EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Welcome to the House, Mr. Stewart. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, did you want the member to repeat the question or can we go ahead and get it answered?
No, we don’t need it repeated.
I’ll ask Mr. Stewart to answer the question.
Chairman: Mr. Stewart, please.
To simply answer the question, one of the major benefits of the new facility will be to have much smaller units and have more of them to allow the separation of the population that the member had recognized.
I’m wondering what size these units would be.
What are we talking about when we say “units” and maybe it would give me a better idea of what size if you can tell how many people would comfortably be in these units? Is it 1 or 2 or 24?
I’ll ask Mr. Stewart to answer that.
The units will range in size slightly, but typically the largest units would be 26 in this case, so several 26 and then there will be smaller units for different types of population.
I’m assuming then that larger areas would be for like more of the lower… .
What’s the word? Not the maximum, but maybe the lower or medium security, or maybe you could explain to us how you would divide that up, like I said, a list, which ones would go more to the larger sized units and who would be kept more in the smaller size units.
Ms. Angnakak: It’s okay.
Chairman (interpretation): As the Chair, I think I can go directly to Mr. Stewart as he was answering the questions.
The medium- and maximum-security units will both be approximately 26.
There will be several of each, but we do not want to make the units too small because we still want to allow these interactions to occur even at the maximum-security level. It was important for us to make sure we had enough people in a unit and it wasn’t too small a unit to not allow those positive interactions to occur.
I would like to get a better clarification on medical isolation. Are you talking about maybe perhaps if an inmate has TB or something like that? What are you talking about?
Is this long term?
You’re keeping them there versus going to the hospital. What makes that distinction? What does that really mean?
Mr. Stewart, I believe you can respond to that.
Medical isolation is done in conjunction with the hospital.
If somebody was very ill, they would obviously go to the hospital first and to be stabilized, but the medical isolation unit in this facility will allow us to continue to care for examples of active TB, to be able to care for them within our facilities once things have been stabilized at the medical centres.
Just because we’re talking about medical isolation, I know we’re talking about capital here and that, but I do want to ask: do you have a full-time nurse up there?
There are two nurses and a medical health nurse.
I’m going on to something else, something I have brought up before in the past, and that’s the Nunavut Court of Justice renovations project. I wonder if we can get an update on the status of that.
Just to clarify the last answer, I think I said medical health nurse; it’s a mental health nurse.
I had a tour two weeks ago at the Nunavut Court of Justice to review the project. From what I understood, the project is almost complete.
The windows are being replaced. They’re almost replaced.
There were a couple of windows that were cracked.
There’s some warranty work that has to be completed on the new windows. They cracked and have to be replaced.
They’re working on what they call a sally port.
That’s a facility outside where they can receive persons who are coming to court in a secure area and then transport them to their court appearance.
From my understanding, the renovations are almost complete.
There was additional office space provided for administration.
It’s quite amazing what they have done out there because you can’t expand the walls, but you can always do stuff with the interior. I believe it’s almost complete. I won’t say it’s 100 percent, but it’s close.
In regard to that project, can you indicate if you’re going to be carrying over additional capital for the 2016-17 fiscal year?
We’re not anticipating carrying over any capital.
If there is, it would be a small amount, but it’s probably more likely for deficiency and warranty work.
Another issue I have brought up in the past, and I haven’t heard what’s… . We did, I think, approve some capital towards a wellness court.
What’s happening with the wellness court? Can you give us an update, please?
I don’t believe a wellness court was an actual capital item.
It was more of an initiative to facilitate, encourage, or assist people who wanted to appear before a different type of court if there was an ability to go a different type of sentencing and not be sentenced to jail time.
That’s an initiative that’s still underway with our department talking to other jurisdictions.
I was just under the assumption that changes that were a part of the renovations of the current courthouse were going to make changes or a way for the wellness court to operate, so maybe I was mistaken.
Can you give us an idea of when you think the wellness court will be in place where it could be used?
Part of the problem or solution or initiative was to undertake the renovations to the Nunavut Court of Justice and provide more office space for employees and officials over there, including our judges.
That’s part of it. We had to do that first and then we will continue on the mental health court initiative.
Again, as I say, it’s not actually a capital project.
It is an initiative that’s part of the overall Nunavut Court of Justice.
When we talk about the wellness court in the future, are the current renovations, what you’re doing now, would that allow the wellness court to go ahead or are you going to have to do renovations in the future to allow the wellness court? Are we talking about two court spaces or are they going to use the same space? I guess that’s what I’m trying to get at.
Well, when I had the tour, Mr. Kucharski, if he’s listening or watching, was lobbying me pretty hard.
He was telling me that he could use all that extra space next door for another facility.
The facility that was constructed that exists there now was in 2008 and they have expanded. The structure itself is suitable for a period of time, but the services that are being offered through the court of justice have expanded quite significantly.
You’ve got more judges, you’ve got more support staff, and you’ve got more Justices of the Peace.
We’re going to have to look seriously at how we can include the mental health court in that provision of services in the existing structure unless we are able to get through the capital planning process and get more capital for another facility.
We’re on page E-3. It reads, Justice.
Directorate. Total Capital Expenditures. $700,000. Do you agree?
Turn the page. Page E-5.
I’m sorry. Page E-6. It reads, Justice.
Total Capital Expenditures. $812,000. Do you agree?
Go back to page E-2. It reads, Justice.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $1,512,000. Do you agree?
Are we in agreement that we have concluded the review of the capital estimates for the Department of Justice?
Minister Peterson, we have concluded your department.
If you have any closing remarks, I now give you the floor.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank a number of people here.
I would like to thank MLA Isaac Shooyook, who has visited me a few times and has gone out to visit the correctional facilities out there. He gave us some good insight and knowledge to incorporate into the project, the Qikiqtani Correctional Healing Centre.
I would like to thank the correctional staff who go to work every day out to BCC but all across Nunavut.
I had several good tours this summer in Rankin Inlet and the facilities here. They’re doing a lot of great work helping the inmates.
I’ve had inmates write me letters and also telling me stuff, so I thank those fellows.
I would like to thank some of our staff: former correctional director, Doug Strader, who is out there somewhere; J.P. Deroy, who is working on corrections; Chris Stewarts, who does a lot of work; Ji Liu.
I would like to thank all the deputies that have been working on it. It has been long.
Since 2009 there have been a lot of improvements in the facilities in Nunavut; the women’s facility was added, the Rankin Inlet Healing Facility, the Makigiarvik, and now when this facility goes ahead and hopefully it gets approved on November 24, so that would be great.
We can keep people and bring people home, and provide them with the programming, cross-cultural programming, on-the-land experience that helps people.
I would just like to thank all the former ministers who sat before me.
We keep moving these important initiatives forward to improve our corrections system in Nunavut.
We will be proceeding and deal with the Department of Culture and Heritage.
We will take a five-minute break to get the paperwork ready.
>>Committee recessed at 16:14 and resumed at 16:21
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2017-2018 – Culture and Heritage – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): I will now call the committee meeting to order.
We will be dealing with the capital estimates for the Department of Culture and Heritage.
As we begin, let me first ask Minister Kuksuk, do you have officials that you would like to bring to the witness table?
Minister Kuksuk would like to have officials with him at the witness table.
Minister Kuksuk, for the record, please introduce your officials. Minister Kuksuk.
With me this afternoon to my left is Regilee Adla, (interpretation ends) Director of Finance (interpretation) for the Department of Culture and Heritage, and with us this afternoon to my right is Pauloosie Suvega, my Deputy Minister of Culture and Heritage.
Welcome to the House, Ms. Adla and Mr. Suvega.
As we proceed, I would like to give you an opportunity to make your opening comments.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to present the Department of Culture and Heritage’s 2017-18 capital plan.
Mr. Chairman, the capital estimates for the Department of Culture and Heritage for the 2017-18 fiscal year is $560,000.
$60,000 of the capital budget is for renovations at the Iqaluit Centennial Library within the Heritage Branch and to replace existing office workstations at the Iqaluit headquarters offices within the Official Languages Division.
The department is working hard to address the need to display and preserve our heritage within the territory.
The department is committed to addressing Nunavut’s long-term vision for the storage and heritage collections and to support economic development initiatives that build on and add value to heritage, arts, and tourism sectors within Nunavut.
$500,000 will be used for current and future heritage infrastructure across Nunavut under our heritage facilities contribution funding.
We provide this funding to non-profit community-based organizations and municipal corporations for the development and/or renovation of heritage facilities or relevant associated structures and objects.
Mr. Chairman, I will be pleased to respond to any questions that members of the committee may have. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Government Estimates and Operations concerning its review of the proposed 2017-18 Capital Estimates of the Department of Culture and Heritage.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year is $560,000.
The department’s capital budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year was also $560,000.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates include $500,000 for its “Heritage Facilities” project.
Information provided by the department indicates that this funding will be allocated to non-profit community-based organizations and municipal corporations for the development or renovation of heritage facilities in order to allow Nunavut to repatriate its cultural artefacts from facilities in southern Canada.
Mr. Chairman, the department has previously indicated that funding for this project will be allocated under the department’s Heritage Facilities Contribution Policy.
Members note that the department’s 2016-17 main estimates also include $200,000 in contribution funding for its “Heritage Facilities” project, and that this contribution funding is also allocated according to the department’s Heritage Facilities Contribution Policy.
Mr. Chairman, it is unclear why the department has included contribution funding under both its capital and main budgets for the same “Heritage Facilities” project.
Members look forward to receiving further clarification on this matter.
Mr. Chairman, on November 19, 2015 the governments of Manitoba and Nunavut announced their agreement to extend their five-year memorandum of understanding.
In its announcement the government indicated that “the Winnipeg Art Gallery will become home to thousands of pieces of fine art from Nunavut and the gallery will develop special programming and educational opportunities through the display of the works.
Each government will provide up to $500,000 to support the research, documentation, and exhibition of this artwork.”
The standing committee strongly encourages the department to provide regular updates on the specific ways that Nunavummiut have been provided opportunities to contribute to the research, documentation, and exhibition of the cultural artefacts that are currently housed in the Winnipeg Art Gallery.
Members continue to encourage the minister to work closely with organizations and municipal corporations in Nunavut to develop a strategy by which artefacts will be distributed fairly throughout Nunavut.
Members also encourage the department to develop a time frame for repatriating all artefacts, which will allow the department to evaluate its progress in completing this important project.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee looks forward to receiving regular updates on the department’s progress in repatriating these artefacts and distributing them across the territory.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2017-18 Capital Estimates of the Department of Culture and Heritage.
As we proceed at this time, we will start on page F-3.
We’re on Culture and Heritage. Directorate.
In the opening comments by the minister one of the things it says here is that they’re going to “replace existing office workstations at the Iqaluit headquarters offices within the Official Languages Division.”
I wonder if the minister can just expand a little bit on what they mean by that. Where is this office? Is that relocation or is it renovations?
Mr. Chairman, I don’t have the details in front of me as to exactly what that is going to be, so I will ask my deputy minister to respond.
The offices are not going to be relocated. They will just be renovated, for example, the desks and chairs to better accommodate the needs of the staff, especially for interpreters in the Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun, and French languages.
Just a couple of paragraphs down it says that the department “is committed to addressing Nunavut’s long-term vision for the storage of heritage collections,” that paragraph there, “and to support economic development initiatives that build on and add value to heritage, arts...” Can you just talk a little more about that?
As a department, what do you mean by that statement?
This matter has been ongoing for quite some time. In looking down the road, we do have plans for housing our artefacts.
As we all know, artefacts from Nunavut have various custodians from outside of our territory. For example, some are in the NWT, of which some are being moved to the (interpretation ends) Winnipeg Art Gallery, (interpretation) as it is called.
With that being the case, our own lack of proper facilities for our artefacts has meant that most artefacts are stored outside of Nunavut.
However, we do have a vision in place to eventually have our own preservation facility.
Our artefacts would not just be stored, but they would also available as a part of various economic development initiatives specific to tourists, for example, who could visit the facility to view the artefacts. This is part of our long-term plan. We have included various (interpretation ends) outfitters, (interpretation) for example, in our plans for (interpretation ends) economic development (interpretation) benefits we could gain if we housed our artefacts ourselves.
One of the things that the minister just alluded to was having artefacts outside of Nunavut.
I’m wondering if the minister can describe specific ways in which Nunavummiut have been able to contribute to those decisions that have been made concerning the use and display of Nunavut’s Inuit artefacts which are currently housed in the Winnipeg Art Gallery.
Is it just the department making those kinds of decisions, what is going to be housed there and what’s not and where different artefacts go, or do you have input from Nunavummiut?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I again thank the member for her question.
Mr. Chairman, in my opening comments I mentioned the lack of adequate facilities and I have maintained in the past that because of a lack of proper space here, we don’t house any of our artefacts.
We have collaborated with facilities that want to showcase Inuit artefacts, including the Winnipeg Art Gallery as an example, to develop that.
Mr. Chairman, although we wish to manage our own artefacts, the requirements are that it can’t just be any ordinary building because, for their preservation in particular, they require a climate-controlled atmosphere, including proper air quality.
Since we don’t have such facilities in Nunavut to manage our collections, it means our artefacts must be housed outside of Nunavut.
We have worked with our partners on the issues and although the facility is outside of Nunavut, we are working on the kind of shows that will be put on. Perhaps I can use the example of earlier this fall where representatives from Nunavut travelled to Winnipeg, including elders from Baker Lake. We were able to view parts of the collection and the facilities that are used to house artefacts.
We try to work with Nunavummiut whenever possible, but it is primarily the lack of appropriate space that is keeping us from moving forward. We require a proper facility to house our artefacts. It is for those reasons.
Moving on, Mr. Akoak.
Good afternoon, colleagues, minister, and your staff.
Again, in the fall of 2015 sitting the Legislative Assembly approved $500,000 in capital funding for your department’s minor projects.
Information provided by your department indicated that this funding would be distributed to approved applicants in order to use the funding to develop or renovate heritage facilities in the territory during the 2016-17 fiscal year.
Can you list the organizations, municipalities, and corporations that have applied for the funding under this line item since April 1, 2016?
What we can identify here based on his question for fiscal year 2016-17, within the line item of (interpretation ends) grants and contributions, (interpretation) there were several requests approved by cabinet.
The following communities received approvals: Cambridge Bay received $95,000, Iqaluit received $292,000, Kugluktuk received $63,000, and Resolute Bay received $50,000.
So there were no submissions from the Gjoa Haven heritage facility or the municipality?
I thank him for the question. No, I am not aware of a submission, but I could be mistaken. My deputy minister may have information on whether a proposal was received and why the funding wasn’t approved.
My deputy minister may be able to answer that instead of me, Mr. Chairman.
If the community applied and funding wasn’t approved, it may have been due to a lack of funding. Sometimes we must also search for other funds that can be applied.
When the funds are running out, we do search for other funding sources. We don’t just deny the funding request for the fiscal year.
If the funds are not available, then we would commit to finding other sources of funding to set aside for that. The funds can be provided either by our government or the federal government.
In talking about the heritage facility in Gjoa Haven, they talked about the facility being small already.
It’s not very big and we are now getting tourists going into that area. Would you foresee any renovations being done or approved for that facility, like maybe tomorrow?
Can you approve that tomorrow?
I already sent faxes to the communities that have heritage centres and informed them of the funding assistance available to communities where they can put in an application for renovations. If there is an organization identified in the community, they can also put in applications. We have that open for all the communities.
I can tell my colleague from Gjoa Haven that if they fill out an application, we can take a look at providing assistance from our capital budget.
You talk about sending artefacts down to Manitoba, which is quite a ways. Gjoa Haven is also quite a ways from here.
Have you ever talked to your counterparts with the federal government in getting a bit bigger heritage centre in Gjoa Haven?
I haven’t had discussions with other communities concerning his question.
Mr. Chairman, earlier this fall I met with the heritage minister for Canada when she came up to Iqaluit. We identified to them that we need to take care of our own artefacts, but it’s because of the lack of funding and that’s the reason we haven’t identified anything.
I indicated to the federal minister that it is important that Nunavut artefacts that are being stored elsewhere need to be repatriated to our territory.
That is what I made clear to my counterpart. However, we haven’t decided on anything yet.
Moving on, Mr. Shooyook.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome the minister and the official to his right to the Committee of the Whole.
My son-in-law asked a question on the minister’s opening comments and I would like to ask one myself.
I think the $500,000 that you mentioned was for new heritage centres.
It talks about building sites for the facilities to be constructed. I’m not sure what sites this is about.
Does that mean what buildings need to be built? Using Arctic Bay as an example, if they had such a facility, is that for construction materials or is that for constructing new buildings? If you can clarify what that is to be used for.
That means if a community has identified a local organization and if there is a building available to renovate, they can put in an application to our capital budget for the building’s renovation.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank him and I like to see that.
It is for that reason that it states here that non-profit, community-based organizations and municipal corporations can apply for this funding.
I have been informed by some of my constituents that an individual would like to start a facility.
He’s not an employee of the hamlet.
There are a number of beautiful and old traditional houses near our community.
This individual had wanted more information and this program is timely. Can you clarify if it is only organizations that can apply and not individuals?
I again thank you.
I am obliged to talk about eligibility to submit requests on capital projects.
If there is a non-profit society in a community - I’m not quite sure how to translate “society” into Inuktitut - and they have a committee with an executive who knows how to put together a submission, they are eligible.
The local hamlet or a non-profit society can also make a submission.
The society would have to submit proof of their society status, which would be reviewed and then they can be considered for financial contribution for their application.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you. Thank you for giving me a well-defined answer.
It’s my understanding that ordinary people are generally not part of a society.
Can they participate in a request for funding that you mentioned? Can they apply for this funding as well?
From what I understand, can the application forms that we submit be eligible?
I can use something in Arviat as an example. There is a society in Arviat and they asked me the same question this past summer.