
Welcome. (interpretation) Before we proceed and because we haven’t had a meeting for a long time, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
As we proceed to Bill 61, are there any general comments on Minister Peterson’s opening comments?
Are there any general comments before we go clause by clause?
There being none. We will now go to page 4.
I think we’re all on the same page.
Total Assembly Operations. $2,084,000.
Total Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly. $65,000.
This is on the same page. Total Department. $2,149,000.
Turn the page. Page 5.
Total Centrally Administered Funds. $1,859,000.
My question is on the Nunavut Arctic College - Piqqusilirivvik Snow Fence for the $508,000.
I know we have been carrying this over for a couple of years now. Is it possible to get an update on what’s actually happening with that? I don’t know how difficult it is to build a snow fence and maybe I just don’t understand the planning that’s required for it.
According to the information we have, the contract has been awarded and the project will be initiated in June 2013 and construction is scheduled to be completed by October 2013.
In terms of the heavy equipment operator simulator in Rankin Inlet, will that be ready to go by September of 2013?
The information we have been provided with is the facility will be operational by September 2013.
For the $50,000 for the Grise Fiord, which is my understanding in questions I have asked in previous years when it has been carried over is that it’s for planning.
Once the community hall is done and the hamlet has vacated the currently used hamlet office, have plans been worked out within the department of either Nunavut Arctic College or CGS in terms of what would need to be done?
I’m assuming that the $50,000 is just for planning and it’s not actually any type of renovation.
Yes, to our understanding from the information, the project was delayed because of delays in construction of the new hamlet office. The initiation of the planning of the project will be conducted in this current fiscal year.
Not Previously Authorized. $1,859,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Page 6.
In regard to the Corrections for item No. 2, we’re being asked to approve $319,000 for the emergency overcrowding relief structure.
We had already increased the amount for that facility, I think, from $9 million to $12 million.
We found out it’s now going to be more of a permanent structure instead of a temporary structure.
Could we get an update as to what’s happening with that?
Is the $319,000 for more planning and are we looking at the cost of that going up even more?
This particular portion of the funding is related to contract monitoring through the construction phase when work begins in 2013-14.
In terms of the actual costs for the facility, what’s the grand total going to be?
Now, just to be clear, the funds that we’re talking about here are carried over from the last fiscal year.
It’s not new money.
I think the tender closed recently.
I believe they’re still evaluating, but I have no information to provide on the bids.
For item No. 3, the men’s Rankin Inlet healing facility, my understanding is that that facility is done.
There are inmates inside, but according to what we have in front of us, there’s going to be $3.1 million allocated for a new project, not an old project.
Could the minister explain, if this facility is completed, what new things have to be added to it?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Elliott again for his question.
The funds are being requested to be carried over. If there will be additional work, the department is looking at a snow fence, work to the roof above the boardroom, communication hardware, and then there will be an extra year of warranty.
I guess they need to start looking at snow fences when they build the buildings.
I think this is the second facility that we’re waiting for snow fences on, so maybe make a mental note of that. I’m not sure.
In terms of the three, is that a normal amount?
I don’t know what the word is, but why is it coming before us as a new project?
Why isn’t it a continuation of the existing project?
Mr. Chairman, it’s a non-compliant carryover because there are no contractual relationships in carrying something over.
What I’m trying to say, then, is these are new contracts that are going out to finish work on something that was already contracted. Why it wasn’t in the original contract is my question.
I thank Mr. Elliott for the question. I do have an explanation for that. There is the element of warranty work, as I mentioned.
As Mr. Elliott pointed out, why wasn’t a snow fence factored into the original plan for the second large facility where the government is coming across an additional requirement, when you put large structures in town and you get blizzards and blowing winds, it does tend to disrupt the natural snow-drifting.
I don’t have any more information on that, Mr. Chairman.
Does the architectural firm not carry any of the burdens in terms of mistakes made in design?
According to the figures we have, we paid $2.7 million for the designing of it and $70,000 for the initial planning.
Now we’re going back and needing another $3 million because they’re saying, “Oops, we forgot stuff.”
I don’t know where else you are allowed to do stuff like that.
If I contract someone to build a house for me, they don’t come back later and say, “Sorry, we forgot to put the roof on and we didn’t include a snow fence and a parking garage,” or whatever else.
This is the figure and this is what we’re paying.
I’m just wondering if there’s something that we need to be doing to make sure that this doesn’t happen again.
Again, as you said, it was a big project. It is.
It’s $34 million, and it scares me when we start working towards… . Someone did say sceptics are always there, but we’re doing a huge P3 project. In the end, are there going to be things that are forgotten in those projects as well if we don’t tighten up the reins or figure these things out?
Somebody needs go be accountable for that other than us just continuing to approve millions of dollars over and over again.
I thank Mr. Elliott for his questions, comments, and suggestions.
Mr. Chairman, again, we’re not asking for new monies.
We’re asking to carry over monies that have already been approved in the past.
I believe, if you read the capital plan substantiation sheet under rationale for carryover requests, there is an indication that during the design phase, the snow fence was proposed and it was deferred to see if it would be necessary.
Of course, once the facility was erected, it became obvious that the snow fence was necessary.
Fortunately the budget is able to cover it without having to come back and ask FMB for additional monies over and above the original approved budget.
We are on page 6. Justice. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Directorate. Total Directorate. $1,192,000.
Corrections. Total Corrections. $3,419,000.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $4,611,000.
Turn the page. Page 7. Education.
Capital. Ms. Ugyuk.
For the phase 2 high school renovation for Gjoa Haven, in the original business plan for local employment training, it was said that there was going to be apprentice training for the local people who wanted to apprentice in trades, and then in this new capital projects substantiation sheet, it says that every effort will be made to hire local workers and training for apprentices was taken out.
I’m wondering how they decided to change it from training apprentices to every effort to hire local workers.
I don’t have an explanation for the change from “training apprentices” to “every effort to,” unless it’s a function of local folks to work on the project.
I can’t explain that.
The very first line item on page 7 says, “Sanikiluaq New School Planning,” $54,000.
If you read the substantiation sheet, it states that it’s for warranty work. Considering that the school has been in operation for two years now, I’m wondering if the minister or the Minister of Community and Government Services can explain why it’s taking two years to get the warranty work complete on the new school.
The only information I have available to me to answer that question is the information that says that the project is now under warranty stage.
I’m wondering if I could redirect that question to the Minister of Community and Government Services if he has the information available.
The only thing I could add to that is in terms of warranty work, sometimes things break down or they find problems with infrastructure only after it’s in operation.
Sometimes the hiccups or issues that have to be repaired, unfortunately, take a little longer if items have to be shipped into the community, and so on and so forth. It’s more of when they find out and when they can solve the issue, Mr. Chairman.
That’s as good as I can get on the explanation.
I’m wondering if the minister can indicate whether or not there are any ongoing issues with the contractor who built the school.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I will make a judgment and say that was directed to Minister Kusugak.
Not that I’m currently aware of.
One final question directed to the Minister of Community and Government Services is: does he have any idea of any kind of timeline of when this warranty work will be completed?
I appreciate the questions.
I don’t have a detailed timeline and as soon as I do, I would be more than happy to share it with my colleague.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Kusugak. (interpretation) We are on page 7.
Education. I’m sorry, Mr. Ningeongan. (interpretation ends) Go ahead.
I just want to get some clarification for item 2 on this page, (interpretation ends) “To provide funding of $33,000 for the following projects not started, or where no contractual commitment exists…” I’m certainly curious whether this type of initiative would take precedence over the high school that was projected to get the planning and design work done for next year for Coral Harbour.
I’m wondering if the minister maybe could explain to me what the rationale is behind this because it appears to me, anyway, that money that was not… .
I think I made my point anyways, so if he could explain that to me, please. (interpretation) Thank you.
I would like to thank Mr. Ningeongan for his question.
Yes, I believe he made his point.
This project was previously approved, so we are carrying it over.
I think all the education projects are a priority.
Unfortunately the Minister responsible for Education is unable to be here today to respond directly to your concern, but it’s duly noted.
This is a concern that I have because the project has not started. I just wonder if they are going to do this.
I know that the minister cannot respond to the question, but I will be asking the minister because it is going to be a new project for 2013-14.
According to the criteria that they could build the school in Coral Harbour, I’m not sure what the design and planning part of the project is going to be like, but I figure that the construction would start soon.