EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Just following up on my colleague’s question; it’s unclear. In the previous answer to me, the minister indicated that $10 million would be used for Nunavut Arctic College accommodations in Rankin Inlet and Iqaluit and then as an answer to my colleagues, he said $1,877,000 would be used for design phase for student accommodation in Iqaluit.
Is that the same thing, are we talking about the same facility, the Nunavut Arctic College accommodations?
Mr. Chairman, when we accessed the money under the Northern Strategy of $10 million, there were also other plans, as the members know, for increasing the accommodations in Iqaluit specifically. With regards to the member’s question the reason for that is, as the members know, I believe right now we have 34 or 35 units leased in the community, and we need more married accommodations and so on.
So the idea is to get out of those leases, which we are leasing at very exorbitant amounts for students and go back into our student accommodations. And with the enrollment numbers we see that is the reason.
So even without the Northern Strategy money, we would have been increasing the accommodations. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just so I’m clear: you are going to increase the accommodations in Iqaluit, you are going to use a portion of the $6,200,000 to build your accommodations, but you are going to use the $1,877,000 to design the accommodations; is that correct, or are you designing it for other accommodations where you will be seeking additional funds in the future capital planning cycles?
The member will recall that we had three major accommodation projects underway within the college itself, before the Northern Strategy was announced.
We have just completed the major work on the Cambridge Bay facility, and that means we have a propriety interest in that design model there.
At the same time, we want to be able to accentuate and accommodate families in the community in Rankin has been raised here, for example, in the House that accommodations were needed to be made available. I think that’s been articulated by both Minister Brown, and Mr. Curley. And at the same time we needed those accommodations in Iqaluit.
So what we have done, some of the monies that you see identified here is the planning and process money for those accommodations and a design.
At the same time, being cognizant that with the trades school program going forward, we needed that increase to accommodations. And that’s what it’s for, so that we can accommodate students from across the territory.
Just so I’m clear in my mind, can you tell me what the $1,877,000 is for? Is that for the design phase, or is to construct new accommodations? Or is that to lease accommodations for the married students?
No, it is not for leasing accommodations.
The $1.87 million that you see is part of the design and preparation stage.
So, for example, the designing of the new accommodations, as well as site work for the facility. So, that money would go into that. So, as an example, if there was fill needed, and so on.
The accommodations, as an example, the utilidor needs and so on and so forth.  There is a lot of site work as well as the design phase of the work that needs to be done and that’s the identification of the $1.877 million.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister. Well that certainly clears up a little bit because when you simply say design phase, when you look at a figure like $1,877,000 to design a facility, that just seems like an outrageous amount of money.
But I certainly understand constructing utilidors, site work.
That is very expensive work in addition to design.
So, perhaps in the future, when there are these types of presentations, maybe that could be a little clearer in what you’re using the funding for so we don’t have to ask so many questions and be like detectives here.
Hon. Ed Picco: Yes, I understand what the member is saying.
I think when you look at the amount of monies here, the monies are capital carryovers, which means the capital project itself was approved last year, and so it isn’t a new budget line item or anything.
So it isn’t a budget line item.
What’s happened is that; let’s say if there was $3 million in budget, they’ve expended $1.5, and the additional $1.5 is carried over for the design and the implementation phase, which include site work and so on for the project.
So hopefully that helps clarify the member’s question.
Mr. Peterson: Sorry Mr. Chairman, I don’t have any further questions on that page.
I totally concur with the Member for Cambridge Bay because the usual practice is that the government has to put in a design phase because you can’t construct something without a design, without appropriate lot approvals, and so on.
It appears that this government’s practice that they just put global allocations and our needs sort of changed this year, so we’re just going to add an additional, from $1.877 million to other extra capital requirements.
The communities certainly don’t enjoy that kind privilege.
I want to ask the minister, during the capital estimates in November, there was an allocation for $470,000 for planning and design of the Arctic College accommodations needs of the current program that exist, that have been in place for a number of years for the Kivalliq Region.
And the minister assured this House that 470,000-some odd dollars was for the design phase for this year. I would like to ask the minister what happened to that allocation.
I think we’re dealing with a supp-bill and the capital carryover. The projects are in the capital carryover.
The projects have already been approved and have gone through the scrutiny of this House.
In any given time or any given period, and the member is aware of this, the member was involved in construction in the past, is that for whatever reason; it could be timing and other logistic, as well as administrative, and financial issues; the projects don’t go forward.
Under this line item there’s an extra carryover of $1.877 that we see for student accommodation in Iqaluit, which is a NAC student accommodation.
If you look at the accommodation itself for two, and three, and four bedroom units, the location of site place has been selected, and because of some of the work that we’re doing now with the Northern Trades School there hasn’t been a review of that.
So I suggest to you that the planning and site money has been expended because we approved it in the House last year. This capital carryover is for the total line item of that particular amount of capital project.
So let’s set the capital project with $6 million as identified as capital and design, we are carrying over $1.8 million of this year.
I appreciate the explanation, but I think the minister is fully aware that these are significantly different initiatives. Either they have incorporated some of the expenditures that we had approved in the fall for capital planning.
In a way what’s missing is these projects are not explained in the business plan, which the House, and this committee was relying upon, that the department has a certain target to meet.
My concern is as the department begins to plan for the Trades School, which is independent funding from the Government of Nunavut’s Consolidated Revenue Fund, the capital projects that were approved, for instance for the accommodation in Rankin Inlet, I would just like the minister to assure this House that the design phase for that project that I’m talking about was independent of the trades school.
Is that initiative student accommodation plan, and the expenditures that we approved, is still allocated to Rankin Inlet?
Hon. Ed Picco: I’d like to confirm and hopefully set the member’s mind at ease that that is the case.
That the monies allocated and targeted for Rankin Inlet are still there and are being moved forward.
I hope that gives the member his level of comfort.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Good day, Mr. Chairman.
In the capital estimates there was absolutely no more money left and Arviat didn’t get one dollar out of all that money. (interpretation ends) Capital funds for distribution in the whole of Nunavut, but we have found some way to find for new expenditures of capital requirements in Nunavut of $98 million.
This $98 million is a lot of money, which wasn’t predicted to show up mid-year.
I am very, very disappointed that the things that I was told when I brought up the capital estimate figures this winter.
I’ve noticed here one item to replace a school without an explanation, to replace a school for $80,000.
Can you replace a school for $80,000?
All of these items that we’re dealing with right now these are not new monies. These are monies that were approved last year in the 2005-06 capital estimates, and these are monies that were not spent in that fiscal year.
So, we’re asking now to carry this money over to this fiscal year. So, this is not new money. This is money that was all approved in this House last year.
I just made that comment. For example, we’re trying to approve something that wasn’t approved, and my question was the Baker Lake Amitnaaq School replacement for $80,000.
I just wondered how we could replace a school for $80,000. I’d just like an explanation to that.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Alagalak. Minister Simailak.
Hon. Ed Picco: That was the Jonah Amitnaaq School in Baker Lake. We carried over some monies from the project itself which will be expended this year and that’s for the completion of the school. I believe its site work and associated monies around the school itself, which were part of the actual project.
Because it wasn’t expended in that fiscal year, then according to the financial administration rules of the House, then they have to be approved there. So when you see the $80,000 for a school replacement, it wasn’t the actual $80,000 to replace the whole school, its $80,000 left over, capital carryover from last year, from the Jonah Amitnaaq School Project that will be expended this year.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you for that explanation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Maybe we could help shed some light on what the concerns are.
I’m on the Government Operations and Accountability Committee and we’ve expressed a concern to the minister and his officials at numerous meetings that there are a lot of capital carryovers.
We have a long list here, and we’ve seen longer lists. We’ll probably see a few more here coming up.
Members are concerned about the number of capital carryovers.
One would assume that it’s a carryover from one year, like last fiscal year, or this fiscal year, but in many cases they could be carried forward three to five years before the money is spent.
We’re often told that there is no money for capital projects. As my colleague said here, he’s waiting for a new school in Arviat.
The minister in his opening comments mentioned the new approach to capital planning will address some of those concerns. He says that the Community and Government Services Technical Division will review all planned projects to determine their reasonability, cash flow requirements, community issues, and then the department will be required to provide a monthly progress report and status of a multiyear capital projects.
I presume that is going to go to the Department of Finance and then the Department of Finance is going to regularly update the various standing committees on a quarterly basis, I believe, so that we know the status and progress of capital projects.
I believe that we addressed the concerns of some capital projects going longer than two years. I think it would be unreasonable to expect a project to be completed in one year, but it should be two years, and some of the bigger ones, maybe three years.
But we’ve got to be able to track them so that members know and understand where the money is coming from. We review these supplementary appropriations, but if we have some background on them before we see them, we don’t have to sit here and chew up valuable time asking questions if we already have all that information in our possession.
When the minister appears before various standing committees to brief us on these supplementary appropriation bills he would have that information available to members. Then we would be confident in our minds that the projects are proceeding as we had originally approved and that the government is on top of the management of the projects, and the cash flow.
I think it is in the best interest of the government and the limited resources we have that we do stay on top of this in a very consistent basis.
I thought I would offer those comments, Mr. Chairman, and if the minister wants to offer any comments, I would appreciate hearing them.
I did not hear a question but if you have any comments, Minister Simailak.
Those are very, very good comments and I really appreciate them, and that is exactly what we are trying to do as part of the whole exercise of strength in financial management and that is the kind of things we are working towards and we will continue to work towards.
I would like to ask the Minister of Education about the breakdown of the Iqaluit student accommodation allocation of $1.877 million.
Thank you. Minister Simailak.
No I do not have the actual breakdown of that $1.877 million.
Mr. Chairman, my question was to the Minister of Education.
I do not have a break-down of the $1.877 million by total amounts, for example, $300,000 for this or $400,000 for that and so on and so forth.
Again, these are already agreed to monies through a private that was debated and came forward in this house last year, and usually you do not get to that level of detail.
At the same time the members of the committee also have an opportunity, in committee, to question a minister. Most of that type of detailed information is usually allowed and vented through the committee at that time.
So I don’t have that information with me.
We are on Page 7. 2006-07 Supplementary Appropriation.
Capital 1.
I appreciate the advice of the minister, but I am not sure that he is contributing any information that is needed; not only by me, but also by the public.
Normally, if you have a project or allocation almost of $2 million, surely you have to have a plan if you are asking for approval.
Is the minister telling this committee that there are no designs planned for student accommodation and that he does not know the cost of the design and he is also asking for approval to proceed with the construction of the student accommodations in Iqaluit?
I think that for the minister to say to us that, if you did not ask for information at a certain particular committee where it is not publicly forum it is too bad.
I do not believe that is what our rule is.
Our rule is to exercise our privilege and request information from the cabinet minister who is a protector of the public expenditures, particularly related to school. So I am asking for a breakdown of information and will he table that information to this committee, I am sure he has it within his briefing documents.
I appreciate the member’s question and I understand that the member is trying to get that information.
What I said to the member, and I want to make sure that the member in the house, for the record, understands what I said, I said I don’t have a breakdown of the $1.877 million by line item.
The $1.877 million to be approved under supplementary appropriation is a carryover. I said that last year we went through a whole debate for this amount of money.
What I can do right now because of the request is to get that information; that line item, and provide it to the members.
As I’m speaking I’m sure my staff is getting a breakdown of that amount right now. The member just says that I’m sure he has it broken down in his briefing binders. I don’t have a breakdown of the $1.877 million specifically for the project.
Maybe if the member would give me an indication of what he wants in that $1.877 million.
Does he want to see an amount of $635,000 for design; $438,732 for site planning work; $621,572 for the hook-ups to the utilidor.
Is that the breakdown of the $1.877 million that the member is requesting of money already approved in the House for this capital plan, which we’re only seeking to approve to continue with?
So maybe the member could specify exactly the amount of the breakdown and the level of detail that he expects?
I think it’s the job of the minister, the deputy minister and his officials to provide the information that I’m asking to this House.
That’s why he’s appointed as a minister, to provide information to the public. I’m not asking for information for personal reasons.
He’s asking us to give him $1.877 million carryover from the existing approved expenditure allocation and re-profiling them to this particular project. It’s amazing.
I’ve never heard of site planning and the other entire technical specs requirement for almost $2 million.
It is important that the minister not give the public that this item is only for planning or design phase.
Otherwise if you want a design phase I believe it should be around $200,000, or so, or less.
Am I correct in that assessment that it’s only for planning or design item?
I’m not trying to be difficult. All I am saying to the House, and the member knows the process, over the last two years, this is not the first time that we’ve had capital carryovers brought forward.
The $1.877 million is monies that have already been approved and debated in the House.
It is a carryover of a specific project for the student accommodation.
The member is asking me what of the $5 million or more that has been approved already through last year and this year, how much of that has been expended? What’s the budget breakdown?
I’m saying that I don’t have a copy of that right now but through debate in the House right now, I’m trying to get the level of detail that the member is requesting. I will get that and provide it before this House finishes, and explain where the money has gone.
On the capital budget prior years for this project was over $5 million and $1.877 million is carried over to this year. That’s because of the rules of the Financial Administration Act. Of that $1.877 million where each of that dollar value is going to be spent, I don’t have that budget breakdown.
I will again get that information for the member.
The minister doesn’t have the detailed breakdown of the reportedly it is probably more than $1.877 million. Eventually that’ll happen.
What I am asking the minister is if he doesn’t have the details of the project that he wants us to re-profile, approve.
You want this item approved by this committee and you’re telling the public you don’t have the details as to how it’s going to be spent in terms of the breakdown of the project.
The public normally asks the government; “I want a lump sum figure so that I can do certain things”.
We’re never given that privilege, except the minister perhaps.
So, if you don’t have the breakdown, why do you want us to approve it?
This is not a new process.
And, I think I’ve said it now for the record at least four times that the budget detail that the member is asking for, I don’t have with me right now, but through his questioning in the House, I’m sure that is being provided to my office, and I will provide that to the member.
Again, this is not a new project; the monies have already been approved.
It is to carry over the monies so that they can be expended in this fiscal year as per the Auditor General, and the Financial Administration Act. These are not new monies, or a new project. This is not something I’ve invented.
The member does know the process, and so I would suggest to you Mr. Chairman, if the member is requesting a budget breakdown of the $1.877 million, where the money is going, that will be expended to finish the project, then I will have that information for him before the House rises today.
Mr. Curley: I appreciate the minister’s attempt to try and get me to fully explain to the committee that I am fully aware of his process.
I don’t know his process. The only process I know is that, even the Auditor General has stated to us that we don’t spend money before the House approved it.
Sure, the minister would like us to approve this item now for the particular item that he says that it’s going to be used for, but, we don’t have the plans and details which the Auditor General always assumed the details are included with the costs that the proposals and what not, when they are submitted to House.
For the Minister of Education to tell us that he does not have the plan I think is a very serious situation.
So, why don’t you simply ask for the deferment of this item to the Fall Session so that we could fully incorporate it along with the plans of what you want to spend?
Surely, I’m not aware of the process that you use in presenting your cases to the committee.
Hon. Ed Picco: Mr. Chair, maybe I’ll ask the chair then, you will look at the process that we’ve been doing for the last two years as chair. The process as outlined is that capital carryovers are brought forward into the Assembly.
And, the amount of $1.877 million, if it is not a new amount of money, if it hasn’t been added to, if there is no increase in that amount, then usually it’s a formality to bring it through on an appropriation to show that money.
However, the member has requested a budget breakdown of the $1.877 million, where is it going? Is it going into design plans, the utilidor and so on?
As I just suggested to the member, I’m sure my staff are working on that right now, and we’ll have the information before the House rises.
And, that will be before six today.
But, Mr. Chairman, I’m not trying to do anything outside the scope of the House.
I think the majority of the members would probably agree with me on that.
With your concurrence then, we defer that item, and go to page 8 so that we can wait for some of the details.
Once they come in, the minister can then give the indication to go back to that page.
So, that would be fine with me, Mr. Chairman.
Before I go to page 8, I will allow Mr. Tootoo to make his comments.
I just want to try and make it really, as clear as this nice fine glass of water I have here that capital carryovers; I wonder if I could get Mr. Vardy or someone to explain exactly what that is.
It’s not...there are projects that we have already seen all the detail on and approved.
I believe that particular project was approved last year.
It would have gone through all of the detail and scrutiny here in the House through the appropriate standing committee, through Committee of the Whole with the entire detailed breakdown of what those dollars were approved for.
So maybe just to make it clear because that’s what it is; it’s something that we already approved and it’s just proper accounting principle practice because it was approved in last year’s budget, it has to get carried over to this year’s budget because it has to be shown, that amount of it is the amount of the project that hasn’t been completed yet; is that correct?
Hon. David Simailak: Yes, that’s correct.
Yes, Mr. Chairman, all of these items were debated in this House last year, in the last fiscal year, in fact, in 2005-06 fiscal year, this House approved $2.678 million for this project, and of that $2.678 million, there was $1.877 million left over at the end of that fiscal year.
So now all they’re trying to do is get approval in this House to carry all of those monies over into this fiscal year because we did not spend all of that money in 2005-06 fiscal year.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So it’s the same with all of these carryovers is the same thing; it’s just a formality, there’s nothing new or anything like that?
Is that just for accounting purposes?
There’s no new money in any of these line items that we’re looking for approval in this House right now.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, on that one particular project that my colleague seems to have considerable interest in, maybe ask the minister responsible: is that project finished?
Hon. Ed. Picco: No, it isn’t.
Mr. Chairman, there have been some issues here in the community that have been in the media, for example, with lot availability, as well as gravel for the site and so on. So there have been logistic issues and that’s why the total amount hasn’t been expended to date and that’s why the request for the carryover.