EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The motion is carried and Bill 18 has had second reading and is referred to Standing committee.
To be reviewed are Tabled document 100-2(2), Tabled document 101-2(2) and Tabled document 102-2(2), with Mr. Evyagotailak in the chair. We will recess for 20 minutes.
>>House recessed at 15:20 and resumed at 15:51
In the Committee of the Whole we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Document 100-2(2), Tabled Document 101-2(2) and Tabled Document 102-2(2).
We wish to deal with Tabled Document 100-2(2), the Government of Nunavut Leased Properties Report.
Once we’ve concluded that document, we will review, concurrently, Tabled Documents 101-2(2) and 102-2(2).
Mr. Chairman, while members may have questions for all Ministers, we ask that senior officials from the Departments of Community and Government Services, Health, Economic Development and Transportation and Justice be ready to appear before this committee.
Are we in agreement that we deal with 100-2(2).
Minister Kilabuk, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the witness table.
Chairman: Sergeant-at-arms, please escort the witnesses.
I’m glad to be here before you.
It took a while, but I got here.
Mr. Chairman, in preparation for this Committee of the Whole appearance before you, I did not have any speaking notes to open, but having said that, as the Minister for Community and Government Services, I’m going to do something a little different here today, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll ask my staff members to introduce themselves today.
On your left, please introduce yourself.
Tom Rich, Deputy Minister, Community and Government Services.
And on the Minister’s right…
Mr. Clark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Chris Clark.
I am the Director of Property and Asset Management for Community and Government Services.
Welcome back to your second home.
It’s good to have you and your staff back.
Mr. Rich, Mr. Clark, welcome.
Before we proceed I would like to remind the members of the following; according to Rule 77(1), you have ten minutes to speak and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the chair, a member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion but not until every member who wishes to speak has spoken.
I have no members on my list for general comments.
Mr. Peterson, go ahead.
I did not have my hand up initially.
I wonder if he can read my mind.
I was going to ask questions.
I thank the minister and his officials for appearing as witnesses.
It is quite a lengthy lease document report here, a lot of leases.
There isn’t a whole lot of information other than financial numbers and the lease terms.
I have some general questions and then will get into some specifics.
When do the leases for each of these properties expire?
Can you be more specific, in terms, you said 20 years, 5 years, 20 years, but there is no indication of the specific years when the leases will expire.
Yes, we do have, in our notes, the number of years for those leases.
I am more than prepared to respond to questions as to the length of the leases, depending on the specific questions from the members.
Maybe I could talk about some leases in Kitikmeot.
Last summer we went to Yellowknife with the Minister of Health to tour the Kitikmeot Patient Boarding Home.
I was making some inquiries to the Deputy Minister in terms of when the Government of Nunavut will be entering into the lease for a new boarding home in Yellowknife. Or, perhaps building a new boarding home facility in light of the new Kitikmeot House facility that is opening in Cambridge Bay this year.
There’s going to be a boarding home constructed there.
The Deputy Minister told me that the lease on the boarding home in Yellowknife expires in four years.
They were going to monitor the increase or decrease in medical ambulances and patients going to the Kitikmeot Boarding Home in Yellowknife to determine whether they would let that lease expire or renew it or lease a new building.
I just thought that you could shed some light on how you go about contacting owners of buildings about whether you are going to renew a lease.
It becomes a bit more critical in Nunavut because if the lease was to expire, say in 2006, in a particular community, and if there is not a lot of commercial space in town that limits the government’s options.
It can be forced to either renew that lease.
Or, with a lot of lead time, they could put a tender out so that other contractors can have a chance at bidding on a contract, and if successful, construct more commercial space.
I was just trying to get a sense of how the government goes about monitoring their contracts for commercial leases and going about renewing, both in the sense of the operations outside of Nunavut and the operations within Nunavut.
Keep in mind the barge deadlines and materials cut off deadlines for ordering materials and so forth.
In response to my colleague’s questions there are a number of factors that the department will review before the leases are up.
First as to ensure that proper planning is considered as part of the process to see if such a facility needs to be included in the capital planning process.
That usually occurs a number of years before the leases expire, on the long-term leases.
The review also, another point, is that the department reviews to ensure that the funds identified for such a contract are being put into good use.
So that is mainly a couple of things that takes place before the leases expire.
The department will consult with the appropriate departments depending on which leases those are.
It is quite a significant investment for developers of commercial space in the smaller communities in Nunavut.
How would you give an opportunity or lead time for those developers to develop office space or commercial space for government operations?
You will probably have to provide them a year to two lead times.
I am just thinking common sense-wise.
Could the minister comment on that?
In a number of cases that I have been involved in reviewing lease contracts and the process, there is recognition that Nunavut based establishments that are now getting into leasing property, again, are also on a sharp learning curve.
Some of the questions that we get from them are if special cases can be given to them prior to the leases having expired but in most cases the contract leases will be given out as notification to expire in advance in those communities and others.
The new property owners that are coming out are also being shared information that will help them to prepare for future years.
Again, this is a long list here and I am not sure how to deal with all of them.
I am curious to know which of the leases on your two pages were leases that were inherited by the Government of Nunavut on April 1st, 1999, and which ones were entered into after April 1st, 1999?
Would you have that kind of information available?
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will get Mr. Clark to respond to that question.
Chairman: Go ahead, Mr. Clark.
The number of leases that we inherited before 1999, of the 59 leases, 30 of those leases were inherited from the government previous to 1999.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Clark.
It’s 50/50 almost.
Is the government currently considering terminating any of those 59 leases or the 30 leases that they inherited.
I have a very short response.
Can the minister be more specific and tell us which leases they are planning to terminate.
At this time, we cannot really disclose which leases we will be terminating until they expire.
We are looking into this at this time.
I guess to be more clear, when I was asking about terminating commercial leases, can you give us an indication of why you would terminate a commercial lease.
If you will allow me, I will get Mr. Rich to respond to that question and to speak to the review and the participation he’s had on this file.
There are generally several reasons that a lease may not be renewed.
One is the space may no longer be needed because other space has been found for the department or for the occupant because we’ve been able to combine spaces or because there has been some shifting around.
The second reason would be that there is a cost issue where we’ve determined that there is a suitable space at a lower cost perhaps in an existing government building.
The third reason may be that we want to go to another tender or Request for Proposal to see if we can get a better deal or more space.
That leads into the fourth reason which is in fact we may need more space than the existing space provides, so we may again go to the market where we want to tender or do an Request for Proposal to increase the space in which that current landlord may in fact want to bid on if they have space or that current landlord may not have sufficient space.
We’re talking about terminating leases when they expire, but are there any commercial leases where you might be in a position to buy the facility rather than having to go out to tender.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: The short answer to that, Mr. Chairman, is yes.
We’re getting a lot of short answers today.
The Government of Nunavut is decentralized across Nunavut, and that’s probably a very complicated process, but when you’re putting together a plan, do you take into account an overall space requirement for all your employees in terms of how many employees are in a community.
Do you have a general plan so that it’s not a hodge podge type of thing?
Do you know what you need in terms of looking between five to ten years in advance.
I know that we talked during our main estimates session about 3200 employees in total.
We’re at 80% capacity right now in terms of all the young employees hired out there.
But, if we had a 100% capacity, do we have enough space for all the employees, all the vehicles, all the other warehousing?
Do we have an over all plan in that regard?
The plan is being updated right now.
Further to my colleague’s comments regarding the space, if they are adequate for the number of staff.
These leases will be based on the needs, and also expected goals for the occupants in particular, under certain leases, so those things are considered.
You’re given serious consideration on approval.
Does the government have a space requirement for a contractor wanting to build, if they’re designing a building or if they’re buying a building or if they’re leasing a building? So much space for a minister, so much space for that minister, so much space for the director, and so on and so forth, down to a secretary.
Every employee is required to have a minimum amount of work space, I think for a safe work space, healthy work space, and all the other stuff that goes with it and maintaining a good environment for the staff.
When you’re leasing space or designing it or buying it, do you take all those factors into account?
Chairman: Thank you Mr. Peterson. Minister?
Yes, there is a space guideline that is used, but I’ll trade my office with my colleague any day, even the space of my office.
Yes, those things are considered.
Does any of the committee have any questions to the minister?
I have a question to the minister and the deputy in regards to the contract policy.
When I read it, it identifies the categories and the tender mode.
In the next report, are we going to be able to see a draft of which one of the tender modes used is the biggest, and there seems to be more sole source then any of the categories, even though in the contract policy, it states that if it’s going to be over 25,000 and the contracting modes there seems to be more, in what I’m reading anyway.
The engineering, especially in the construction, there’s more sole sources then any other categories.
For next year, can you show us, at the next reporting, stage in draft so that we can see which ones are being used more?
You have in front of you, this is the first time we’ve made an appearance before the committee of the whole in regards to the contracts and leases.
We have tossed around some ideas on how we can make reporting to the Assembly.
Possibly because this is the first time that we are making an appearance it has been quite hard to compile the data.
Right now all the data information is up-to-date.
In regards to my colleague’s question, we will, of course, take into consideration anything that would show the trend or the mode of what is happening on this issue.
Won’t the Deputy Minister as well comment on why the mode I believe the social services contract procedure mode, use quite a lot when in fact the policy does say that anything above $25,000 should be considered for public scrutiny.
When you look at all of these sole sourced contracts, a whole slew of them are pretty well over $25,000 amount, even with engineering and other services.
I am not at all questioning the transportation contract.
What determines the officials in the government to use the sole sourced when it is far exceeding sole sourced limits, which the contract policy allows you to do that.
Maybe the Deputy Minister can give an explanation to the Committee as to why that procedure is mostly used?
Generally there are three types of reasons that we use for doing a sole sourced contract.
One is there is a time issue where there is insufficient time to do a regular contract.
We try to avoid that by pre-planning, but there are times where there may be a sealift deadline, there may be something where it is not possible to do that.
The second is there is an actual emergency.
A good example would be there is a problem with the water system in a community, where the water system has gone down, and we need to do urgent repairs on that.
The other is there has only been determined, usually by past history, that there is only one firm capable of doing the work.
In those cases it is done.
We work closely with our client departments on that, because we are the contracting agency for the department.
There is a justification form that has to be filled out every time a sole sourced is done and it requires approval by the deputy minister of the department.
Looking at the contracts with respect to consulting services is really quite something else.
I counted over 25 contracts out of a possible 34 contract in total, including all the IPRPs and not any one of the consulting contracts were publicly opened, other than a request for proposal, which pretty much is restricted consulting.
RFP is pretty well, I don’t know whether it is an invitation.
IPRP, I don’t know what that stands for.
Could you explain properly to the committee why would the consulting services with the amounts that we looked at here, anywhere from $25,000 to the maximum $700,000 for digital healthcare solutions.
The sole sourced avenue would be used for significant, large amounts.
Are you not getting a little bit chummy with some of your buddies in the consulting field?
I cannot speak to many of the contracts here because they’re for other departments so I wouldn’t have the specific knowledge.
I can give you some general knowledge on consulting services contracts.
First of all, there are not a huge number consulting services contracts in terms of the total of 11 thousand total roughly, contracts that we do.
Consulting services is where we do run into unique conditions that often happen when a particular knowledge is required of a particular set of circumstances and in some cases it can be emergency situations.
In most cases it’s a particular specific knowledge that is required of a specific situation that suggests a sole source contract.
There is always a delicate balance to be made when deciding on a sole source contract as opposed to a request for proposal or a tender process.
It is also not appropriate or fair to do a tender or a request for proposals process if you know that other people are simply not going to qualify for it because you have such very specific requirements in order to do the work or because the work has to be done so urgently.
So, one would need to look at each of the circumstances to see whether or not it was a very urgent situation that required a sole source contract to be done very quickly or whether it was very specific in particular knowledge, unique to Nunavut or the situation that it was required.
Tabled document 100-2(2), please refer your questions to Government of Nunavut leased property.
That’s exactly what we’re doing on page 6 of the report.
Procurement and contracting reports of standing committee 2003/04, I’m looking at for instance the sports and recreation consultant.
I would think that is quite competitive throughout Nunavut.
Community and Government Services, using soul sources as a provision, contracted Kimberly Westlyshin.
Could you explain exactly how that is initiated.
How is it justified.
Who signs onto it and who decides if a sole source is the route to go.
Is it the manager who needs the services or does the deputy at the final end because $130 thousand is probably at a middle-management range where the Deputy Minister would probably have to sign onto that.
What rationale do you use for agreeing with such an individual manager that wants $120 thousand for a Sports and Recreation consultant.
I would say that’s a pretty competitive field in Nunavut.
Chairman: Mr. Curley, we’re dealing with Nunavut leased properties and it’s tabled document 100-2(2).
We’re dealing with this first.
Please keep your questions to the leased properties please.
We’ll be dealing with the other two later on.
Okay, Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Could you let me know exactly when is when.
Chairman: Mr. Curley, we’re dealing with tabled document number 100-2(2). That’s the one we’re dealing with right now.
It’s the Government of Nunavut Leased Properties.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. I’ll reserve my questions for later then, when we come to that document.
Are we dealing with the requests for proposals at this point or am I mistaken.
Mr. Peterson had already mentioned that we’ll be dealing with Tabled Document 100-2(2), Government of Nunavut Leased Properties.
That’s the one we’re dealing with. Mr. Netser.
Please wake me up when you have moved onto the next one.
Chairman: I apologize.
We will be dealing with the other two later on after we deal with this Government of Nunavut Leased Properties.
Do you have any questions to this document.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask questions on Tabled Document 100-2(2), Leased Properties.
Mr. Chairman, I know the Minister and his staff commented earlier that the expiry dates or the years left on a lease is information that they had with them.
Would they be willing to provide that information to us as well.
When we are looking at these, some of them have anywhere from 20 years, 10 years, 5 years, 15 years.
We have no idea when those leases came into force and when they are going to finish.
Will he provide us with that information, if they have it there.
It’s something that can be done very quickly.
I am on bit of a situation with this information because of advice from Justice on this very question.
However, having said that, Mr. Chairman, I am more than prepared to share this with my colleagues, one on one, if you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to look at specific leases and the years under those leases.
Mr. Chairman, why would it be such a big secret when leases are finished.
It says on here that the term of the lease is 20 years and it tells you who it is with and it tells you where it is and it tells you how much it is.
What is so secret about the start and finish date on these leases?
I am very curious to hear what kind of rationale Justice gave you in determining that this information should not be made available to the public with respect to these documents.
In the communiqué with the department, the rationale that was given was because of the competitive nature and process of the particular leases.
That advice was given by the Department of Justice.
If it is for competitive reasons, you would think that you would want people to know, so that they can have the opportunity to compete for a lease on a facility where a lease by the government is running out.
They will not have anyone else except for the person who has lease, and the government is not going to know when it is going to expire.
So how can that add to the competition?
It is more of a secretive deal is what it looks like so, again, I do not see how that has anything to do with why that information should not be out there and I think that it should be.
My apologies to my colleague if I had misunderstood his earlier question.
No, I’m more then prepared to give my colleagues the information of end dates for these leases.
Sorry to make it confusing, does the minister have that information now?
I think that would be some interesting information, tweak my interest as to when some of these leases are expiring before I go asking wasting time questions on something that may not be an issue, depending on when the leases expire.
Is that’s something he can get for us right away?
We do have that information, but I don’t believe we have copies with us.
If you require, we can try and work fast to get these to my colleagues who are on the table.
I’m sure the minister’s staff is listening right now and someone’s coming down to get a copy, so they can make copies for everybody, if the staff could do that for you.
The follow up on questions from my colleague from Cambridge Bay, when these leases are going to expire, regardless of what they are, within five years or one year, how does the government look at whether or not they are going to renew this lease?
Are they going to build their own facility?
What other options are out there?
What are the time lines prior to a lease coming to an end, looking at those options before a decision is made?
In planning for renewal of existing leases or terminating leases, the renewal process usually begins about a year before the lease expires.
The planning process for renewal of expired lease begins two to three years before the lease expiry.
The planning process for the placement of a lease with a new property would begin five to seven years before the expiry of the lease and also be tied into the multi-year capital plan.
As the minister indicated, if they’re looking at replacing or building their own facility or renewing or going out tender for lease facilities, then that’s something that is done, usually decided anywhere from two to seven years ahead of time, is that correct?
Yes, it is, and when the department reviews these leases and also ties in with the capital plan, analyses are also done to determine whether it would be more beneficial to build and own an office, or to continue leasing for the Government of Nunavut.
What kind of information is looked at in that analysis and is it the staff that do that analysis and make a recommendation to the minister?
Is it the minister who decides on it, or is it something that goes to Cabinet for approval?
For leases worth $1 million or more, they require cabinet decision, but if you allow me, Mr. Chairman, I will get Mr. Rich to outline the process leading to the final result of that review.
Obviously when we’re looking at renewing leases, we’re looking at a number of factors on the lease.
It is a delicate balance between the capital budget that is available and the lease budget that is available.
One looks at the suitability of the existing space and whether it makes sense to keeping that space because it’s suitable and the growth patterns of the department where the new space is needed, so forth and so on.
Obviously the capital budget is a large factor in it because replacing the lease with a capital construction project means that we need different types of funding to do that.
So, we work closely with our client departments on those particular issues to see what in fact will be the best choice to make.
When we’re looking at most, what I’ll call smaller leases, ordinary leases, the renewals on them is often fairly routine.
It is when we get to the large expensive leases that they are called into question.
As the minister said, those were the ones with a value of over $1 million dollars with a multi-year lease that go to cabinet.
They would go to cabinet with a recommendation that looks at what the alternatives are.