EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Please proceed with your opening comments, Minister Savikataaq.
Another capital planning cycle is underway, and I am pleased to meet with you and update the Committee of the Whole on the 2018-2022 five-year capital plan and in particular the 2017-18 Capital Estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services.
As you are aware, Mr. Chairman, Nunavut’s capital needs are a real and present challenge for the Government of Nunavut. The infrastructure deficit facing our territory requires an increasing amount of collaboration among GN departments and this is going to require a much closer relationship with the federal government to overcome.
I am pleased to report progress on both of these fronts.
Work is starting to enhance the GN’s approach for determining the capital needs of our communities.
The intent is to ensure a more robust connection between the government and the communities on all capital needs.
I will be sure to update the committee on progress on this front going forward.
Mr. Chairman, I am encouraged by what seems to be a renewed commitment from the federal government to engage on meaningful solutions for Nunavut’s infrastructure challenges.
For example, on September 6 I signed the new Clean Water and Wastewater Fund Agreement, which will provide $51 million between 2016 and 2019 to critical safe water and wastewater projects in Nunavut.
Additionally, we continue to work with Canada to implement projects under the New Building Canada Fund, also known as the NBCF.
This fund will provide $319 million of federal funding from 2014 to 2024.
This is in addition to the $78 million in gas tax funding we will receive from the federal government between 2014 and 2019.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of CG&S capital plan includes 12 projects, nine of which are GN-funded and the remaining three are cost shared under an existing agreement with the federal government.
Combined, these 12 projects is a total of $41.45 million. The nine GN-funded projects are:
Two major Petroleum Product Division (PPD) items:
Bulk fuel storage capacity increase in Gjoa Haven for $5.2 million;
As well as $3.25 million for upgrades to fuel tanks to meet code compliance issues;
$3.4 million for the annual capital contribution agreement with the City of Iqaluit;
$5.5 million for the new hamlet office in Kugaaruk;
Upgrades to the GN’s communication technology infrastructure for $2 million as part of the department’s ongoing efforts to modernize the government’s entire IT structure;
$12 million towards a new arena in Rankin Inlet;
$500,000 for the purchase of one fire truck for Cape Dorset, as per the CGS fire truck replacement schedule;
$1 million for preplanning studies for various capital projects; and finally,
$5 million for the Small Capital Fund, which includes:
Minor projects for $1 million;
Bulk funding for $883,000 for 24 communities;
Building and equipment upgrades of $2,867,000; and
Vehicles for $250,000.
Of the remaining three projects put forward by CG&S, the following two projects are funded through the New Building Canada Fund and require funding to go ahead. These projects are:
Upgrades to the water system in Resolute Bay for $2 million; and
Solid waste facilities bundle No. 2 that will provide upgrades to the landfills in five other communities yet to be determined, for a total of $1.5 million.
The final cost shared project is funded through the Small Communities Fund for $100,000 to provide facility assessment studies for the ten remaining communities that haven’t had any arena upgrades yet.
These communities are Arctic Bay, Baker Lake, Cape Dorset, Chesterfield Inlet, Clyde River, Gjoa Haven, Hall Beach, Kimmirut, Kugaaruk, and Naujaat.
Mr. Chairman, these projects reflect only a small portion of the territory’s total infrastructure needs.
As you know, we simply do not have the funding to cover all of the needed projects across Nunavut.
It is only by working closely with our communities and major stakeholders that we can ensure we are focused on the most urgent and critical projects in the short term to support our government and our communities.
We must move forward together to continue to improve our ability to ensure that the scarce capital funding we have is administered as effectively as possible.
This will allow us to establish a foundation of infrastructure resilient to the changing climates of the north, which contributes to strong and prosperous communities.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Government Estimates and Operations as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Community and Government Services’ proposed 2017-18 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year is $41.45 million.
The department’s capital budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year was $31,852,000.
On June 8 of 2016 the Minister of Finance appeared before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Bill 17, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017.
In his opening comments the minister indicated that approximately 121 capital projects and $122,591,000 in funding were being carried over from the 2015-16 to the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates include $1 million in funding for new preplanning studies.
Members note that the purpose of these preplanning studies is to improve the government’s capital planning process and to ensure that capital projects are completed on time and on budget.
In November of 2014 the Legislative Assembly approved $2 million in capital funding for the department to undertake six preplanning studies for a number of projects.
Members note with concern that a significant portion of this funding has not been spent to date.
Members note that in June of 2016 the Legislative Assembly approved $1.38 million in capital carryover funding for the department’s preplanning studies project.
The standing committee encourages the department to complete all of its preplanning studies in as timely a manner as possible.
Mr. Chairman, members note that the department’s proposed 2017-18 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.
The standing committee continues to encourage the minister to provide information on the department’s specific expenditures under each of its small capital line items.
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.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee notes that the government’s five-year capital plan includes information on capital projects in the territory that are funded by a third party.
The standing committee looks forward to receiving regular updates on the status of these projects.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates include $1.5 million for a new phase of its project to upgrade solid waste sites across Nunavut.
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 looks forward to regular and ongoing updates on any reports and initiatives in this area.
The department has also previously indicated that a final report on this review would be completed in January of 2016.
The standing committee encourages the minister to table this report in the House at the earliest opportunity.
On September 6 of 2016 the federal government and the Government of Nunavut jointly announced a bilateral agreement that “will make more than $68 million in combined funding available to Nunavut communities under a new federal program – the Clean Water and Wastewater Fund.”
Information provided by the department indicates that this funding will be allocated to projects in Iqaluit, Chesterfield Inlet, and Arviat.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates also include $3.25 million for its project to upgrade the tank farms across the territory.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates also include $3.4 million to be allocated under the government’s contribution agreement with the City of Iqaluit.
Information provided by the department suggests that this contribution agreement will expire on March 31 of 2017.
Members look forward to regular and detailed updates on any plans to renew this contribution agreement.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2017-18 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
I just want to remind members to ask your questions when we get to the branches.
Before we do that, do members have any general comments?
If not, we will start on page J-3.
Community and Government Services. Branch Summary. Community Services.
Planning is also in one of your comments.
We asked a variety of questions about the government trying to decide where they would use the same design for certain infrastructure in order to cost save.
Some of your comments are a little bit different than what we have heard from the other ministers when they were making reference to using a common design.
What does using a common design mean to you?
How do you understand common design?
The phrase common design means that the walls will be the same, the structure inside will be the same, an office will be here, and a storage room will be here.
That’s about where it ends.
The building itself will be roughly the same, but it can be changed in terms of where it’s going to be built, what kind of foundation it’s going to have, and if there are any new technologies that could be put into it or if there are any new code standards that we have to adhere by.
The common design means the building will look the same, but it does not mean it will be exactly the same.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you for clarifying that matter.
If you can also answer this question, Mr. Savikataaq, in the committee’s opening comments of the review, there was a statement outlining the severe concerns held by members of the committee about the carryovers of capital funding that has not been used.
This is particularly relevant in the six-year funding requests for preplanning studies.
How can you respond to this concern?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Savikataaq.
Some projects will always have a carryover just because of our construction season and our shipping season.
That is just unavoidable.
There are some that are carried over because of the cash flow issues that we have. We try to do the projects that we want to do.
Sometimes we have capacity issues in terms of there are only so many contractors within Nunavut.
If we put too many projects all at the same time, there might be too much more work than Nunavut can take on in terms of if too many projects go into one community, they might not have space for all the hotel rooms and not enough workers.
We want to get our Inuit employment up as much as we can, so we try to stake out the projects. Once a project is supposed to go, we do our best to make sure it’s on time and on schedule.
The carryovers are drastically down from previous years.
Chairman: Thank you for the promotion.
Mr. Enook: He was just joking.
Yes, it seems like the carryovers are constantly increasing.
Ever since you took on the portfolio, have you and the officials within your department identified anything to make sure that there are fewer carryovers?
One of the things that we have done to address this issue is to bring, an accountant would be the common term, but it’s a specialist so that we can look at our cash flow problems and try to work that out.
Even though we get the funding from the federal government, we still have to come up with our share and it has to go through the process like here.
It’s only approved for the capital projects once a year here when we meet in the fall, unless it’s a supp bill.
That’s one of the things that we have done to try to address this issue.
Chairman: Thank you for acknowledging me correctly.
I’m sure Minister Savikataaq and the other cabinet ministers are getting tired of listening to my question.
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask a question and I’ll just use an example.
For Clyde River’s garage, they used $375,000 and proposing $1.5 million.
With that, it is a class “D” estimate. They have already used huge sums of money.
Why is it class “D”?
A class “D” is in the early stage of the design.
For example, the garage in Clyde River, when we’re doing renovations, we go in there thinking we have to do A, B, C, and D and we spend money on that.
Once we do the inspection and we figure out that we want to do A, B, C, and D, sometimes we have to do A, B, C, D, F, and G. That’s mainly why it’s still a class “D.” When something is going to go to tender, it becomes a class “A.” For that project, we will be tendering it out in the spring of 2017 and we will have a more defined and better cost at that time.
Further, Mr. Chairman, to use that selfsame example extrapolated to fuel tank renovations, where tanks have to be upgraded to code.
Mr. Chairman, there is another statement outlining Nunavut’s (interpretation ends) tank farm code compliance (interpretation) issues such that in the past years the fund spent over $4.5 million and for the years 2017-2021 the budget estimate is listed at $3 million per annum with an overall funding total of $16.5 million.
It is still listed as a class “D” and it seems like the department knows that funding is available, which is why it is budgeted for these upcoming years, yet the wording included lists the funding as “unknown.”
That one there is class “D” because we know in which communities the work we’re going to do, but we don’t know exactly what the work is going to cost in each community.
If we bundle the projects together, if it costs a bit more in one community and a bit less in another community, then we can shift the money around without coming back here to the House.
When there’s a bunch of work we have to do, we like to get the total amount approved so that we don’t have to keep coming back for these projects.
By the winter of 2017 they will be a class “A” because we will know more on exactly what needs to be done to address that issue and they would be tendered out in the spring of 2017.
Also in your substantiation sheet for small capital and minor projects, you are proposing $1 million for the 2017-18 fiscal year and another $1 million for the 2018-19 fiscal year. You’re proposing the same figure annually up to year 2022.
The total amount is $5 million and there’s no class identified there.
It’s (interpretation ends) not available. (interpretation) I don’t understand that. Even though you’re proposing to get $1 million, there is no class identified.
How do you know it will cost $1 million?
This is a budget we put in for these funds here and they’re funds that the hamlets apply into if they need funding for small projects.
We don’t know what funding requests we’re going to get because something might come up.
Someone’s community hall might have a big flood and the floors are destroyed, and then we have to tear it up and fix it up.
This is an applicant-based funding.
I can just give off a few examples of funds that were approved in the 2015-16 year: Hall Beach coast erosion plan; Kugaaruk sewage lagoon assessment; Taloyoak hamlet office security work; wastewater expert presentation through Dalhousie and stuff like that; Rankin Inlet chlorine cleaning.
It’s funding based and they’re funds that the hamlets apply for.
We don’t know where the funding is going to go, but just from historical data, that’s about very close to the amount that is given out annually.
Welcome, Minister Savikataaq and your officials.
First of all, I want to go into his opening comments on page 2, the second last paragraph there, the second sentence.
I just want some clarification. “Work is starting to enhance the GN’s approach for determining the capital needs of our communities.”
Can you explain a little further in detail as to what you mean by this? There’s a capital planning process. What do you mean by that?
Hon. Minister Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am not sure if it is on the last page of my thing there, but I can speak to it anyway.
We work with Finance and the federal government to try to get our funding approved.
We work with the hamlets through their integrated community sustainability plan where the hamlets identify their infrastructure needs and prioritize it.
Once the hamlets have prioritized that list, a different committee made up from the hamlets and the government look at that list, give it a rating, and figure out which project should be prioritized.
We just don’t have the funds to give everybody what they need, never mind what they want.
We don’t have the funds to give all the municipalities what they need, so we have to prioritize and use what funds we have to the best of our ability.
Just to clarify to the minister, I was on page 2 of your opening comments, the second last paragraph from the bottom.
It says here that you are “starting to enhance the GN’s approach for determining the capital needs…” Yes, we know the process.
The community identifies their priorities and then there is the advisory committee.
How is the GN going to enhance this new approach?
In what ways will this capital plan and how projects are funded going to be better moving forward?
One of the things I said earlier when Mr. Enook asked what concrete steps we have taken to try to have less carryovers, I said one of them was to get a funding specialist to help us with the financing in terms of when we get the funding from the federal government.
That is one of the ways that we have done it.
Like I said earlier, we work with the hamlets to prioritize their infrastructure needs.
The biggest one is that we have to try to figure out how we get our funding because we still have to fund these projects. The bigger the project is the more portion of money that we have to put in for the project to go ahead.
Looking at Schedule 4(2), you have a list of all the different projects for 2017-18. Looking at Cape Dorset, there is the 525 garage.
I know this has been on the books for a number of years and there are even projects previous to this that are completed.
I have asked the minister questions on, for example, sewage lagoons in both communities, Cape Dorset and Kimmirut. There are projects that were supposedly completed, but they are still not in commission.
How does your department work on those types of projects?
The member is correct that some of these projects go a long ways and this just emphasizes more that we need to do better preplanning studies.
If you do not plan for it, then your plan might not work very well.
The garage that he is talking about, 525, when they first approved it, they wanted to make it in 2011-12, I believe.
They wanted to add two bays to it.
The project was going ahead and they realized, “Well, there is not enough land to put two bays in there.
We can only put one bay.”
A preplanning study would have pinpointed that earlier.
With the sewage lagoons there, if a preplanning study had been done too, they might have realized that they shouldn’t have put them where they put them.
I am not here to talk about the past; I am just here to say that from here on we want to fix the problems that we had.
One of the ways is to have a good preplanning study.
Just because a project gets a preplanning study doesn’t mean it will go ahead. It just gives us a better understanding of what the project should be.
If they do a preplanning study and find out, “No, we just can’t do that project there at that location,” we would be throwing good money away if we went ahead with it.
That is part of what this preplanning is for. It is to make sure that we have the best, current information before we go ahead with a project.
I guess that is what I am trying to get at. We have these projects in the communities that I represent.
We don’t want to duplicate that mistake, but given those mistakes, how are we going to deal with them?
They were the priority of the Government of Nunavut over a decade ago and now they are still outstanding.
We know the infrastructure deficit is huge.
Given this backlog of projects that are still outstanding even though we spent millions on them, do they just go back to the end of the list?
I’m trying to see where the government is going.
Can the minister provide some updates on those two specific projects? Have there been any movement on those files?
If I can just get a clarification on which two projects so that I can make sure I address it properly.
The sewage lagoons in both Cape Dorset and Kimmirut.
Chairman: Thank you for that clarification.
We are still working on the sewage lagoon in Cape Dorset.
Dalhousie University has been doing a study on that to help us out and tell us exactly what we should do there.
Once that report is finalized and given to us, we will have a better understanding.
Right now we will probably be fixing it up, expanding it, and trying to make the best use of it while we can.
For the Kimmirut sewage lagoon, it is sad to say that we will probably be going back to square one there because they should have not built it where it was built, but I am not here to talk about that.
I’m just saying that it’s still a priority; it’s just that we’re going to be back to square one with the sewage lagoon in Kimmirut.
Mr. Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank him for his response.
Moving forward, I think we want to see a better approach in our infrastructure projects. We don’t want to see it happen again. Kimmirut going back to square one, I’ll have to think of that more.
Going on to a different topic, the preplanning studies, could you provide an update on which projects you are planning to pre-plan?
Just for clarity, when we talk about preplanning studies, these are studies that we do for other departments too, mostly for infrastructure that other departments will be doing too.
It’s not just CGS projects.
With the Department of Health, a Rankin Inlet mental health transitional facility and in Igloolik, a continuing care centre extension; Department of Education, a school addition in Taloyoak; Justice, Kugluktuk Ilavut Centre renovation; CGS projects, Rankin Inlet water infrastructure, utilidor expansion and upgrades, Arviat Tank Farm, fuel capacity increase and code compliance work; Economic Development and [Transportation], Naujaat Air Terminal Building and the Chesterfield Inlet Air Terminal Building.
Mr. Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that list.
Can I get clarification? Is that for the $1 million that they have for 2017-18 or is there another list for that $1 million?
The member is correct. That’s for the $1 million proposed for 2017-18.
Mr. Joanasie: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that clarification. (interpretation) That will be it (interpretation ends) for now.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Following the list of names, Mr. Rumbolt.
I was a bit confused. I thought we were still on the opening comments.
Are we presently on J-3 and we can ask questions there?
One of the capital carryover projects is the $4.6 million in capital carryovers for the granular crush program. I wonder if you can explain which communities is your department undertaking its granular crushing projects and what is the status of this work.
To date there have been three granular projects.