EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The district education authority would have to request to get a bus for the school in the community and they would have certain stages in order to be able to get a bus.
No, not all the communities have school buses. The smaller communities may not be in need of buses, but mostly the bigger communities do have busing services.
I hope that is understandable. (interpretation ends) Not all of them have buses. (interpretation) Thank you.
I just have more of a general question regarding a number of the substantiation sheets and it speaks to the reason for the delay in the capital project, and a number of them quote, “timing of tender, sealift, and availability of supplies.”
Now, I know Nunavut is a fairly young territory, yet our procurement division has been around for quite a while. We all know the challenges and logistics of getting supplies, materials, and skilled labour in place to be able to provide for some of these projects.
It seems to be a very common theme, not just in education but across the whole appropriation carryover in a lot of the substantiation sheets.
I’m just wondering: is there an issue with the procurement side of things or is this just a timing and identification of the projects themselves?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I understand Mr. Hickes’ question correctly, we don’t think there’s necessarily an issue with the procurement. I mentioned yesterday that there could be issues related to… . If you go to tender, you may get bids that are over the approved budget and you can’t award a contract if the budget isn’t sufficient.
You have to return to the Financial Management Board. Maybe you don’t get any bids, so there’s that issue as well. I don’t think there’s a problem with the procurement process itself.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation) We are on page 8 in both the English and Inuktitut.
It reads, Education.
There is a mistake here again.
Total Corporate Services. $6,035,000.
Not Previously Authorized. $6,035,000. Do you agree?
Health. Not Previously Authorized.
Total Directorate. $20,863,000.
I just have, I believe, one question here with the Baffin Regional Hospital renovations.
It’s got an anticipated completion date of November 2015.
I would just like to get confirmation that that is still the completion date anticipated.
Yes, that is the anticipated completion date.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. We are on Health.
Total Department. Not Previously Authorized. $20,863,000.
Turn the page. Page 10.
Total Program Management. $3,769,000.
I just have a question on the wildlife office renovation, not in terms of the amount, but this renovation is for a wildlife office that is being rented.
The government doesn’t own it. $496,000 is going to be spent on renovating a privately owned building that the government leases.
I just want to know if there’s any policy out there within the government about spending public money on private property.
Mr. Chairman, typically, when the government leases office buildings for the use of government employees, there may be a requirement for us to incur costs for leasehold improvements to suit our office space needs. If there are damages to the building during our occupancy, we may be required to pay for the damages.
I’m just going to go to the Sylvia Grinnell Park and I understand that there’s a need for the garage and that.
I’m racking my own memory banks, but it seems to me that there was some work done previously on a footbridge across the river for ATVs and foot traffic.
I can’t recall if that was actually on the capital plan at one point, but I’m just wondering: what is the status of that?
I’m not sure what Mr. Hickes is referring to. I seem to recall, similar to Mr. Hickes, four or five years ago, there was some talk about the army participating and then they pulled out and the project didn’t go any further.
I also have a small question.
It states the Pangnirtung Wildlife Office replacement, $1,736,000, and I do remember that from the environment capital, I think it was part of… .
Is it going to be part of the programs that are set out? For example, one community would not get an office in a certain year or this community can get an office after two years.
I hope I was understandable, Mr. Chairman.
I can’t answer that question. We only deal with capital carryovers and not with the policy or plans that the Department of Environment has for replacing wildlife offices in communities.
My question on page 10 is regarding the Sanikiluaq park development with a carryover of $218,000. If you look at the substantiation sheet, it says in prior years, $650,000 is allocated to this project and they want to carry over $218,000.
As far as I’m concerned, all the work on this has all been on paper. There has never been any actual work done on the site itself.
I am wondering if the minister can update us today when they expect to actually do work within the park boundary so that it can become an official park where people can visit.
Mr. Chairman, what we’re simply doing is carrying the money forward. I would have to ask the appropriate minister to respond to a question like that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. (interpretation ends) Are you asking the appropriate minister to respond?
Hon. Keith Peterson: I’ll have to ask the Minister of Environment if he is prepared to respond.
I could take a crack at it just from the briefing note here. I don’t know if that will satisfy Mr. Rumbolt.
The information we have is that a late approval of a feasibility study by the regional Inuit association resulted in the project delay. A carryover is required to complete the necessary planning to allow for the regional Inuit association (RIA) and cabinet decision on this project.
I’ll ask the Minister of Environment if he wants to supplement the response.
As it states right now, concerning the question, I think it’s called the master plan and that’s the only answer that I can give you. It is on the master plan.
It has been on the master plan for a long time. My question was: does he have any idea of when actual site work will begin on park development?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I am going to go directly to the Minister of Environment, Minister Mike.
It is under the master plan, as I stated in my answer. The master plan has to be completed first.
As I stated earlier, there was $650,000 allocated to this project, carrying over $218,000, which leaves $432,000 that has been spent on this project.
Can the minister update us on what this money was actually spent on? There’s nothing that has been done in the park as of yet other than on paper.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I’m going to once again go directly to the Minister of Environment, Minister Mike, if I may.
As I stated, that’s the only answer that I can give you on the $218,000. I have nothing else to add to that question.
If the minister at this time doesn’t know what the $400,000 was spent on year-to-date, I’m wondering if he can look up that information and get back to at a later date so that we can know exactly where the money has been spent.
I have an indication that the Hon. Minister is anxious to answer that question, so I will go directly to Minister Mike.
I understand now he’s referring to the $400,000 and I got lost there for a minute.
Ever since the project was started to establish a park in Sanikiluaq, it had a budget of $868,000 and $218,000 is the carryover. The $650,000 has been used for the planning with $218,000 left over.
When he referred to $400,000, I started thinking of other things that may have run out of that budget. I was just confused.
I can say that the budget was $868,000.
They have used $650,000 and the $218,000 has to be carried over while we’re working on the master plan. It will be included in the master plan and after the $218,000 is used up, we will have used a total of $868, 000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Mike. (interpretation ends) Mr. Rumbolt, the Minister of Finance is indicating that he would like to make a comment, with your permission. Minister Peterson.
I was just going to comment that we can commit to provide the details of all the expenditures to date on that project for Mr. Rumbolt. I think that’s the information he is seeking.
That was basically what I was going to say. $650,000 was spent so far on the park development. How much planning and design has to go into a park where it would cost $650,000?
Considering there may not even be a building on this park, it will be boundaries set up, campsites set up, and some history of the area.
I’m looking forward to the details of that when the minister is ready to provide it.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I take that as a comment. (interpretation) Thank you.
I’m looking at the substantiation sheet for the carryover for the Pangnirtung Wildlife Office replacement.
It’s still not the amount, but I just need to be explained to again because I’m just not getting it here.
The total expenditure on the line item there on page 1, shouldn’t that be the total amount that was spent?
For construction, they had budgeted $1,957,000.
Total expenditure was the same amount and they’re carrying over $1.7 million.
I just need an explanation. I’m just not getting it.
Is it the total expenditure, not the amount that was actually spent?
I’m not sure we can provide him further clarification.
Again, the number we are dealing with is the number in 2015-16. There’s a carryover amount of $1,735,000.
That’s the amount of money that we’re concerned about carrying over to balance through our FreeBalance and to Bill 22.
We have discussed yesterday and again today that there are issues in clarity with these capital project carryover substantiation sheets. We’re going to look at it over the summer to make them possibly easier to read and understand, and talk to our various capital planners in the different departments to ensure that the information they put in these boxes is clear and doesn’t cause confusion.
You have to remember that these are typically internal documents to the government. In the past, we agreed to a request from the standing committee that we would attempt to provide more clarity. We’ve got this big, thick, heavy binder now and it’s caused more confusion, it seems.
We have to make sure these kinds of forms are clearer when you receive them so that you can understand how the internal capital planners and our department’s financial people interpret and understand them.
I don’t want to be a broken record, but maybe the easiest way for me to understand is: was the total expenditure of $1.9 million spent?
I can’t answer that question.
All I can tell you is the carryover amount of $1,735,000 is the amount we are requesting to carry over from the previous fiscal year.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you. Mr. Chairman.
I’m puzzled that you would not know if that money was spent.
How do you expect us to know then when we’re the regular MLAs and this is a government document from cabinet?
It seemed like a simple question whether that $1.9 million was spent or not.
I guess that’s just a comment. If you don’t know, then obviously we don’t have a hope of knowing.
I believe that’s just a comment. However, Minister Peterson, if you would like to address that comment, I will give you the opportunity.
I appreciate the concern of Mr. Savikataaq.
Again, we have verified as of last night and this morning that the capital carryover amounts by the departments are the numbers in the boxes.
With that particular number, we have to have trust, faith, and confidence in our project managers and other people involved with project delivery that the monies assigned to these projects are being spent.
We can verify to reassure Mr. Savikataaq that the monies are spent.
I just can’t tell you from looking at the limited details.
I guess it’s limited. We have spreadsheets and thick files on these.
I could actually confirm all the numbers, but as of right now, the amount of money we’re looking to carry over is $1,735,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Peterson. Page 10.
Not Previously Authorized. $3,769,000.
Turn the page. Page 11.
It will continue to page 12.
Total Infrastructure. $61,039,000. (interpretation ends) Mr. Rumbolt, please.
My questions are going to be about three-quarters down the page where it says, “Nunavut Preplanning,” a carryover of $1,769,000.
I understand the fact that this is all preplanning studies for different projects.
I want to refer to a letter I got from the Minister of Community and Government Services a while back when I asked for clarification on updates for these preplanning study projects.
In his reply, he stated that before any money will be spent on, for example, the Sanikiluaq Health Centre, they were going to wait until there was money targeted for the Cape Dorset Health Centre, which is 2017-18.
Before they would move on to Qikiqtarjuaq, they’re going to wait until the Sanikiluaq Health Centre has got money allocated to it.
In reality, we’re looking at a carryover in this particular area. It may decrease over the years, but it looks like we’re going to be having a carryover in this particular department for the next five or six years.
Why would we be carrying over this amount of money over a number of years, according to the documents I have?
I’m going to have Deputy Minister D’Arcy respond.
We’re not expecting to carry over $1.8 million for several years.
I believe that the minister’s response refers to when preplanning dollars are available and that’s when we are going to bring the additional $2 million a year back into the plan. We will be able to slot those in.
For this year, the $1.8 million will be used to do as many projects as Community and Government Services is able to do for fiscal 2015-16 with respect to preplanning, those previously identified project.
If there is a residual left at the end of this year, if there is some money left at the end of this year to be carried forward, then that will be requested or considered in May of 2016.
We have to be careful as to how we’re going to arrange for preplanning for some emergency projects, for example.
We’re leaving ourselves a bit of a contingency in that and then we will revisit this $1.8 million or what’s left of it in the capital carryovers for 2016.
When this $2 million was first introduced, it was all allocated to separate projects, for example, the Cape Dorset Health Centre, Iqaluit BCC renovations, the health centre in Qikiqtarjuaq, the health centre in Sanikiluaq, and the list goes on.
From what the minister is saying now, will the money stop going to all these other preplanning projects and it will all be redirected to the Cape Dorset Health Centre and all the planning money should be spent in this fiscal year?
I will go directly to Mr. D’Arcy.
I believe it’s safe to say that we were rather ambitious when we had thought that we would be able to do 15 preplanning studies in a year and with $2 million.
I’m not completely clear on exactly which projects are first, second, and third in line with respect to preplanning.
Mr. Rumbolt may know, but CGS believes they should be able to adequately and properly plan around five projects a year and that continues to be our expectation. Obviously they will do as many as they can with as many funds as they have or as much funds as they have.
Again, we will revisit this at the end of 2015-16 and see if it’s appropriate to request a further carryover.
Page12.
Mr. Hickes: I believe we’re on pages 11 and 12.
I’m just going to continue on the line of questioning that my colleague, Mr. Rumbolt, started with.
I do recall quite clearly that when we approved the $2 million, it had an amount specified for each individual project to do a preplanning study.
I for one applauded the Department of Community and Government Services at the time to get ahead of the curve, as I believe the term was used then, to start planning some of these potential projects that were anticipated to come into the queue in the capital planning process.
At the time, one of the “reasonings” that were provided to us as a committee was that it would help speed up the capital planning process and to me, it doesn’t seemed to have done that.
For one, I see a number of the business cases anticipated to be completed April 2016, late 2015 in a number of them.
I understand there are different departmental priorities, but it seems to me that when you are talking about reallocating money within this $2 million budget to focus on an as needed basis, it kind of takes the intent, I believe, away from doing these preplanning studies as it was presented to us to approve that $2 million budget.
I’m just wondering if the minister understands where I’m going with this and maybe he could help fill in the gaps for me.
Mr. Chairman, I believe Mr. D’Arcy touched on it.
We were rather ambitious; there were 15 projects identified. Through our improved capital planning process, we went from just taking projects and putting them on the capital plan.
We want to put them on the capital plan with a minimum of class “D” estimates and numbers that are more realistic than class “X.” That is why we wanted to do the preplanning and design and bring them on that way.
When the department was tasked with that, they found they couldn’t do all the preplanning on top of delivering all the other capital projects that are on the capital plan. You’ve got the capital carryovers that we have to deal with every year, plus all the other projects that come on the capital plan, plus the preplanning.
That is why they established the Project Management Office a couple of years ago to provide better oversight, better planning design, and project monitoring.
I believe the project management people in the regional offices actually report to the Project Management Office in Iqaluit.
I don’t think we can promise that the projects will be delivered faster, but I think we promised that we will improve the capital planning process so that the process would be better, more realistic, and lower expectations, and then actually try to deliver projects on time and on budget.
I’m just going to use Education as an example. We all know that the capital planning process, as we have been learning to fulfill the duties of our role, is not a quick process.
When you need to build a school in a community, it doesn’t happen overnight. I think we all appreciate the amount of planning, hard work, and the allocation of dollars that need to be accommodating a plan such as a school in a community.
When I see the current activities of the Department of Education, they’re finalizing and in the construction mode right now on the projects and there’s nothing, really, in the hopper. I see priority one, priority two of two specific projects that were in the document that was provided to Mr. Rumbolt. Even the planning phase of those isn’t going to be completed for another year from now.
To me, there’s going to be a gap in the capital process just for the Department of Education specifically.
I know it does relate to other projects and other departments as well.
When we’re looking at approving these preplanning studies to speed up or maybe not speed up, if I understand those correctly a little bit, but to make the capital planning process easier.
From the Minister of Finance’s standpoint, has this preplanning exercise achieved that goal?
How is it going to continue to improve the capital planning process?
Having been with the Legislative Assembly as an MLA and minister since the second term, I have seen significant improvements in the capital planning process.
We have learned from the mistakes in the past.
As Mr. Hickes noted earlier, we’re a young territory.
Part of our maturing process is to improve our capital planning process. As I mentioned yesterday, we have very limited capital funds and we have to stretch our capital funds over a multitude of competing priorities in Education, Health, Environment, and Economic Development and Transportation.
We do supplement our own funding, Vote 2 funding, with Vote 4 funding of Building Canada funds. When those lists of projects get approved by Canada, they come back and they’re 75-25 percent funded. We have to come up with 25 percent.
That goes into the planning and design as well.
That puts additional burdens on our CGS folks, the Project Management Office, and our other capital planners. There are also gas tax funds which are 100 percent funded by Canada.
We appreciate the concerns that the MLAs are bringing up and sharing with us.
As I have noted and you have heard us over the last couple of years since we got elected, it is a challenge. We are trying to improve the process, not make it faster, but make it better so that we can allocate our funds more transparently, fairly, and equitably across multiple departments in 25 communities.
It’s a real challenge when you just don’t have those resources for all those priority type projects.
I appreciate the minister’s response there.
I’m going to go off on a slightly different track and it’s still a fairly general question. I realize that it might have been more appropriate during the capital process, but this is still dealing with supplementary capital.
I brought it up in the past that it invariably seems to happen where we have a budgeted amount for a project and then it goes out to tender, it’s surprising how close or usually a little bit over the budgeted amount that the tender submissions come in at.
Like I said, I brought this up earlier, but have the Department of Finance or the Department of Community and Government Services considered any further practices on our capital planning process to maybe have a more blanket approval process where individual project budgets are maybe not known specifically to the public until tenders are approved?
I think Mr. Hickes has brought it up before and it has come up in the past. We have asked our officials to look at it. We have discussions at our committee levels.
I’ll ask Mr. D’Arcy to respond with some of the thoughts they have on that entire area.
We have been taking a look at this over the last couple of years and if we were able to just show totals by department, for example, or by area, I suppose we could do that.
We have a little bit of a difficulty where we’re wrestling with the transparency in the plan and how we would show a project in a multiyear plan. For example, if we have a five-year plan and a project spans several years, in our Appendix 3 in the capital plan, for example, that would all be blank now because we show that with monetary placeholders. It would be very difficult to show the stages of the plan that way.
That’s not to say that we have discounted that, but we are considering ways that we could do that.
I would like to mention that our project costs are the total costs, of course, and not just the class “A” construction estimate.
Sometimes those costs do seem eerily close. They seem to be very close to what the project cost was.
We’re unsure that the market is actually following the capital plan and bidding against the plan in that they are looking at total costs.
We’re more concerned that there are different market forces that are changing the costs and are affecting even our class “A” estimates.
Mr. Chairman, I’ll come back to the beginning and say that we are continuing to look at it. We haven’t found a way that we’re comfortable with that promotes proper transparency, but we will continue over the next year to see if there’s a way to refine it.
I appreciate that response and I wish you guys all the best to try and find a way to keep the transparency.
Again I say that we could still approve in-camera the specific amounts and I understand that carrying it forward on the books would be a challenge for optics. We all learned yesterday that although it was a small-scale project, the Family Services project yesterday, the class “Z” estimate didn’t relate too well to what’s going to be spent on that project.
It’s just a comment, Mr. Chairman. I would like to wish the Department of Finance and the Department of Community and Government Services all my best in assisting and improving the capital planning process going forward.
I thank Mr. Hickes for that comment.