EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
It’s been quite a few years that have already passed and we’ve never seen that constructed even though it was in the plans.
My question to the minister is: when will we see the replacement for the adult learning centre, because the adult learning centre we use now is very old.
It’s even useless to renovate it.
So, when will we see a replacement for the adult learning centre?
I’m very pleased today that we have in the audience in the gallery, the President of Nunavut Arctic College, Mr. Mac Clendenning.
So, I’m going to ask Mac, if the committee would bear with me, just to come here just for a second and we’ll update the member on the learning centre in the community of Repulse Bay.
I would like to welcome you Mr. Mac Clendenning.
I appreciate the Member’s question and appreciate the on-going support of adult learning in Repulse Bay.
We need to look at replacing the learning centre in the community.
At the present time it is not in the five-year capital plan.
It is currently showing for replacement at 2010-11 but in June of this year at the Board of Governor’s meeting they directed us to re-evaluate our capital plan and to reassess our priorities and that is currently what we are doing.
We are planning to have a revised capital plan before our board that are meeting in March and at which time we will looking at Repulse Bay and other communities that are lacking facilities or need to have facilities replaced with a new capital plan that will reflect the current needs.
We certainly understand the needs in Repulse Bay.
We are in the process of hiring a new adult educator for the community and that will help also to revitalize programming in the community.
Yes, we do have great need even though they were in the plan previously.
We are requesting that you take a serious consideration in replacing the adult learning centre and you have a very old adult learning centre.
Even the floor moves when you are walking in the building and I think the floor will come off soon and it was one of the first adult learning centres that was constructed in Repulse Bay and it is still in use.
But the other school that was built at the same time was no longer usable and no longer used.
Perhaps the department can seriously look into the fact that we require a replacement of an adult learning centre.
I have had an opportunity to look at the adult learning centre in Repulse Bay and that is one of the priorities of the Board of the College to review their capital plans and to see what we can bring forward.
Again, in the capital plan we try and deal with the projects that are in most need and prorate that in the budget that was available to us.
So direction has been given to Mr. Clendenning to review the capital budget of the college and regards to the situation in Repulse to see if he can facilitate.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister. Thank you, Mr. Mapsalak.
Mr. Curley: I know the Minister would like to get that budget out of the way so he can carry on with his showcase.
But I was given more than once some understanding from the President of Arctic College that the Arctic College residence in Rankin Inlet would be upgraded and built but that is not being shown in capital items.
At one point I received a note from the minister that he allocated or was proposing to allocate $800,000.
Where did the rest of the PR side of the work that he did for those of us in Rankin Inlet go to; the capital dollars?
The member is a hard man to please.
I suggested to him on questions that he has raised on what we are trying to do in the community of Rankin Inlet.
I have moved forward on those plans, the budget shows $460,000 for the planning of the student accommodations and the plan in Rankin Inlet would include that four one-bedroom units, four two-bedroom units, and two three-bedroom units, similar to what we have done in Cambridge Bay, and the member has been briefed on that, and that’s what the money here is also to accomplish.
At the same time, the member raised to me last spring session six months ago about the concern of not having enough family accommodations units, so I instructed the college to go out and try to lease accommodations to help alleviate that situation.
So, as the minister responsible, I try to do what we are currently...in regard to not only the member’s community, but the other communities, and I think we have been responsive to his wishes and the wishes of the community.
So, hopefully it helps answer the member’s question.
I appreciate the minister attempted to at least account for what he said he would do, but I want to show the member that this is not my project, it’s not going to benefit me one bit, that’s for the program, the students who don’t have any accommodations for years, it’s not just the students, but particularly the family.
When you look at $460,000 and if you compare it with your counterparts in the Housing Corporation with how many units you can build with $460,000, this may be just for capital planning purposes, but would they really need that amount of planning where you have certain designs that are probably in place right now.
So, what I’m gathering from the minister is that this is only planning, but not capital or actual construction building materials for those units.
So, does it include planning dollars for units for that amount or will there any additional supplementary estimates or what not later on?
The member knows and the Members in the House know that they already have been trying to facilitate moving forward with the idea of a trade school and if the trade school process goes forward, they will need the additional dollars for helping us with the student accommodations in Rankin Inlet.
We do have the monies and the Northern Strategy money is there that would hopefully be able to facilitate that project, which includes the monies that you see in the budget right now for the design phase, but I don’t want to get ahead of myself there and say that I’m taking money and putting it into one community because, the member just found out earlier and it was mentioned, maybe that would not be correct.
So, I’m trying to say that there is money here for the design of the accommodations; we are trying to move forward on that.
I asked the college if there’s an extra $100,000 in their budget to lease accommodations in the meantime and married accommodations in Rankin Inlet.
We have done that and we have money now in the budget to be able to plan for the married accommodations.
Again, that would be contingent on some of the other opportunities that we have in the community based on, for example, usage and so on.
Right now, it is my understanding from Rankin Inlet that we are actually doing pretty good with accommodations for married folks in the community.
That’s my understanding from some of our staff that are there.
So, I think we are trying to accomplish what the member is asking for.
Mr. Curley: I live in Rankin Inlet, I know the students that are finding out.
We have, right now, four kids who are with their families that don’t have any place to go so they are staying with their families who don’t charge them a fee, but they are a fine example.
The minister may be finding dimes in the nickel and dime region; when we look at items like in Iqaluit for the last number of years, the new $2.6 million for Nunavut Arctic College student accommodation, $5.6 million this coming fiscal year and you expect me to say that you are doing great things in other regions?
I am trying my best to restrain myself but you are not demonstrating you do know that very well, particularly the Kivalliq region, when it comes to adult learning and accommodation, aside from headquarters.
In terms of that amount it’s not being demonstrated.
Minister, you may be very well pleased with what you are doing, but I think you ought to pay just as much respect to other communities, like you are doing for this community.
That was more of a comment so do you have any more questions, Mr. Curley?
Mr. Curley: My other question to the minister is will you be bringing forward a more detailed plan and if so, when will that come out in terms of adult student accommodation for Rankin Inlet, or other communities in the Kivalliq region?
I just want to correct for the record on the debate here.
This is the first opportunity, as the member knows, for me as the Minister of Education to actually influence this budget for the department because I only became the minister a year ago.
What I’ve tried to do is be reflective of the member and other concerns in the community.
I only have a budget and you try to do the best that you can with it.
Right now in Iqaluit, where the majority of programs are being run, we are on that private market, we are renting 33 accommodations, of almost $1 million cost for the private sector.
That is not acceptable. So we’re trying to get out of that by planning on student accommodations.
When I worked at the college in 1987, we were still planning on building units and accommodations.
The last time Nunavut Arctic College built any accommodation, it was just recently in Cambridge Bay.
I can tell that the member for Cambridge Bay, those guys have been waiting for 20 years for accommodations.
The accommodations here in Iqaluit now are almost now twenty years old, and will be over twenty years old when the new accommodations are built.
In the budget for the community of Rankin Inlet, as I said earlier, we have money for the first time in the budget to actually plan accommodations. We have to be able to set up with the community issues around the lot specifications, picking the lot, and so on.
I believe that we’ll be able to accomplish that because we have the model that we just did, for example from Cambridge Bay.
I have authorized the college to look in the private marketplace to rent accommodation for students, so all of those things have been accomplished.
The plan for accommodations in Rankin Inlet, once the $460,000 is put forward and accepted can go on to the design phase of the project.
Our capital planners then will be in the community, meeting with the hamlet and other interested parties to discuss what the next stages would be.
That program may be fast tracked depending on what occurs on the work that we are doing with the trades’ school.
I hope that gives the member a level of comfort.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Yes, I have lived in that community for over 25 years and I know that the residence is about 25 years old, because I was the minister in that government when that facility was built.
We don’t have any married couple residences other than maybe one or two locations that you are renting out somewhere. Normally these are booked and they are not available.
For that reason that we want to see the government have a fairer and transparent long-term plan for other regions.
We realize you are favouring headquarters, where most of the Arctic College programs that sit in at the expense of other communities because there are no accommodations.
I think the fairness aspect of it is not all that indicative in terms of how and when the dollars are spread out throughout the regions.
Rankin Inlet is the second largest community in the region.
I’m not trying to make it more difficult for the government. It’s a fact of life that people from other communities comes to try and earn a more advanced education that they cannot get from other communities.
For that reason, Mr. Minister, I’m not trying to make it hard on you. I’m trying to make it so that you understand fully there are needs as well out there, aside from headquarters, which is fairly well represented I think, in terms of dollar amounts during the last 10 years.
I didn’t hear a question, so unless you want respond to it, Mr. Minister?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Yes, just for process, or clarification I guess.
The college is not the same as the Department of Education when we look at the capital planning process because you have a board of governors of the college. The board of governors of the college reviews their capital plan and they bring forward to me, as minister, their suggestions.
Then we try to incorporate those suggestions within the dollar framework of the Department of Education.
In this case, we have members of the Board of Governors of Nunavut Arctic College from Rankin Inlet.
They’ve brought forward their concerns, and that’s why you heard me say earlier that I’ve asked Mr. Clendenning and the board to review their five-year capital planning process.
That’s the way we make sure that things are being done based on need and current need. So, hopefully that helps to clarify the member’s comments.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Curley, anything else?
Did I hear the minister correctly when he was saying that the $460,000 is design money for student accommodations in Rankin Inlet? Is that correct?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you. The member is correct. Yes.
Also, did I hear the minister correctly when he had indicated that they were going to use the model of the student accommodations that they’ve just finished building in Cambridge Bay that they already have a design for? Is that correct?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for expediency, there is an opportunity to be able to utilize that model that we’ve just used in Cambridge Bay.
Again, that would save us some money and would also save us time because have the design in place.
I’m just wondering if you have to pay for the design twice.
If you’ve got the blueprints already, do you need $460,000, to get them done again if they’re already done?
I know my colleague from Repulse Bay was just talking about his adult learning centre that, they’re worried about falling through the floor when they walk into the place.
We were recently in Rankin Inlet and at the accommodations there.
I’m just wondering if it’s necessary to have that money there.
Maybe that money should go towards something else that they don’t already have a design for...another have not community, a non-decentralized community, when they could use that money if they already have the design there for that, if they’re going to get it anyway.
That’s not really money for Rankin Inlet, its money for an architect for drawings that we already have. So, I don’t know.
Maybe the minister could clarify that.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Tootoo. Mr. Minister.
When you see an amount in the capital budget of $460,000, it’s more than just the architectural drawings that you’re trying to budget for.
You’re also trying to budget issues around, for example, site selection.
There might have to be work done with the site, that when you select the site to build, you need it sound to make sure that, the permafrost, and so on and so forth, there’s geotechnical work that’s usually done.
At the same time there is other work that is done administratively within that framework, within that dollar value to be able to move forward with. So, when you see the amount here, on the best guestimate the department has made, is that we need about $460,000, to do the preplanning and the planning phase of the student accommodations for the community of Rankin Inlet.
If you look at, just for example, some of the other planning money, for the other monies that we put in, they could be a little bit more or they could be a little higher, or less than the money that is budgeted or allocated here, again, depending on the scope of the work that needs to be carried out.
So, hopefully that helps to answer the member’s question.
It is not just architectural drawings you’re purchasing.
It is also the geotechnical work, some logistic work as well as administrative work that has to go into the capital planning process, which includes visiting the site and so on.
The Minister is saying the department is responsible for developing the lot. I thought it was a municipal responsibility.
Do they know the location or area that they are looking at already? Is that in place?
Mr. Chairman, as I said earlier when you are planning a facility like this there is some work that is already on that, has already been expended to do that.
In this case, in Rankin Inlet the hamlet has offered up a lot, a selection, a choice but there is a concern of the lot that has come up because there is a drainage issue with the lot and the slope of the run off of that lot, so extra dollars are needed to deal with the issue around the lot itself.
What the hamlets usually do in these cases they select the lot and say this is where you should put your building and then we would go in there and look at the lot and do a geo-technical study and if there are sloping issues and if there are wind issues for example and we have seen that here in Iqaluit, those kinds of wind studies and the snow road and that would need to be facilitated for a facility.
So I hope that answers the Member’s question.
Those types of responsibility were the responsibility of the municipality that is developing that area and then the only responsibility like for a homeowner for example that they do is go put some fill for a pad; it is good for a year or two when it settles, and then build. All the other work is done and it is also done here in our tax-based community.
The City provides the development and the owner, in here piles and not a pad, and builds their house. It is not up to the homeowner here or the private sector if they want geo-technical work done.
I am surprised that it is not a municipal responsibility. It is their land that they are providing.
Can I get an explanation on that?
Just a couple of issues here, Mr. Chairman, first of all the Hamlet of Rankin have been very proactive. They have been on board and they see the need for our facility for the accommodations.
They have identified where they believe a lot should be. So they have identified the lot and at the same time there may be some pre-work that needs to be done to bring that lot to up to snuff as it were, so we can build and begin construction.
We don’t expect the Hamlet or the City of Iqaluit to do geo-technical work on the lot once we have picked it. There is no municipality that would do that.
That is up to the design, up to the people who picked the lot.
A great example would be here in Iqaluit and that the members would be familiar with and that was the lot selection of the hospital, the new hospital that is being built. The geo technical had to be carried out even though the lot was identified by the companies and yes indeed you can build here because the geo-technical work was done for a certain depth and so on and so forth. That is the case here for Rankin.
The second part of the question is because of the slope and run off maybe more monies expended on site preparation than we originally had anticipated.
Again that is why you need the money $460,000 to be able to do some of that geo-technical and other work that needs to be done on the lot site.
That is above and beyond the architectural side and drawings.
As per Rule 6(1) I now recognize the clock and I will report progress.
The Chairman was Mr. Netser.
Your committee has been considering Bill 1 and the capital estimates, and would like to report progress.
And also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Seconder, Mr. Peterson.
Order for the Day for November 25:
Speaker (interpretation): We will reconvene on November 25, 2005 at ten o’clock in the morning.
>>House adjourned at 18:13
Friday, November 25, 2005
Pages 493 – 494
Opening Prayer 493
Orders of the Day 493
Friday, November 25, 2005 493
Honourable Leona Aglukkaq, Honourable Olayuk Akesuk, Honourable Levinia Brown, Honourable Peter Kilabuk, Honourable Jobie Nutarak, Honourable Edward Picco, Honourable David Simailak, Honourable Louis Tapardjuk.
Speaker (interpretation): According to Rule 7(2) when the Speaker is starting to open the meeting and there is no quorum the meeting shall be adjourned until the next sitting.
In Rule 7(3), the Speaker, when there is no quorum, has to state what time the session adjourned and the members who are present shall be recorded.
These are present in the House.
Orders of the Day. Item 22.
Orders of the day for November 28.
Speaker (interpretation): The session will recess today until November 28 starting at 1:30 in the afternoon.
>>House adjourned at 10:14
Monday, November 28, 2005
Pages 495 – 560
Opening Prayer 495
Ministers’ Statements 495
Members’ Statements 498
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 502
Oral Questions 503
Point of Order 514
Speaker’s Ruling 515
Tabling of Documents 524
Notices of Motions 526
First Reading of Bills 527
Second Reading of Bills 528
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 529
Report of the Committee of the Whole 559
Orders of the Day 559
Monday, November 28, 2005 495
034 – 2(3): Priority Hiring Policy Extension (Tapardjuk) 495
035 – 2(3): United Nation’s Climate Change Conference (Akesuk) 496
036 – 2(3): Congratulations to Sheila Watt-Cloutier (Aglukkaq) 497
037 – 2(3): Update on Made in Nunavut Language Legislation (Tapardjuk) 497
065 – 2(3): Residential School Agreement (Mapsalak) 498
066 – 2(3): Cambridge Bay Senior Boys & Girls Basketball Teams (Peterson) 498
067 – 2(3): Coral Harbour Schools Lack of Resources (Netser) 499
068 – 2(3): High Winds in Pangnirtung (Kilabuk) 500
069 – 2(3): New Aquatic Centre Proposal (Tootoo) 501
081 – 2(3): Ensuring Adequate School Resources (Netser) 503
082 – 2(3): Update on the Improvements to the Larga Baffin House (Barnabas) 505
083 – 2(3): Changes to the Down Payment Assistance Program (Tootoo) 507
084 – 2(3): Financial Support for Adult Basic Education Students (Peterson) 509
085 – 2(3): 50 Percent of Education Budget to Iqaluit (Curley) 511
086 – 2(3): Workshop on Shamanism – Out of Order 518
087 – 2(3): Reducing Income Support Payments to Former Residential School Students (Barnabas) 518
088 – 2(3): Identifying Nunavut Beneficiaries in the Priority Hiring Policy (Tootoo) 520
089 – 2(3): Arctic College Research Institute (Netser) 522
036 – 2(3): Priority Hiring Policy (Tapardjuk) 524
037 – 2(3): Annual Report of the Director of Child & Family Services, 2004-05 (Aglukkaq) 524
038 – 2(3): FPT Ministerial Meetings (Brown) 524
039 – 2(3): Procurement & Contracting Report, 2004-05 (Brown) 524
040 – 2(3): Nunavut Gasoline Quality Report, 2004-05 (Brown) 524
041 – 2(3): Nunavut Business Credit Corporation Board Policies (Kilabuk) 525
042 – 2(3): Government of Nunavut Memorandum of Understanding with Nunavut Tourism (Kilabuk) 525
043 – 2(3): Safe Harbours – Healthy Communities & Airports for Nunavummiut & Their Economy (Kilabuk) 525
044 – 2(3): FPT Ministerial Meetings (Akesuk) 525
045 – 2(3): Deputy Minister Travel Fiscal Year 2004-05 & Ministerial Travel Expense Summary Report for Fiscal Year 2004-05 (Okalik) 525
046 – 2(3): Pension Administration Report for Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2005 (Speaker) 525
047 – 2(3): Audited Financial Statements of the Retiring Allowances Fund for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2005 (Speaker) 525
048 – 2(3): Audited Financial Statements of the Supplementary Retiring Allowances Fund for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2005 (Speaker) 526
049 – 2(3): Report on the Payment of Member Indemnities, Allowances & Expenses for the Fiscal Year Ending March 31, 2005 (Speaker) 526
002 – 2(3): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Kilabuk) 526
003 – 2(3): Ending Domestic Violence in Nunavut – Notice (Kilabuk) 526
004 – 2(3): Member for Nattilik be Removed from the Executive Council of Nunavut – Notice (Tootoo) 527
Bill 02 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06 – First Reading 527
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #2, 2005-06 – First Reading 527
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #4, 2004-05 – First Reading 527
Bill 10 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act – First Reading 528
Bill 02 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act #2, 2005-06 – Second Reading 528
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #2, 2005-06 – Second Reading 528
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act #4, 2004-05 – Second Reading 529
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2006-07 – Education – Consideration in Committee 530
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2006-07 – Economic Development & Transportation – Consideration in Committee 537