EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I can say, for example, I was at the Labour Market Development Ministers’ Meeting last month, where many of the ministers there, including the minister from Alberta, talked about how they had to cancel several billion dollars worth of capital projects in the province of Alberta because they are coming in over budget, and also because there’s a labour shortage.
We know that by 2012-13, there may be up to almost a million shortage of labour for skilled carpenters, plumbers, electricians, candlestick makers in the country. So that’s real and that’s what is driving it.
The NNI issue, again, is something that has come up in the past but it doesn’t account for when we see the total over budget of projects. For example, we did budget $17 million for the school in Gjoa Haven and it came in at $33 million. That wasn’t reflective of what the extra cost of an NNI was.
I just want to make sure that when we’re asking for questions - that the clarification from the Speaker yesterday was - is that we don’t want to be asking the ministers their opinion or anything like that. We want to be able to look at the context of the question, and indeed, put a question and then have the answer for the sake of debate in the House.
So, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me an opportunity just to clarify that.
Does the Minister of CGS have anything to say on the member’s comment? Go ahead.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I just wanted to give a little piece of information that we have to follow.
Because it’s under Article 24, there’s not much our department can do to not use the NNI Policy because the signatories are, of course, under the land claim then, it was the Government of Nunavut, NTI, and the federal government.
Those are the people that pushed for NNI, and as a government, we have accepted that policy so we have to abide by that.
I just wanted to state that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I appreciate the two responses from the Government House Leader as well as the Minister of CGS.
Here’s where I’m coming in; I think we need take into consideration that we take every view of the provinces or whatnot, if it’s not clearly stated by the government report, because I can ask the Government Leader to table that provision or where they’re saying all of these figures are coming in that high.
It could be, whether or not it’s an engineering, or the comment by the minister, I would take it personally as a grain of salt when I hear a statement from any minister about why the costs... and it could be just one of the factors, in my view, that the Alberta economy is contributing to these things. It could be maybe a global warming thing and the fact that it could the global increasing of petroleum products everywhere that we are seeing. So I’ll say it like Mr. Trudeau would with my hands extended.
Maybe it’s all inclusive with all of these things coming in.  But in our own backyard here, I’m told by very able contractors and companies that NNI is increasing the cost of bids submitted by our own contractors, who are emerging companies that have proven records right now.
I can tell you there are a number of contractors in the Kivalliq region that have done good work for construction projects and they’re not bidding ever again on public housing. They’re saying it’s just a waste of time. What they’re saying is NNI is in charge of really project managing the public housing contracts that they don’t want to touch it.
So I think it’s the responsibility of the CGS Project Manager, mainly on major projects, that you advise these other colleagues of yours that it may be time to review the NNI Policy to make it a little more reflective, not necessarily compromising on the need to hire Inuit on projects, Inuit content, or local contractors, but really try and improve it so that it becomes a positive incentive rather than a negative incentive.
Would the minister be prepared to consider this request?
NNI rests with another minister but we certainly can have discussions about it and there’s an annual review of the NNI Policy.
Again, to those prices escalating that was mentioned earlier, we will be dealing with that in the FPT meeting with the provinces, and I will table that so that it would be up for discussion. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Yes, I appreciate it.
Mr. Chairman, I have a follow-up with some of the statements I referred to in my opening comments.
It has to do with the need for the minister and we have not heard from the minister whether or not she would be willing to table a report on the city spending under the agreement with respect to the Capital Contribution Agreement.
One of which just expired, I believe, in excess of $30 million, close to $40 million in my view.
Can the minister commit to tabling that report so that we can have a proper understanding of whether or not all of the provisions that were agreed to had been positive and met by the City of Iqaluit?
It will be expired on December 31, and once we get the report, we’ll table it in the House.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Brown. Thank you, Mr. Curley.
Community and Government Services. Detail of Capital.
I welcome the minister and her officials back today.
I just wanted to get a bit of a clarification, Mr. Chairman, on the Kugluktuk substantiation sheet for the hamlet office building, where in the background it says that the hamlet and the Government of Nunavut leased the space in a commercial office building. It says, “…in combination with GN as a separate second tenant, the entire available space is leased, and both hamlet and GN are now finding the space provided is not adequate.”
As I recall, that was an issue a couple of years ago for the standing committee about the government’s leases. I think one of your officials sat before us and said that the GN was in negotiations to try and find a reasonable lease cost for the GN space.
So I’m just curious if the minister can tell us when the GN lease expires on that building that they’re sharing as a separate second tenant?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have my deputy, Mr. Akeeagok, respond to your question.
Mr. Akeeagok: For the Kugluktuk office space lease, an RFP has gone out because the lease, if I’m correct, the expiry date was for this year that we had extended because there is a dispute between the municipality and the company that owns the building.
Until that is resolved, we’ve held off on awarding any of the Requests for Proposals for that particular office space because the municipality and the company are not on the office space itself but on the land itself.
So it has expired and we have had a short-term extension until their disputes are resolved but the RFP has gone out for the Kugluktuk space requirements. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Akeeagok. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that information.
The reason it became a little bit of a concern here for me was because it went under benefits as the larger, more modern and specifically suited facilities that would be available for the hamlet, but it went on to state that “vacated space will become available to meet the GN’s growing needs for additional office space.” To me, that implied that there was, that the Government of Nunavut had actually, possibly negotiated to take over the additional space.
As we recall with the space in Cambridge Bay, that office building there, where the standing committee was very concerned that the proper RFP process had not been followed and the landlord there had simply proceeded with the 20-year contract, instead of going out through the proper tender process.
So I want the minister’s assurances and commitment that with the GN’s space needs in Kugluktuk that they will… I know you said there’s an RFP out there, but I want your assurances that the RFP process will be followed explicitly and there won’t be any shortcuts, that every contractor and developer that has an interest will be given an opportunity to bid on office space requirements in Kugluktuk.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member.
Yes, that will be followed through just as the member stated.
Detail of Capital. Kitikmeot Region. Total Kitikmeot Region. $6.5 million.
Total Tangible Assets. $18,447,000.
J-10. Petroleum Products Division. Tangible Assets.
Mr. Curley: I have a very short question on that one, Mr. Chairman. It has to do with the ongoing compliance requirements.
Can the minister or her officials explain to the committee here exactly what compliance requirements have the federal regulations involved in this, and if so, what types of the particular nature of the compliance requirements are we faced with within the time frames in Nunavut?
I will have the director, John Dawe, to answer that, please.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister.
The regulations that control tank farms and oil tank storages, in general, are federal regulations. They relate to such things as spill control and how to control something if it does spill.
An awful lot of it relates to safety and equipment to prevent spills. These regulations change a fair bit and we wind up having to do things like different monitoring systems on valves to make sure they stay closed or that they flag if they are not closed, different materials which the tanks may have to be built with different reserve capacities in the event of a spill, so that the building is big enough to handle it.
I, myself, am not intimately involved with the exact details of each compliance, but those are the types of things, generally, that we have to look at.
It is a federally regulated item and it changes fairly often, equally with respect to the smaller things, like I’ve mentioned, there were also some major changes afoot sometimes with respect to reserve capacities and how big a tank has to be in order to hold a certain amount of fuel and this sort of thing.  So it’s kind of a moving target that we often have compliances that come up because the regulations changed after they were built.
This particular item we’re dealing with is very essential and an important component of CGS responsibility.
I would like to ask the minister or her officials whether or not we are on top of all of the tank farm needs in Nunavut, and if so, is there’s such a report available, within the short-term or long-terms needs, whether the facilities that we have are enough for now to address places that require a certain investment in the near future?
And if so, which communities do we know that need the expansion of tank farms in Nunavut?
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, there’s ongoing monitoring on these tank farms in every community and fuel visits.
As for the question as to what study has been going on, or which communities are needing expansion, Rankin Inlet is one of them, Pangnirtung, and Coral Harbour.
Those three are identified as having the need.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I don’t see any reference to the Kitikmeot region, or I believe Kugaaruk is in the Kitikmeot region, where most of the fuel had to be flown in, in order to meet the additional fuel needs of the community.
It had probably related more so on aircraft fuel.  Do we have enough facilities in a place like Kugaaruk so that we don’t necessarily have to dip into the extra supplementary estimates in the spring time to meet the fuel supply needs of the Kitikmeot region?
That particular community of Kugaaruk, that has been completed up to code, and we hope that it’s sufficient because it is one of the communities that were worked on and it’s being completed. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That’s it. Thank you.
Chairman: Community and Government Services. I’m sorry, Mr. Peterson. Go ahead.
I would just like to follow up on my colleague’s questions about tank farms in the Kitikmeot.
I noted in your opening comments, you said that, “As our communities grow, the demands for petroleum products continue to increase and this forces us to build bigger facilities.”
As the minister knows, in Cambridge Bay, the facility there is a private tank farm; it’s owned by a private contractor. And in your response to my colleague, you said that the Government of Nunavut monitors tank farms for compliance and you study the growth need.
So I would like to know if the minister could clarify for me, in this session, tank farms in Nunavut, do you also look at the private tank farm in Cambridge Bay, and if so, do you believe that it will serve the needs of the Cambridge Bay community for the next 20 years?
I thank the member for raising that. In Cambridge Bay, that is a unique case in the whole of Nunavut. If the members agree, I would like to ask Mr. Body to join us at the witness table.
Mr. Body.
Madam Minister, for the record, please introduce your staff.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To my left is Mr. Body, who is the ADM with Technical Services.
Chairman: Thank you, Madam Minister. Welcome to the Committee of the Whole.
Go ahead, Mr. Body.
Mr. Body: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The statements are correct.
It is a unique situation in Cambridge Bay and it is a privately owned tank farm. I do know that there are discussions underway discussing the possible expansions there. To be honest, I’m not part of those discussions, so I cannot fill you in on details at this time, but I do know they are taking place and the capacity issue is part of that discussion.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Boddy.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and Mr. Body.
I welcome Mr. Body to the witness table. It’s good to see you. Mr. Body is a temporary resident of Iqaluit.
He is a permanent resident of Cambridge Bay, so he knows what I’m talking about quite well.
Mr. Chairman, in Cambridge Bay over the last decade, we’ve had rapid growth and I foresee even more rapid growth in the next 20 years with all of the mining opportunities that are being developed over there and they’re increasing airline travel in the Kitikmeot. We have more and more vehicles added to the community every year. We’re adding a lot of housing, not only public and social housing but private housing.
So there’s an increasing demand. If we’re ever successful in getting an airport expansion, I can foresee a more rapid growth in Cambridge Bay.
So I’d like an assurance from the minister and her officials that they will stay on top of the private tank farm discussions and ensure that development will occur in the tank farm well in advance of when we may need the extra fuel.
We’ve heard many times over the years where communities are running out of fuel or close to running out of fuel and it cost a lot of money to the Government of Nunavut to fly fuel in. It also causes a lot of concern to residents where they have to cut back the use of fuel and curtails development in business operations.
So if the minister could give me a commitment that they will keep me informed, particularly as the MLA for the riding, on how the discussions are going with respect to expanding our tank farm so it does suit our requirements for the next 20 years.
We have staff in different regions and they’re the ones who really know what’s going on.
Yes, we will keep you informed. What the member is requesting, we will communicate with them as to any changes because that’s very important. Yes, we’ll definitely try our best.
Mr. Peterson, thank you.
Community and Government Services. Detail of Capital. Tangible Assets.
Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $2,260,000.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, before we have a final vote on the items here, I have a constituent issue that is really critically important. It has to do with the contractors and the way in which the contract tenders are submitted by CGS.
I took a very credible complaint, I don’t know if it has reached the minister’s office or not in some parts it has to do with complying with the NNI Policy whereas tenders that you put out require 51 percent ownership and if you do have that, you get a certain point.
I think it’s very critically important that you and your project staff evaluate this 51 percent content.
Sometimes many of the contractors have taken advantage of that provision, where they just establish a post office box in the community, and I’m not 100 percent sure whether the evaluation is actually being done by the department.
I believe that your contracting managers should really have a sharp pencil of whether or not they do comply because, in a place like in my constituency, there are proven operators of construction and heavy equipment, as well as the construction companies that exist in local communities.
And yet, they’re saying, as a contractor, particularly related to QEC projects, they hire those companies from the south and they have just technically met the 51 percent content by having some arrangement with the so-called Inuit ownership with no real experience, probably just a student or whatever.
Can the minister undertake to ensure that there is a proper evaluation of the tenders when they are submitted so that our own contractors in Nunavut fully take part in building their communities?
I’ll let Mr. Body respond.
I believe the statement is referring to the registration of companies for NNI status and that is done through ED&T.
However, that being said, in our contracts, there are requirements for Inuit labour levels, for instance. Those levels are monitored by the contracting authority which usually is the project manager.
So in that respect, yes, we can certainly monitor those projects to make sure that the Inuit employment levels are met as part of those requirements in the contract. However, the actual registration for NNI, that is done through ED&T.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Body.
I think that confirms what I just said earlier that they meet the technical requirement provision in the agreement that this goes through NNI and NTI so we qualify.
But I believe it’s very important for the project managers and people who administer the contract provisions that that experience, as well as the local, is truly reflected in there.
It doesn’t prevent you from evaluating whether or not that the people who submitted bids… in the business world, I know what language I would use but I won’t repeat it here. In the business world, they would say “Does experience matter?”
Does the availability of the local contractor be considered more than any other southern companies that say they have a strong Inuit component or whatnot and so on?  So I’m advising you that you’re not prevented from using some of your discretion to evaluate who does provide the work and ensure that the local sub-contractor is fully able to also take part.
So in some cases, twice now, even last year I referred the matter before to the Minister responsible for QEC, that local contractors were not benefiting on some contract work needed on some of the QEC projects. So that reflects what I’m saying.
So I’m just asking the minister that you will use your wise ability to evaluate these contracts and that contracts are best awarded to people who will be around here, who will continue to build Nunavut.
We try to follow all of the policy’s contents. I think the member is asking me to do that and I will do so.
Community and Government Services. Detail of Capital. Petroleum Products Division.
Tangible Assets. Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $2,260,000.
Total Tangible Assets. $2,260,000.
Turn now to page J-4.
Detail of Expenditure. Total Capital Expenditure. $23 million, 107 million.
Sorry. 5,000.
Chairman: I will say it again for the record. $23,107,000.
Are you agreed that the Department of Community and Government Services is concluded?
I would now like to thank the minister and her officials.
Do you have any closing comments before you step down from the witness table?
Go ahead, Minister Brown.
Our department would like to thank my officials for always being supportive to me.
Also, the Department of Community and Government Services business is quite lengthy and our mandate is quite huge.
I would like to thank you for completing the review of this department.
I would like to thank your staff.
What is the wish of this committee?
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, in view of the other commitment that many of the members, at least the two standing committees have, I would now like to move that we report progress.
Your committee has been considering Bill 16 and the Capital Estimates, and would like to report progress.
Thank you, Member for Rankin Inlet South-Whale Cove, Ms. Brown.
A reminder of meetings of standing committees: at half passed two this afternoon, the Standing Committee Ajauqtiit in the Nanuq Room; at half past three, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability in the Tuktu Room; and tomorrow, the meeting of the Management and Services Board at half past one in the Tuktu Room.
Orders of the Day for October 29:
This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 29, at 1:30 p.m. Thank you.
>>House adjourned at 13:58
Monday, October 29, 2007
Pages 2008 – 2070
Louis Uttak
Opening Prayer 2008
Ministers’ Statements 2008
Members’ Statements 2012
Returns to Oral Questions 2018
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2018  Speaker’s Caution 2019
Oral Questions 2020  Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 2041
Tabling of Documents 2041
First Reading of Bills 2042
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2043
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2069
Orders of the Day 2069
Monday, October 29, 2007 2008
093 – 2(4): “The Structure of Inuktitut” CD-ROM (Tapardjuk) 2008
094 – 2(4): Business Development Centres Study (Simailak) 2009
095 – 2(4): Update on the Nunavut Recycling Initiative (Netser) 2010
096 – 2(4): Hamlet Anniversaries (Brown) 2010
097 – 2(4): FANS Update (Picco) 2011
211 – 2(4): Kivalliq Nurses Recommend Tylenol (Curley) 2012
212 – 2(4): Regional Alienation in the Kitikmeot (Peterson) 2013
213 – 2(4): Non Inuktitut Speaking RCMP (Arvaluk) 2014
214 – 2(4): Elders Predicted Climate Change/Global Warming (Kattuk) 2015
215 – 2(4): Grade 12 Graduates of Clyde River (Arreak) 2016
216 – 2(4): Gratitude to RCMP Officer Peter Pilgrim of Taloyoak (Aglukkaq) 2016
217 – 2(4): Joamie School Family Fun Night (Picco) 2017
218 – 2(4): Training Centre at Resolute Bay – Alcohol Lounge (Barnabas) 2017
Return to Oral Question 245 – 2(4): Job Advertisement Without Staff Housing (Brown) 2018
264 – 2(4): RCMP Officers’ Transfers (Arvaluk) 2020
265 – 2(4): Transferred Staff from EIA to Finance (Tootoo) 2022
266 – 2(4): Information for On-The-Land Safety (Evyagotailak) 2024
267 – 2(4): Update on the Government of Nunavut’s Response to Motion Concerning Airline Service (Barnabas) 2026
268 – 2(4): Consider Revising Home Care Policy (Curley) 2027
269 – 2(4): Number of Communities Contributing to Infrastructure (Peterson) 2029
270 – 2(4): Number of Communities with Photo ID Equipment (Kattuk) 2032
271 – 2(4): Capital Budget Planning Process (Mapsalak) 2033
272 – 2(4): Reduction in the Polar Bear Total Allowable Harvest in Western Hudson Bay (Curley) 2035
273 – 2(4): Accuracy of Newspaper Article (Tootoo) 2037
274 – 2(4): Support for Homeowners (Barnabas) 2039
128 – 2(4): Workers’ Compensation Board of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut – Annual Report 2006 (Netser) 2041
129 – 2(4): Ministerial Meeting Report – Intergovernmental Ministers Responsible for Workers’ Compensation Board of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut June 19, 2007 (Netser) 2041
130 – 2(4): Home & Community Care Services Annual Report 2005-2006 (Aglukkaq) 2042
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 – First Reading 2042
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes – First Reading 2042
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Environment 2043
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Nunavut Housing Corporation 2055
Speaker (Hon. Peter Kilabuk)(interpretation): Thank you. I would like to ask Mr. Picco to say the opening prayer.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. Before we proceed, I would like Members to be aware that we have only two pages at this time.
We’re hoping that we might get two more during the course of the day.