EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At this point in time, our department has not received any requests on the arrangements for the parking garage in the community of Coral Harbour.
Basically what I can do is, when we go back to the office, we can follow up with the Hamlet of Coral Harbour to see what arrangements are being discussed.
Certainly nothing has been brought to our attention.
The SAO of the community discussed the issue with me while I was in the community.
At my last changeover flight there, he spoke about his experiences regarding the Rankin Inlet district office, that the only time results accrued was when he and I personally visited their office did they respond about our concerns.
There seems to be a communication breakdown as the Rankin Inlet office rarely responds to any queries. They have been informed about this issue in the past, but they seemingly brush it off.
With respect to your commitment to look into this, I am very happy to hear about that, especially if it can be accomplished in the short term.
This isn’t much of a question but more of a reminder.
I wonder why the Rankin Inlet district office isn’t communicating with you, especially the way things seem stalled until pressure is applied through this public forum here. Perhaps the officials are not at the office enough.
It’s absolutely nothing more than a comment, so thank you and that’s it.
I will have my officials look into that to see what the situation is regarding the member’s comments.
Are you all done?
We’re on Community and Government Services. Branch Summary. Communities Services.
Good afternoon, gentlemen.
I know that the Hamlet of Chesterfield Inlet has prepared a five-year needs assessment and I believe that they developed that in conjunction with your department.
One of the things that’s identified in there is a request for a separate hamlet office because the current office is apparently too small now and their chambers, as we all know, is not all that big either.
Consequently, whenever there’s a hamlet council meeting, the only people sitting around the table are guests and hamlet councillors. There’s really nobody from the public there.
Have you started moving on some of the needs assessment that was provided to you from the hamlet?
I had the opportunity to meet with the senior administrative officer from Chesterfield Inlet on Friday this past week during the NAM AGM, and we did talk about the needs assessment. I gave them an update on the status of the capital planning process.
They were advised that they need to continue to include those as a priority in their integrated community sustainability plan and work through the Nunavut infrastructure advisory committee to bring forward those projects for consideration in the capital plan.
At this point in time, the five-year capital plan is fully prescribed, so we haven’t been doing any planning studies to bring new projects forward.
At this time, when there is funding available, this committee will certainly evaluate the request from Chesterfield Inlet in terms of their five-year needs and rank it in with the remaining GN requests for funding through the five-year capital plan. We continue to bring this forward through the ICSPs and work closely with NCIAC committee.
Chairman: Mr. T. Sammurtok.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the response from the deputy minister.
The other concern that was identified is the lack of gravel sources within the municipal boundaries in the community.
Although there is a gravel source identified not too far from the community, that source is outside of the municipal boundaries. In order to access that, the community has to build an access road to a lake as far as they could go where there is a river crossing that they need to get across.
Every summer, they put culverts to continue building the access road to some recreation areas and also to be able to access gravel for the community.
However, every spring, the culverts get washed out.
One of the items that the community has been requesting is whether the GN would be able to look at providing a bridge so that the crossing can be permanently fixed.
I’m just wondering whether the department has done any work with building a bridge at that river crossing.
I would like to thank the member for his question and for voicing his concerns.
There are more communities in Nunavut that have identified the gravel issue and the availability of gravel.
It’s something that’s very important to our department.
Regarding access roads, we have to repair them, especially after the spring meltdown.
In regard to the bridge, I will refer this question to my deputy minister.
Our department is having ongoing discussions with the senior administrative officer within the community of Chesterfield Inlet.
At this point in time, we haven’t been able to move forward to construct a bridge at this point in time simply because the funding is just not available.
I wonder if the minister can commit to ensuring that funding is made available as soon as possible for this.
It could be reviewed by our staff to see what type of bridge is required. I will make sure that it’s reviewed with you so that we can look at an appropriate bridge that would be suitable. We can consider it.
I’ll just go on to a different subject here.
As the department knows, the water source for Chesterfield Inlet is a reservoir that was built some years ago and it is filled with water every summer from a source which is about three kilometres outside of the community.
However, the piping that is being used now is the original piping that was placed when the reservoir was built, and I understand that that pipe is leaking like crazy now.
I wonder if the department has ever considered replacing that piping so that there’s less wastage of water when the water is being pumped into the reservoir.
The hamlet office in Chesterfield Inlet is working with our department.
From what I understand, the leakage is not that bad, but my staff will work closely together with the hamlet council.
I believe we’re including page J-4.
Maybe I just didn’t see it, but with the small capital, I believe it is $5 million.
Is there something in writing that states what that amount of money will be used for?
Did you give us that information or did I just overlook it?
My deputy minister will respond to that regarding the $5 million.
The $5 million is broken down in three sections. $883,000 a year is provided to each municipality as block funding to do some minor repairs like bridges and improve access roads.
A percentage of that goes to all communities.
We do have $2.86 million that we use for minor repairs to hamlet offices. This fund is used to replace boilers. It’s used to replace any windows or roofs or repairs that are required or any emergencies that could come up in the course of the fiscal year.
That’s primarily what that money is used for. Then we have the $250,000 a year that is used to replace the small vehicles in communities that are required for staff to use for maintenance and informatics staff to travel through the various departments to undertake work with respective departments.
I asked the minister: did you give us that information or did I just overlook it? Was that information given to us?
I still haven’t seen it.
That information was given to the committee chairs.
No, you didn’t get that information.
We have to look at a large amount of dollars and what we have said repeatedly is that we don’t want to just say yes to your requests. We always tell you that it would make your life easier if you give us detailed information. It will make it easier for you and for us if we have detailed information in front of us.
You’re requesting $5 million.
We can’t just approve that. That’s a large amount of money and we don’t want to just say yes to every request. We have to know what it’s going to be used for.
Let me ask the minister: can you commit to providing that information to the committee members?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Yes, that information will be provided.
Perhaps we can delay the approval of the $5 million until the information is received.
Yesterday, I raised a question where I believe I was the first questioner.
Perhaps I can return to the $14 million we were discussing.
I was told to look at the figures in the English version on page A-IV-1. The purpose of the $14,502,000 is written there.
Perhaps due to my inability to properly read financials, I cannot just come up with $14 million in this information.
Is it just mixed up in there?
Can I get further clarification on this matter?
Yes, the $14, 502,000 is as follows: the Coral Harbour project that was discussed yesterday, $2 million for road washout repairs; for Gjoa Haven, $3,700,000 for the hamlet office and $1 million for the warehouse; for Hall Beach, a parking garage, $2,200,000; for Kugluktuk, water treatment, $3,100,000; for Rankin Inlet, utilidor system, $200,000; for Resolute Bay, $302,000; as we identified earlier, fire trucks replacement, $500,000; and $1.5 million for solid waste facilities.
This is on J-4.
I’m not too worried about which communities the $14 million is going to, but what I would like to know is: what is it going to be used for?
I don’t have the figures you just quoted in my papers.
Don’t we have them?
The total does not come to $14 million and what you quoted is not outlined in our documents.
Mr. Chairman, I have no idea now. Please give me direction.
My deputy minister will clarify that.
The $14,502,000, less the projects that the minister just referred to, is part of the $22,902,000 on page J-4.
The list that he provided is the projects that are listed in J-4.
It doesn’t include the $3.4 million for the City of Iqaluit nor does it include the $5 million for small capital. Those are the projects that are on J-4, summarized.
Is it completely unachievable for this $14,502,000 to have a separate, standalone financial report?
You are reporting an add-on to a previous report.
You state that it is part of this past report.
Is it that the contents in their entirety are too confidential to allow for examination or even the particulars?
As an example, look at J-4 as it has a tab 1. If we look in that tab contents, we can see the particulars related to the Coral Harbour road.
With this set-up, it does indeed apply to the list I spoke to earlier and it is easy to document them separately, if the need should arise.
I believe he was alluding to the proper documentation.
Mr. Minister, can you please show me where exactly this tab 1 is that you referenced?
I cannot find it in my documents.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I regret not outlining it earlier as I just read out that page in front of me, that was addressed to my attention and that isn’t part of the information in front of my colleagues.
What I have does show clearly how the breakdown applies to the $14 million in question.
However, I was only using it as an example in any case. That is how they are identified and written and as per my earlier statement, you can see them.
I also appreciate the commitment for releasing the information.
That is what I was talking about and if that had been understood, we wouldn’t have had to waste time getting that information.
As an example, if the proper information was provided that members need to comprehend the presentation and if the information provided by the departments was clearly defined by purpose and funding, we wouldn’t have to continually pry the missing information. Nonetheless, we need accountability due to it being public funds which we are debating the approval for.
Let us all remember this underlying duty and never forget it is the public’s money.
With clear and concise information presented, it is understandable and it makes the process easier.
This is only a gentle reminder on my part.
We will expect that information then.
Let me regress a bit here, Mr. Chairman. There is something not included in this section that I want clarification on, but it isn’t necessarily financial in nature.
If I am off on a tangent, you will correct me assuredly.
I wanted to ask about the situation in our community of Pond Inlet and elsewhere, I imagine, where government owned buildings sit idle, mostly decrepit buildings past their useful lives or else too expensive to repair the buildings due to old insulation now considered hazardous.
In particular, this insulation called asbestos in English was used extensively when buildings were first constructed up north, but we now know the consequences of this compound on humans.
These decrepit unused buildings in our communities, Mr. Minister if you feel able to elaborate, what exactly are your department’s plans for them?
Here I refer to old buildings containing the hazardous substances owned on paper by this government.
As the minister of the department that owns these buildings, what are your thoughts on the matter?
I don’t have too much information about the old buildings.
I’m not too aware of old buildings that are owned by the government.
My deputy minister will further clarify this.
This particular item came up during the standing committee appearance this week when I attended the write-offs, along with the Department of Finance.
It was raised during the standing committee appearance that there are a number of old buildings that haven’t been dealt with in communities.
After I came back to the office, I then instructed my property management staff to undertake a listing of all empty buildings in the communities to see whether they’re still owned by the client departments and if that’s why they’re not surplused.
I have also advised all the deputy ministers as well. I’m expecting to have that listing available in the next two to three weeks.
Once I determine who owns those buildings, if they’re vacant and they’re no longer required by the client departments, then they will be surplused and we will take the appropriate action to see what the next steps are, whether they can be re-serviced for other uses or if they’re such a hazard, then we would undertake the appropriate action to decommission those buildings.
That is a piece of good news and I am thankful that we can expect that information.
Although we continually raise the issue, some members keep speaking to the old, decrepit, abandoned buildings in our communities.
I imagine this will become part of the equation.
As an example, buildings have been decommissioned due to a hazardous substance being found used as insulation and here I speak of (interpretation ends) asbestos, (interpretation) as it is called in English.
Based on your last comment, if a building is no longer considered useful, it could be donated or that the department no longer using it can take that request into consideration.
Would that apply in cases where a building has been declared a contaminated and hazardous building and it can no longer be owned? I meant ownership by government. Shouldn’t they declare that danger before making it available to the public, knowing that it contains hazardous substances?
I’ll refer that to my deputy minister.
Once I get the list back from all the communities of vacant surplus buildings that are out there, the first step we will do is to do an environmental site assessment of those properties and we will do a conditional assessment to determine the structural conditions of those buildings.
We need this information before we can determine if it can be surplused for other programs and services or the condition poses such a risk that we have to decommission the building.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for recognizing me.
One of my colleagues asked this yesterday, but I would like to get more clarification on it.
In your opening comments on No. 5, it says, (interpretation ends) “Additionally, officials within my department continue to work with Canada to implement projects under the New Building Canada Fund, which will provide $256 million of federal funding from 2014 to 2024.”
(interpretation) My first question would be: (interpretation ends) how much has been spent to date?
Hon. Johnny Mike: None.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) That’s quite a lot of money and obviously they have to make proposals to access it and the proposals have to be given in at a certain time.
How many proposals have you received so far?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): What proposals for what?
Chairman: For clarification, Mr. Mikkungwak.
I understand that when you look at the New Build in Canada Fund, it’s got to be proposal-based.
Have any proposals been submitted?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): This question was posed before.
We have submitted capital proposals for the New Canada Building Fund.
I understand it has been submitted.
Is that in consideration of all the 25 respective communities in Nunavut with a debt wall included in the picture?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I will have my deputy minister respond to that, please.
I can’t remember the exact month it was, but in 2014, the Department of Finance issued a call letter to all departments to bring forward a list of projects for consideration under the New Building Canada Fund. That includes all 25 municipalities as well.
The project lists that were brought forward were ranked and prioritized by GN officials in terms of basing them on the GN ranking criteria and based on the ranking criteria, there was a list of projects that we submitted to Infrastructure Canada for consideration.
To date, we’re still waiting for preliminary approval back from Infrastructure Canada, with the exception of the Pond Inlet marine infrastructure, which we did get an approval in principle for that particular project.
For the remaining ones, we still are waiting for Infrastructure Canada to make that decision.
Based on the discussions that I had with Infrastructure Canada on August 24, because of the election and change in government, they did not expect us to get any more movement such as preliminary approval until some time in January 2016.
My colleague from Naujaat had asked a question in reference to hamlet garages where they service hamlet vehicles, whether it be water trucks, sewage trucks, or anything pertaining to the municipality.
My question here is in reference to that. In my case, there is a hamlet town garage which has been inspected by a WSCC officer and is almost deemed condemned by the inspector.
In order to eliminate that title so that it could still be used, where would the funding come from?
Would it be under small capital projects or what type of block funding to deal with the WSCC matters?
I am not aware of this particular situation.
Certainly I haven’t seen anything that has been brought to my attention.
What I will commit to the member is that we will contact the hamlet office in Baker Lake to find out what the situation is and to determine what, if any, financial support that we could give back to the hamlet. I’ll have to discuss it with the hamlet just to see what the nature of the situation is because I’m not aware of it at this time.
In reference to those WSCC inspected matters or to do any repairs, what funding would that fall out of?
Would it be small capital or minor capital?
What blocking funding area would that come from?
If the repairs are less than $250,000, this would be one of the expenditures that we would consider under the $5 million small capital.
If it’s in excess of $250,000, then we would likely have to look at some other funding arrangement or whether we would look for supplementary appropriation to get funding to take care of the necessary repairs.
Until I know the condition of the building and the estimate of the costs to repair it, there are different pots of money that we can take a look at.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to the official.
That sort of leads into my next question. Your department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $5 million in small capital projects.
This funding has been ongoing for a number of years and it is allocated to minor projects, including building and equipment upgrades, vehicle replacements, and municipal block funding contributions.
Can you indicate if there are any necessary minor projects that your department cannot undertake within its current small capital budget?
These different concerns are dealt with under small capital and we have seen different things happen in the past, but I would like my deputy minister to explain that.
I do have a breakdown of the $5 million for all the expenditures that we allocated for the past fiscal year, which we’re in the process of sharing with the chair of the committee.
At the same time, the $5 million for this fiscal year is to address situations like the member from Baker Lake indicated.
If there is a situation where we need emergency monies to take care of it, then we utilize this money up to a maximum of $250,000.
I understand right now that the magic figure is $250,000.
What if it’s in the case where it exceeds $250,000? Would that fall into the category of your block funding capital estimates that you included $883,000? Does that change from a small capital project and then you go into possibly an amount of $883,000; would that be considered block funding?
When the Premier was in the community of Baker Lake, I did have the privilege of showing him the particular garage that I’m referencing. When the Premier did the visit, he was going to bring it to the attention of the Minister responsible for CGS. Mr. Green probably does recall this.
When you look at the block funding of $883,000, that policy was inherited from the GNWT in 1999-2000.
A new policy is in the works to upgrade this program.
To date, has your department completed a new policy for its block funding program and when will it be tabled in the Legislative Assembly?
The department is in the process now of doing the evaluation of the policy that was adopted from the GNWT. We will be doing an evaluation.
Once we have a review of that policy and it’s deemed that there are necessary changes that need to be made to that policy, we will certainly follow the GN process for updating the policy.
While we’re discussing infrastructure or buildings, when the Premier was in the community of Baker Lake, I gave him a tour and there was a building that I showed him which was in the department’s hands, CGS, which I believe now is a surplus to the hamlet. I learned that the Department of Community and Government [Services] still uses it as a warehouse.
Last year at that time, I asked the Minister of CGS at the time and I did ask that search and rescue was interested in that particular building.
What is the consideration in that aspect?
I did receive some information on that particular building in Baker Lake. What I have done is I have asked property management staff to look into this building and I have also asked my Protective Services Division to look at that request as well.
It’s something that we initiated a couple of weeks ago.
Hopefully I’ll be in a position to get back to the hamlet within the next two to three weeks to address the request for that particular building.
Will I be privileged to that information and documentation so that I can keep my search and rescue committee informed?
I’ll move on to another topic. In your proposed 2016-17 (interpretation ends) capital estimates, your department includes $250,000 in small capital funding to replace a number of vehicles throughout the territory.
Can you provide details on the number and types of vehicles that each community will receive during the 2016-17 fiscal year?
I do have a list that I can provide the member or the Chairman for the vehicles that were bought out of last year’s funding. This year, once the funding is approved, typically what we do is we go to each department and take a look at their fleet. Based on the seven-year lifecycle, we bring forward a list of projects for consideration.
I don’t have this information available with me right now, but once we have a list of vehicles that are going to be financed, I certainly can share that with the member.
Do I understand that with this $250,000 in small capital funding, you don’t know how the funding will be used?
I will refer that to my deputy minister.
Typically each year, of the $5 million small capital, we allocate $250,000 to replace the ordinary vehicles within the GN fleet.