EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Do you have a business plan to negotiate with Baffinland for funding purposes for some courses that will directly benefit the Baffinland Mining Company? In other words, do you think that you should be thinking, in your business plan, to have the Baffinland Mine pay for some of the courses that will be required?
This actually recently went to Cabinet with the opportunity to bring forward an MOU, or a Memorandum of Understanding, with the hamlet as well as the mining company and use this to look at training specifically, and take those into account with QIA and different partners that we have in place.
As the members know, any type of work or industrial development that will occur on Inuit owned lands there has to be an IIBA in place. So those are the types of things we’re working on now.
We have the ability to enter into an MOU now, with the company, the hamlet, for training, and our Inuit organizational partners through QIA.
So the member is correct. Those processes are in place within the business framework that we’re looking at for the facility in Pond Inlet.
I would like to remind you that we’re on page G-6.
G-6 and G-7.
I would like to welcome you, Mr. Minister, and your officials.
I think the minister agrees with me about having adequate space for the students and not to have them overcrowded.
As the weather is cooling down, I don’t see anything that’s geared for Arctic Bay.
I had tabled some photographs earlier on, Mr. Chairman, and right here, as it’s cooling down out there, this is a picture of plywood over the window.
It’s much deteriorated. I think it’s up to the minister to make sure that there’s a decision made as quickly as possible.
It’s going to freeze over in the winter. I would like to ask the minister if he has made any plans for the school in Arctic Bay.
First of all, I seldom agree with Mr. Barnabas on anything but I do agree with him on this point, and that is the situation of the school in Arctic Bay has undergone, in a lot of cases, of vandalism, where windows have been broken and so on.
Because of the proactive work done by the member, we have been able to work with our partners in Community and Government Services to go into Arctic Bay to do a site inspection of the school and to see what the cost values are to actually bring that school back up to where it should be, and identify and fix the deficiencies.  A work plan has been developed and I would hope to be in the position to have that finished in the next four to six weeks where all of the work could be done.
Again, on the windows, as an example, we don’t have the windows on site in the community and we have to bring them in. So that’s part of the delay.
The member is correct. The pictures strongly illustrate some of the issues in the school and there are plumbing repairs also, for example, that need to be taken care of.
There are O&M issues with the flooring and those issues are being addressed in an action plan that has been developed through the Department of Education with CGS.
I think it’s up to the Department of Education officials to go to the communities.
For example, if you go to Kugluktuk, I have seen the pictures and the school is in extremely bad shape.
The materials and the windows should have arrived by ship this summer but because they haven’t been ordered in advance, we’re probably going to have to pay more because they’re going to have to be airlifted to our communities.
I do know that CGS is responsible for those types of work, but my question is: why weren’t those materials ordered and shipped up by ship this summer?
The member makes a good point. This work should’ve been carried out earlier other than later.
So that’s why I suggested that the member has done a good job in bringing this forward. We were not aware of the serious issues in the school until the new principal actually went in their on the ground in late August.
I believe just right now, at the last count, and I know, Mr. Chairman, that this number is a large number; there are something in excess of 65 windows alone that have to be replaced in the school. So that’s not something that could happen over night. There are problems with the plumbing and so on.
We have a contract in place with our CGS partners to be able to go in there and do some work on the school and maintain regular maintenance and upkeep on the school, and that’s what’s being accomplished. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I think it’s up to the minister to visit the communities more frequently.
He went to Cambridge Bay two times already.
I invited him to Arctic Bay and he has never made an appearance.
As that’s the case, I think I’ll have to table a motion.
Mr. Chairman, that’s just a comment.
The member has a very short memory on my visits to Arctic Bay. The member knows I have been to Arctic Bay many times and I’ve had the opportunity to have the hospitality of the community of Arctic Bay and the member in there. So I’m not going to get into that debate with him.
What I would suggest is that the member is correct.
This should have been taken care of. As soon as we were made aware of it, we were following it up with the Department of CGS and we’ve ordered in the parts.
I want to make a very quick point to what he’s saying and that is on the structural problems we see in the school. There are issues with the permafrost in the school in Arctic Bay where the building is actually moving on the site, and that’s causing structural problems. That’s not unique to Arctic Bay.
We’re seeing that in other places in Nunavut and it’s costing us money. We see, for example, in the Simon Alaittuq Ford High School in Rankin Inlet, where the thermal syphon has failed and it’s going to cost us several hundred thousand dollars to fix.
For example Mr. Chairman, here in Iqaluit, the Joamie School; in no school in Nunavut, in no building in Nunavut do we have storm or drain gutters on the building to take excess rain or water off the roof. It’s never been a problem before. This year we’re going to end up spending I think almost over half a million dollars right now to fix the foundation of the brand new Joamie School because there was so much water going off the school from the rain and it washed the foundation away.
We’ve got problems with other schools with foundations because of the permafrost and changing climate conditions.
So those are issues that we need to address.  So I appreciate, again, the member’s support and bringing the issue forward.
Chairman: Questions.
I am sure, like the minister said earlier, and I know he’s very happy to be back here with us again today.
One thing he just mentioned and I’m not sure if I heard it, but did he indicate that they were having some problems with the roof at Joamie School?
Not the roof itself but it’s the foundation of the school. I don’t mean the structural foundation but when the school was completed, as I was just saying, we’ve had so much rain this year, the way the roof and everything that’s designed in the school.
This has never been a problem in the past anywhere in Nunavut with rain, but now, with the changes that we’re seeing in the climate and so on, for example, this year the foundation of the school on the sides and everything with sand and gravel foundations built up to the new wall of the school.
With the amount of water and rain we’ve had, it’s actually washed away that area and that foundation and so on, and it caused us some issues with the roof of the school.
I thank the minister for that response. It’s good to hear that they didn’t have problems with the roof and it’s still a brand new school, pretty much.
The next question I have for the minister deals… we touched on it a little bit yesterday, where it said for the Arctic College accommodations project here in Iqaluit, said that the CGS project staff were evaluating the concept of a design-build approach to the next tender call.
The minister indicated that that would mean almost three quarters of a million dollars that we spent in design and planning already would be gone. So we would have to pay someone else to come up with their own design.
If they’re evaluating that concept, surely, it’s not done yet. Does he have an idea of when that evaluation process, when the decision is going to be made, as to whether or not to throw away the designs that we have and go to a design-build approach for the next tender?
I note that the member was, and I promised all the members, and I have a petition in front of me from some of the members asking to keep my answers short, so I will do that for the benefit of the House.
Just very quickly, the member was picking up my accent or my dialect, and my pronunciation of “roof.” Well, I would like to say for the record, Mr. Chairman, I might’ve pronounced “roof” wrong. I might even say “mudder” but I don’t spell it m-u-d-d-e-r.
Mr. Chairman, on this case, we would hope that the tender would be complete, as we said earlier, in November, and we would be in a position then, within three to four weeks of that, to be able to ascertain the direction that we would be moving in. So we will know within the next six weeks and that’s the best guestimate that we have right now.
And, the money that has been spent on the design won’t be wasted because that’s the information that we’ll be able to use when we look at any design packages that comes forward because we haven’t said that we’re not using it yet or not.
It depends on the tender itself.
I thank the minister for clarifying that and I’m sure his ‘fodder’ would be very proud of him pointing that out to us here today.
I guess he said the tender is coming out in November, so has the decision been made yet as to whether to go with the design-build approach or just go out to tender with the design that’s been developed by the GN already?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, it hasn’t.
Will that decision be made before the tender is actually put out, or how will they find out?
No, it won’t, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Would the minister inform at least the standing committee whether or not - when that decision is made even if it’s like prior to the tender going out, which it should be, because you need to know what your going to put into the tender before you actually put it out to tender - when the decision is made whether to go with the design-build approach, or look at the design that they have already?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that we’re going for a record here.
Mr. Chairman, one of the other projects that are on the books here, I asked the minister some questions about it yesterday, was the renovation at the high school.
I know in the past the minister has said that when they’re looking at building any new facilities or renovations and things like that that they’d be looking at daycare opportunities in those facilities.
I know that there is already a daycare facility in the high school and there is also one at the college but the minister is well aware that the demand for childcare spaces here in Iqaluit far exceeds the spaces that are there.
So I guess on either of those two projects, are they looking at doing anything to increase the child care facilities in either of those two facilities?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are, Mr. Chairman, in the renovation as well as the new student accommodations that will be put in place.
Does the minister have an idea of how many more spaces they’re looking at creating in these projects?
No, Mr. Chairman, I don’t have that number with me.
Would the minister commit to providing that information to the standing committee?
I appreciate the minister’s response. It’s very informative.
The other question I have kind of ties into the trades school, and I know that there were supposed to be components based in and it was announced in Rankin Inlet, Cambridge Bay, and Iqaluit. I’m just wondering if the minister could give us an update of what they’re looking at here around the Baffin region.
If he wants to elaborate into the other two regions, I’ll leave that up to him, or he could wait until it gets to that section, but just on what progress is being made with those projects or with that project in those separate components particularly the one here in Iqaluit.
The contract for the design for the trades school in Rankin has been awarded and final documents for the construction tender will be released by December.
The financial and O&M forecasts to go along with it to fully implement the trades training strategy for Phase I have been submitted to the FMB, and we’re also looking at some of the issues around forced growth also to be compatible with that.
We have a director now in place for trades, mining, and transportation programs within the college itself, which is doing the planning of the course programs, schedules, and outlines for the trades school.
I just want to clarify to him, I wasn’t asking about the actual trades school itself in Rankin Inlet, but it was announced that there was supposed to be components based in Cambridge Bay and here in Iqaluit.
I’m just wondering if he could give us an update of any progress that they’ve made on those two separate components particularly the one here in Iqaluit.
We talked about how we would be able to phase the approach and have the school itself in Rankin Inlet, and we’re doing that.
At the same time we’ve just completed the work on the shop in Cambridge Bay, and that will lend itself to running a millwright program in Cambridge Bay and we’re gearing up toward that for the next year.
At the same time, money has been expended under the same envelope for re-tooling the shop here in Iqaluit, which is out at the federal building.
I would like to thank the minister for that response and I’m sure they’re very happy to have the new tools at the shop here in Iqaluit.
Has there been any thought of looking at linking any of the, as he had indicated yesterday, the shop at the high school here and they’re looking at wanting to utilize those spaces again, are they looking at tying in that facility in as well to the trades program that’s going to be offered through the satellite component here in Iqaluit?
That’s part of the joint programming plan that we have in place between the high school and the college.
As the design plan works itself out with the high school, then that would be a component part of that.
On Qikiqtaaluk Region. Page G-6 and the top of G-7.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yesterday, before we adjourned, I had a question with respect to some of the project management issues.
The Department of Education, in my view, has always had good planners and have been able to get quite a lot of schools and everything built without any major difficulties, but during the last year or two, it seems to be cracking a bit.  I’m wondering if the minister can help us out and tell us exactly how many of the major projects have been re-tendered because of the costs being so far apart with the private sector contractors.
Could you help us out a bit, in this committee at least, in explaining which processes have been delayed due to the very substantial cost differences?
The information provided to me indicates that there are two projects that have caused some delay and concern with tendering price packages that we’ve discussed. One is the Gjoa Haven school that we talked about yesterday, as well as the NAC student residence that we talked about yesterday.
Those are the two projects that have shown some substantial delay and slippage because of price or costing issues.
That’s helpful to have some understanding. These were already probably designed and planned by the government.
So it would mainly have been labour only tenders that were put out.  Yesterday, the minister had disagreed with me that someone obviously either was wrong; either the government in terms of establishing the costs for the total costs of building two of the projects, or the private sector was dead wrong in submitting tenders based on their costs.
I would like to assure the minister that someone is obviously not correct in either of the two.
So how will the minister assure this committee that he is working hard to bring the true costs, the value of these projects, to fair and understandable estimates? Otherwise, the Assembly will continue to bankroll any costs over or whatnot.
It’s costly to re-tender projects. In the private sector world, someone would be fired for low balling costs and everything. They would immediately be replaced.
So I would like the minister to respond to that because I think it’s important to understand that steps have been taken to bring the costs of these estimates closer to the reality of the private sector world.
That’s a hard question to answer on how the minister will demonstrate.
I would suggest to you that I would carry on, I would cash and carry, I would carry grant, and I would hari-kari, to ensure that the budget is carried out on time, on place and on budget.  That due diligence is not just done from the minister’s office but it’s done through this Assembly, and through the auspices of the Cabinet and the Financial Management Board.
I think that’s how we provide that check and balance.
I think the minister is either fooling us, but he won’t fool me, because I think to account for the expenditures that are being presented has to be accurate and fair to the consumers and to the public. Taxpayers are much more serious about these escalating costs and figures that are being submitted to the Assembly that are not accurate. It’s a really deadly serious issue to me.
The reason why I’m saying that is it’s not that difficult to establish costs; not difficult. You need planners, you need engineers, you need cost estimators, and you need project managers. I’m amazed that you don’t even have a project manager here when you’re dealing with the capital projects.
That’s one sign of weakness here.
The other thing is that the minister tried to tell this committee earlier that the government is correctly submitting estimates.
Yesterday I did not respond that establishing costs is simple to me because the cost of glass is something; the hard cost, you could figure that out. It’s the other costs that the private sector proposes to offer to you is normally negotiable. The profit margins and all the other costs, like the cost of financing for construction and everything else, that normally go into all of this.
So exactly how is the minister… I don’t think using one phase of the method for tendering is going to solve, whether it is just the design and construct phase, or designed by the government versus the private sector.  So will the minister seriously try to help us out that he is serious about putting in a more effective planning process and submitting estimates that are truly reflecting the natural world out in this part of the world?
I take the member’s question seriously.
The basic explanation; as the member uses the glass, as an example and as an illustrative purpose; for economies of scale, let’s give an example.
The member goes out and wants to build a house, and he looks at the costs of the materials and the costs of labour to build that house as a turn key operation, meaning at the end of the day he could walk into the house and take it over. He estimates he needs $400,000 to do that. So he puts a tender out and only one company bids on it and says, ‘We’re the only ones that picked up the tender documents.
You want $400,000 but we want to make 30 percent on that house. We’re the only people bidding on it, so we’ll charge you $780,000.’ So the member is going to say, ‘Look, I know it’s not going to cost that much, so I’m going to re-tender this because I don’t like the offer that I’ve received.’
So the member re-tenders it again and then that price comes back in maybe a little bit better but still way over what the member has budgeted for. So the member then has to make a choice: does he continue to go with that design of the house? Is there a problem with the numbers? Has due diligence been done on the file? In all cases, that’s what occurs on the tender. That’s why we slipped so much money over the past two years on our capital budgets because we aren’t getting the numbers that we think are fair value.  Part of that is the market place, as the member has indicated.
We know there’s an economic boom in Western Canada and we see the prices going up. We know other jurisdictions have cancelled their capital projects. For example, in Alberta, several billion dollars worth, because they’re coming in way over budget because of the market place that we’re operating in.
So I would suggest to the member that that type of due diligence is occurring.
If it wasn’t occurring, we would be out there taking the first bid offers that we’re receiving on these tender packages. That’s part of that check and balance. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think the projects that are carried out annually are quite huge and quite large projects in many respects. This year may be a bit of an exception because the capital projects are not as huge compared to other years.
Based on the fact that we will continue to build huge facilities, huge educational facilities, I think it would be important to have a comparative study going back a number of years and table an assessment of that. The reason I’m suggesting that to the department is because I think the education capital planning group that you have really probably has a very strong relationship with the CGS people and so on.
And yet, we have never seen a report that has construction projects tabled in the House.  When I was in the private sector, we had to do that for a financial institution in Southern Canada because they roll out huge amounts of construction financing as well as long-term financing when they convert to the finished product.
So would it be possible that you would discuss with the CGS and table at least the construction standards or whatnot and what the kind of challenges that we face. If I were to ask you, ‘When was the last time you evaluated during the last five years the school projects and whatnot in Nunavut?’ I think it would be a very valuable tool to have, as well as for the apprentices that we normally encourage to go into trades.
So I wonder if the minister shares my view that we’re not doing very well with collecting information and putting them into research documents and so on, and more historic documents. Not only would it be a historic document but it would be useful information for the political leaders as well. Could he do that?
Hon. Ed. Picco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The member, I think, is raising an important point. The Department of Education is a client of the Department of CGS, as the member has pointed out, and that’s something we have to do in cooperation with that department as the lead department on this type of capital project planning.
So that’s something I would commit to bring up with the minister and the department responsible.
So if the minister would commit to do that because I think there are people outside of Canada, even in other circumpolar countries, who are interested in understanding exactly how we do projects up here. I really believe that we can also learn from other countries that are doing projects in the permafrost and whatnot.
Right now, it would be a little embarrassing if I were to try and log onto the internet about permafrost, buildings, schools, and infrastructures.
We won’t get any and yet, this government could be providing that information to the world.
So I believe that’s a positive thing that the minister could do.
My final question to the minister: will he commit to at least discussing that with his colleagues and make some type of announcement in the House at an appropriate time when he’s ready?
Minster Picco.
I know that Minister Brown is quite interested in making sure that we follow up with the concerns raised as the lead department. Again, Education is a client department of CGS.
So I would commit to the member to ensure that that is raised again with Minister Brown and discuss the process.
I think the member has raised an important point.
I failed to turn the second page on my list of questions. It’s a good thing that I did not run out of time.