EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
To assist in advancing municipal infrastructure priorities, the department utilizes capital funds from federal infrastructure programs. (interpretation) The Government of Nunavut signed the (interpretation ends) Canada-Nunavut Federal Gas Tax Agreement in February 2014, (interpretation) which will bring a total of $143 million over a 10-year period to address water, wastewater, and solid waste infrastructure upgrades in our communities.
(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) Officials from my department met with Infrastructure Canada officials on August 24, 2015 in Iqaluit to determine when the preliminary projects submitted to Canada for consideration would be approved in principle by the federal minister. (interpretation ends) CGS has been advised that the preliminary list of projects submitted for consideration under the New Building Canada Fund will not be approved in principle until some time after the federal election.
Feds indicated the approval in principle will not likely happen until some time in January 2016.
(interpretation) Both funding agreements provide much needed infrastructure investments to the territory that will help establish a foundation of infrastructure that will be resilient to the changing climate of the north and produce strong and prosperous communities.
(interpretation ends) Building and planning for sustainable infrastructure in Nunavut requires cooperation between the various levels of government and our communities.
The department is committed to working with communities to identify priorities through the Integrated Community Sustainability Plan.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, the development of sustainability plans is an important tool for Nunavut communities. These plans need to be easy to use, effective, durable, and adaptable.
Sustainability planning will prepare our communities to support growth and development, and safeguard our environment and our culture.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Mike. (interpretation) Does the chair of the committee have any comments?
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Community and Government Services’ proposed 2016-17 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year is $31,852,000.
The department’s capital budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year was $27.55 million.
On May 5, 2015, the Minister of Finance appeared before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016.
In his opening comments, the minister indicated that approximately 106 capital projects and $117,901,000 in funding were being carried over from 2015-16 to 2016-17.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2014-15 capital budget included $2 million to complete a number of preplanning studies for various departments.
At that time, the department indicated that it anticipated that funding for preplanning studies would resume in the 2016-17 fiscal year. However, the department’s current five-year capital plan does not include any funding for preplanning studies.
During the minister’s appearance, members were informed that the department is currently working to complete the approved preplanning studies and that the department will not be requesting funding for new preplanning projects until these studies have completed.
Members look forward to ongoing updates on the status of these preplanning studies.
On April 7 of 2015, Infrastructure Canada announced that Nunavut will receive approximately $256 million in funding under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component of the New Building Canada Fund.
Members recognize that eligible projects under this funding will be cost-shared between the federal government and the Government of Nunavut.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members were informed that a number of departments are currently in the process of developing business cases for a number of proposed capital projects which will be submitted for funding under the New Building Canada Fund.
Members were also informed that the Department of Community and Government Services will be providing support to various other departments in the development of their business cases.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee recognizes that the Government of Nunavut is restricted from disclosing any information on the list of projects that it has submitted for funding under the New Building Canada Fund until such a time as these projects receive final approval from the federal Minister of Infrastructure Canada.
However, the standing committee encourages the Government of Nunavut to be as transparent as possible in how it allocates territorial funding to capital projects that may be cost-shared with the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, members note that the department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $5 million in small capital funding to complete various projects throughout the territory, including $883,000 in block funding to be distributed in the territory’s three regions, $2,867,000 for building and equipment upgrades, $250,000 for vehicle replacements, and $1 million for various minor projects.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members asked a number of questions related to the government’s specific allocations under its small capital line items.
Members encourage the minister to table an annual report that provides information on the department’s specific expenditures under each of its small capital line items.
Mr. Chairman, the department previously indicated that it was “working closely with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, the Nunavut Association of Municipal Administrators and municipalities to establish daily procedures to assist communities in complying with their water licence requirements.”
The department has also previously indicated that a “water monitoring working group has been established to ensure water samples are being taken regularly and water logs are being filed daily.”
Mr. Chairman, the department previously indicated that it had hired Dalhousie University to undertake a review of wastewater facilities in Nunavut to determine if these facilities are meeting effluent quality standards.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members were informed that a final report on this review will be completed in January of 2016 and that the department will be working with the federal government to explore wastewater treatment options for the territory.
Members look forward to receiving ongoing updates on the status of this report.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates include $1.5 million for a new project to upgrade solid waste sites across Nunavut.
Information provided by the department indicates that this funding will be used to undertake planning and design work for infrastructure upgrades at the solid waste facilities in Arviat, Clyde River, Resolute Bay, and Grise Fiord.
The department indicates that this work will allow the department to develop a business case for this project, which may be submitted for funding under the New Building Canada Fund.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members raised a number of concerns relating to the current conditions of water treatment, wastewater treatment, and solid waste facilities across the territory.
Members recognize that upgrading and replacing current infrastructure will require significant financial and operational commitment over a long period of time, and look forward to regular and ongoing updates on any reports and initiatives in this area.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2016-17 capital estimates also include $4.75 million for new project to upgrade the tank farms in Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, and Coral Harbour.
The department has indicated that these upgrades are necessary to bring these fuel storage facilities into compliance with federal regulations under the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.
Members note that the department is planning to upgrade tank farms across the territory over the next five fiscal years to bring all fuel storage facilities in Nunavut into compliance with federal regulations.
Members recognize that the department intends to undertake these upgrades concurrently with capacity increase projects in various communities to increase cost savings where appropriate.
Members encourage the department to continue to explore ways to achieve additional cost savings in this area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2016-17 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the department’s estimates starting on page J-3.
Community Services. Mr. Enook.
I would like to go back to Minister Mike’s opening comments.
Just so I’m not too confused, and I can’t find it in here, but on page 4 of your opening comments it states here, “$14,502,000 for municipal infrastructure projects in various communities across the three regions” in Nunavut.
What line item does that $14 million appear on in the capital estimates?
I also thank the member for his question. I would like to have my deputy minister respond to the question.
The $14 million that we were referring to in the speaking notes, those are all the gas tax projects that are financed by the Government of Canada.
Unless there is a gas tax project that’s in Appendix 4, they’re not Vote 2 monies, so they just show up as an information item in section 6 of the capital estimates.
Appendix 4 at the bottom of the page is A-IV-2.
I’m totally lost now.
I’m sorry, Mr. Chairman. Can you repeat the page, please.
Chairman: Under Appendix 4 under Infrastructure Projects, bottom of the page, A-IV-2.
Chairman: Community and Government Services. Branch Summary. Community Services.
Total Capital Expenditures. $24,902,000.
Earlier today, I was questioning the minister on the sewage lagoon in Sanikiluaq and I was referring to… . Sorry, it wasn’t the sewage lagoon; it was office space, I think.
I’ve got sewage on my mind.
I was referring to a document that was provided to me and the minister was telling us that this document needed further review, although the document was already complete.
Can he explain what further reviews are needed to be done on this particular document for office space?
We spoke about the assessment of office space needs earlier this afternoon. I don’t think I mentioned a review in Inuktitut, but there was a study that was done to find out what office space is required.
That document will help us to decide on the implementation plan. As I stated before, the implementation plan will be tabled once all the plans and everything has been completed in December.
My colleague asked if I can table that, but I wasn’t talking about a review.
We need to review it comprehensively and look at all the office space needs in Nunavut. What I was trying to say is that I need to review that document.
I didn’t say that it needs to be reviewed again and I apologize for the misunderstanding.
Now that the study is done and you’re now reviewing the study to see what the next steps are, what kind of timeline are you anticipating from now to the point where you can actually be doing work in the communities to deal with the office space shortage in our communities?
We now have the completed study. We are working together with the different government departments.
We would like to make sure that everything is done properly to do a priority listing and I’m sure that it’s going to go very well.
From here on, the government office space leases are also being studied by our department.
We are going to take it from there and after December 2015, the assessment will have been completed and we will know which communities will require additional offices. That would be after December 2015.
We’re on Community and Government Services. Branch Summary. Community Services.
On J-4 here, for the Coral Harbour Road Washout Repairs, it is $2 million.
Just an explanation on that, please.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My deputy minister will respond to the question.
The $2 million is to repair the access road to the airport.
It’s in the area near tank farm in the community. The money is required to put culverts to divert the water from washing out the roads and also for the granular materials to repair the roads for a long-term permanent fix.
On the same page, small capital for $5 million, firstly, what’s the definition of “small capital”?
Definition for small capital, Minister Mike.
My deputy minister will respond to the question.
Under the GN’s capital planning handbook, any project below $250,000 is deemed to be minor or small capital and those types of funding are used to replace generators, windows, roof repairs, and minor repairs for municipal assets.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks, Mr. Green, for the clarification.
The reason I wanted to know that is because I just wanted to know how rigid it was about your definition of “small capital.”
In the letter that we have from the minister back from July 2 explaining about small capital funds that were used in 2014-15, one of the line items is for Whale Cove EPO and it’s $1.1 million. That’s surely a whole lot more than $250,000.
So if we could just get an explanation on how stringent they are on their guidelines.
Again my deputy minister will respond to the question.
Initially, when the budget was established for the EPCO upgrades for the Whale Cove tank farm, it was felt at the time that the work could have been done for $250,000 or lower. Once we hired an architectural engineer to actually take a look at the extent of the work that needed to be done, it was a budget shortfall. The budget shortfall was addressed through surplus funds within CGS and they were subsequently approved by the Financial Management Board.
I take it that’s the same explanation for the Qikiqtarjuaq Fuel Dispenser too because that project came out to $525,000.
If the minister can explain if that’s the same reasoning that it’s so much more than $250,000.
We were looking at buying the existing gas bar that was owned by the Co-op within the community. Subsequent to a conditional assessment, the liability risk was too high. Basically we decided to build a new dispensing unit in Qikiqtarjuaq and the rationale for buying the gas bar in that community is because of the distance from the tank farm and the community.
Would it be a reasonable assumption then to state that as long as your cost is less than $250,000 for a small capital project, if the funds are way over, it’s okay as long as the funding is available to slide a more expensive project through small capital? Would that be a fair statement?
The Financial Administration Act is quite clear that if we were to increase anything over $250,000, we have to follow FAM procedures.
Part of those guidelines is that we must notify the appropriate standing committee chairs about any increase in small capital over $250,000, and if we don’t have the funds to do this, we have to get Financial Management Board approval before we can proceed with increasing a project beyond the $250,000 threshold.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank him for the explanation.
To go on a different matter, in June of 2015, the Legislative Assembly approved approximately $60 million in capital carryover funding for 106 projects, of which approximately 40 projects were undertaken by your department.
To date, what progress has been made by your department in completing its backlog of capital projects?
The 2013-14 capital carryovers increased in 2014-15 and in 2015-16, the carryover went down to $21 million.
On June 7, 2010, the Minister of Finance stated that the government was seeing a high volume capital carryover funding due to human resource capacities and their requirement for appropriating 100 percent of the Building Canada funds projects upfront.
In your correspondence to the Full Caucus dated June 19, 2015, you indicated that the federal government has begun implementing the New Building Canada Fund and that Nunavut would receive approximately $256 million in funding under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component.
You also indicated that projects eligible under this new fund would be cost-shared 75 percent to 25 percent between the federal government and the Government of Nunavut.
Can you indicate how your department will prioritize and plan these cost-sharing projects to ensure that the government is not carrying over an excessive amount of capital funding?
As the Minister of Community and Government Services, I am here to explain the carryovers a little further.
There is the $21 million that was a carryover. It used to be between $60 million and $68 million. It has decreased significantly.
That is specifically for the Department of Community and Government Services.
For your other question regarding the $256 million, I will refer that to my deputy minister.
In terms of the projects that have been submitted to Infrastructure Canada for the New Building Canada Fund, there was a list of projects that were compiled from all GN departments and municipalities and those projects were ranked and prioritized based on the GN’s ranking criteria.
The difference between the New Building Canada Fund and previous Building Canada Fund is that in the previous Building Canada program, the funds were front-end loaded whereas in the New Building Canada program, the funds are claim-based driven.
There actually won’t be any capital carryovers for the New Building Canada Fund because we have to spend our money first and then we would have to go through Infrastructure Canada to get reimbursed.
I’ll just give a little bit of clarity on the capital carryovers. The minister is right; we can’t speak to… . We only have the capital carryover listing for CGS.
We don’t have the capital carryovers for other GN departments.
In fiscal year 2013-14, CGS had $6.1 million in capital carryovers and for fiscal year 2014-15, we had 40 projects for a total of $61 million in capital carryovers. For the fiscal year 2015-16, we are right now projecting 17 carryovers with a reduction in carryovers to $21.1 million.
Mr. Green just explained how the New Building Canada Fund works.
Will this hinder the number of projects that the department can do because they upfront 100 percent of the cost?
If that’s my understanding of what Mr. Green just said, they would have to upfront 100 percent of the cost of the project and then get 75 percent of it back from the federal government.
That’s how I understood it. Is that correct?
My deputy minister will respond to that question.
Just a reminder, we have some translators that are trying to keep up with you.
It certainly will present a cash flow situation for the government if we have to spend the money upfront and then get reimbursed through the Government of Canada for their 75 percent portion of the capital investments.
From the discussions and arrangements that we have with Infrastructure Canada, if it is deemed that the number of projects we’re bringing forward with respect to their contribution would have an impact on the GN debt wall because we would have invested the funds through the consolidated revenue, Infrastructure Canada has agreed that they would give the GN a cash advance so that it wouldn’t have any negative impact on the GN’s overall cash flow position.
I’ll ask the minister then: is he anticipating spending the whole $256 million?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I think we already stated that we have shortfalls.
That is the only way we will have to do it because we’re short of funds.
We will have to spend the money carefully. I can answer yes to that.
Just for complete clarity for the committee members, the federal government has agreed to upfront $256 million for the Building Canada Fund projects.
Hon. Johnny Mike: No. (interpretation) Thank you.
But the minister stated that he would spend the $256 million. If the federal government is not going to upfront the whole cost, how much of the $256 million did the federal government agree to upfront?
Mr. Green stated that if it’s going to impact on their projects, they will be able to get money up front. I would just like to know: of the $256 million that has been allotted for Nunavut under the New Building Canada Fund, how much of it will they be able to get up front?
We would like all projects to go ahead, but we also know that we’re near the top of our debt cap.
So if the minister can state how much of the $256 million will be able to be up-fronted.
If I understood his first question correctly, that $256 million is slotted for ten years and we will be trying to spend it within ten years.
This is through a funding agreement.
It is an annual amount of $25 million, as an example, for ten years.
As I said earlier, this is a 10-year agreement and within those ten years, we would like all of that money spent. We know that all of it will be spent.
My deputy minister will try and answer the other part of the question.
The New Building Canada Fund, as the minister has indicated, is a 10-year program.
We have submitted a list of projects for the $256 million to Infrastructure Canada for preliminary approval.
Once those projects are approved, they will be integrated in with the GN’s capital planning process.
It’s going to take at least 10 years to deliver all of those projects.
There’s no restriction that we have to spend $25 million a year.
The way that the program is structured, we could spend $250 million over five years. They would allow us to do it. Unfortunately, with the number of projects, we’re going to need at least five to ten years to be able to fulfill that number of projects from the start to the completion.
Infrastructure Canada said that in any given year, if we have a list of projects that we want to deliver, because we’ve got to front-end 75 percent for Canada upfront, we would have to pay for this money.
They’re saying that we have to provide them with an analysis of the GN’s working capital so they would determine, if it was a certain fiscal period, if it would have an impact on the debt wall, then they would actually front-end load and would give us an advance.
Basically we would have to determine what impact the delivery of those new projects would have on our debt wall and then we would work with Infrastructure Canada for the cash advance.
Staying on the Building Canada Fund, in the proposed 2016-17 capital estimates, your department includes $1.5 million for a new solid waste facility project.
Information provided by your department indicates that the funding being requested for this project in the 2016-17 fiscal year is to develop a business case for solid waste infrastructure projects in Arviat, Clyde River, Resolute Bay, and Grise Fiord and that these projects may be submitted for funding under the New Building Canada Fund.
Can you clarify if the $1.5 million included in your 2016-17 capital estimates will be used for the design and construction phase of these solid waste infrastructure projects?
My deputy minister will provide a clarification in regard to the question.
The $1.5 million is required to develop a business case through a planning study.
Basically, when we submit the business case to Infrastructure Canada, the $1.5 million would be bring us close to the schematic design.
Before Infrastructure Canada is prepared to approve any projects under the New Building Canada Fund, we must have a business case fully developed.
We would need to hire architects and engineers to help us to move towards the planning study and the schematic design for those new projects that we’re proposing in the New Building Canada Fund.
I can’t speak for the other communities of Clyde River, Resolute Bay, and Grise Fiord, but I know that in Arviat, the useful life of our solid waste site is nearing its end.
When can we expect the monies to start flowing to start either expanding or making a new site?