EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In terms of opening the airport itself, we’re talking about maintenance of the road. Right now, there are workers who work up in Nanisivik.
I guess this is more O&M, sorry, but if the airport is actually going to be finished on time, we need to clear the roads. Have there been negotiations going on with the Hamlet of Arctic Bay in terms of what’s going to be happening, in terms of opening it on time?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, I would like to remind you that the airport redevelopment is the topic for now.
Minister Taptuna, do you want to respond to Mr. Elliott.
What the member is asking is about the O&M contracts which may be negotiated with hamlets or other various companies.
I would rather discuss the capital plan than the O&M.
That’s fine. I’ll save my questions for March.
Right now, in Nanisivik, there is a structure where they park the graders and some of the equipment. Yet when you go to where the new airport is in Arctic Bay, they don’t have any structures there for parking any of the vehicles. Where will they be parking the vehicles?
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) You’re absolutely right; we don’t have a garage in Arctic Bay right now.
That’s something that we’re going to have to look at too because we’re going to have to house the equipment that’s going to be used to maintain the airport in Arctic Bay.
As you may know, we have shelter problems not only in Arctic Bay right now.
There are 12 others that we have to look at, but we will look into that, Mr. Chairman.
I guess I’m a little leery because if you’re saying you’re going to look into it and there are other communities that don’t have as well, that probably means we will be waiting until 2015.
So you’re saying that none of this $24,887,000 plus the $600,000 that’s being put in this year, there was no thought put into a building to house equipment.
As my ADM indicated, there are a lot of priorities and some of these issues are going to be ongoing, as the member is well aware.
There is a lot of infrastructure needed in Nunavut, not just in Arctic Bay; it’s practically all over in Nunavut.
We try and prioritize on what the communities want and need.
As the member is well aware, it’s going to be a really tough situation. We do have a lot of communities that need garages, airports, and docks.
As every member is aware, we have been trying to work on that, but with the amount of resources we’re allocated from the federal government it’s going to be a tough situation.
The question I wanted to ask was when they did the planning and design, the initiation, and all of the different steps that they’re following through to build an airport, you’re saying that when they do that, a place to house equipment is not prioritized, so it’s not in the planning.
I’m just wondering: why was it not included in the planning?
I’ll have my ADM answer that question.
We take it into consideration, but because of our limited capital, we haven’t been able to do anything that we wanted to do. For example, the cost to build a parking garage, the number we are getting from CGS is about $300,000 to $400,000. We only get $3 million to $4 million for parking garages.
We are trying to find a cheaper way to house the equipment right now.
We are trying to work through the BCF to try to get a few of those built for under that amount.
Hopefully we can also look at including Arctic Bay in those.
We are planning, I think, three shelters under that program if it’s approved and we’re going to be looking at other ones too.
I don’t want to be seen as asking for more than our fair share. I just find it frustrating that we are lucky enough to get a brand-new airport in Arctic Bay. We’re going to be lucky enough to have infrastructure for the Nanisivik Naval Facility, but we’re not going to be able to benefit from it because there is no road going over there anymore.
I guess it is the longest and only highway in Nunavut and now it’s being closed down.
At the same time, it’s infrastructure that is there and we’re talking about Canadian arctic sovereignty, the Canadian Northwest Passage, we’re talking about global warming and the opening of the passage, and now we’re getting infrastructure taken away.
My point is I think maybe there might have been poor planning in terms of when you’re building an airport.
I would have thought I wouldn’t have to go back after the airport was built and wonder where the facility was to house equipment. I thought that would have been included in the initial ones.
I’m sorry if it looks like I’m asking for more, I’m just asking why it wasn’t in the initial plan.
I’ll try and answer that question.
As the member realizes, there are other communities out there too and other people.
What we had planned may not seem right when you don’t have the resources and plans; it seems like it is wrong.
With very little resources, we’re limited to what we can do. For some of this infrastructure, that’s already there, such as the road, this department does not have the resources to keep it open.
As I indicated before, if the military wants to keep it open, they can either contact our department or the community itself.
Then again, with having very limited resources, sure it will be great if we could house every piece of equipment that’s up in Nunavut, but again, I have to say again with limited resources, it’s… .
We just try and do what the priorities of the communities are, especially when they’re related to safety.
Mr. Elliott, you have 26 seconds.
I was going to let other members ask questions at this time.
Before I compose a question to the minister in the witness table, I wanted to ask. The question is under the various activities and it’s pertaining to breakwater.
Would I need to be corrected? Is it the right activity to ask about the breakwater?
Mr. Ningark, small crafts harbours are in the estimates.
Before the hon. minister was part of the government of today about eight years ago, we had a panel of people coming into our community having a public meeting and asking people about breakwater locations and so on.
People realized that Kugaaruk is situated is an ideal, practical place to have a breakwater. The natural formation was there, it was considered in a prevailing wind, and the location that was picked by the community was ideal, as I stated.
The plan was so convincing that one hunter in the community was concerned about stones and rocks running out because it’s going to take so many materials that rocks and stones… . He was kind of worried that we’re going to run out of rocks within the community.
He was that convincing. Since then, we have not heard anything of the meeting and promises, and so on. Is the minister aware that there was such a plan to build a breakwater for Kugaaruk?
I’m not aware of any breakwater plans for Kugaaruk, but I will get my ADM to answer that question.
The member is right. When we were studying the seven harbours for potential fisheries, Kugaaruk was included in the seven harbours that we listed and it’s included in the report.
We’re still trying to get the DFO to start implementing that report.
As you guys know, there is only one so far being started and that’s in Pangnirtung. There are still the other six that haven’t started yet. That’s included in the report.
I thank the deputy minister for setting things right.
There was, in fact, a visit by the federal government or consultants; they all look the same anyway.
So, Mr. Chairman, I am asking the minister if this fact-finding mission to get the plan back on track… .
Will the minister tell this Committee of the Whole that he will, in fact, bring this back on track for the community of Kugaaruk?
I apologize to the member. For his first question, I thought he was specifically speaking about breakwaters. We’re trying to get it on track for these small craft harbours within Nunavut communities.
Yes, we were continuing and we’re continuing hard to lobby the federal government where it’s their fiduciary duty and responsibility to put these infrastructures in every community in Canada, including Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation ends) Again, as I stated to Mr. Elliott earlier, if we can stick to the topics of I-6, it would be appreciated, Mr. Ningark.
Mr. Ningark: I just want to thank the minister. Either it’s a breakwater, a small harbour, or what have you.
If it’s infrastructure, I’m more than happy to receive something for my community.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. (interpretation ends) I take that just as a comment.
Also, again I would like to thank the Hon. Minister Taptuna and his officials for presenting themselves before us.
In 2010, the Agnico-Eagle mine will open for production. Baker Lake will contribute to the gross domestic product upon where Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the Kivalliq Inuit Association will receive royalties.
Baker Lake needs to be a more active partner to becoming self-reliant and under the Tamapta plan, this supports this, but in order to do that, Baker Lake needs a foundation where major infrastructure projects must be implemented in order that my community can better contribute in strengthening our territory.
Baker Lake does not want to be on the outside looking in. We need development and we need this government to make a commitment in establishing a foundation by improving our docks, but more importantly, opening a new airport and runway to be able to allow jets and Hercules with cargo and, more importantly, allowing the most important resources, people, contractors… .
Chairman: Mr. Aupaluktuq, again I would like to remind you that for the time being, I think it would be best to focus on the airport improvement that is highlighted for Baker Lake.
Any new items aren’t really part of the topic we’re on at this time.
I just wanted to caution you. Mr. Aupaluktuq.
That is where I was headed. Basically this as well, the books here, our capital budget is showing $250,000 for airport improvements.
I can assure you that our terminal is reaching its 25-year lifespan. It is too small. There is literally standing room only when we have that number of people coming in and out.
As the hon. minister will know, last week, I raised some questions in the House and I just wanted to advise the minister to seriously consider the fact that we don’t just need airport improvements; we need a new airport in the whole area.
So I just wanted to ask the minister how this $250,000 in the capital is meant to be used.
The $250,000 allocated for that is to initiate planning and design for the existing airport improvements.
I also appreciate the minister’s response.
I wanted to ask that as a formality. I know for a fact that later in the House and as well as in O&M, I will be continuing to ask a lot more questions. I just wanted to make my statements just for the record.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. I didn’t hear a question.
I also don’t have any more names on my list.
Transportation. Page I-5. (interpretation ends) Total Capital Expenditures. $4,850,000. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Go back to page I-2. (interpretation ends) Department Summary.
Economic Development and Transportation. Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $5,550,000.
I just have one quick question. Will the minister be informing through written correspondence to the communities and to the MLAs about the progress that is being made or a lack of it with the federal government and the small craft harbour initiatives?
I will bring that to my department and respond at a later date because it is an ongoing initiative.
We don’t know exactly how many partners we’re going to attract to help us build this infrastructure, especially these harbours.
If there is anything that is tangible and if the process is going to be started, of course, I will update the House and the communities.
Page I-2. For the last time, (interpretation ends) Department Summary. Economic Development and Transportation.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $5,550,000. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Does the minister have any closing comments?
I would like to thank the members for all of their comments, their thoughts. Of course, as a department, we will be doing our best to initiate some of these ideas and comments.
As members are all aware, we have very limited funding within our whole government system, but we will do our best. I’ve got to thank the members for their thoughts and comments again.
I would also like to thank my staff for all of their hard work, the deputy minister and the assistant deputy minister.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna, including your officials.
In order to allow the next department representatives to make preparations for their presentations, we will take a five-minute break and then proceed to our next departmental review.
Chairman (Mr. Shell): I would like to call the meeting to order.
I would now like to ask Minister Shewchuk of the Department of Environment to make his opening remarks.
Bill 08 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2010-2011 – Environment – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to be here today before the Committee of the Whole to present my department’s capital plan for the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s proposed capital budget for 2010-11 is $2.16 million. The capital projects for 2010-11 focus on three key areas: wildlife management, environmental protection, and parks and special places.
Mr. Chairman, my department’s 2010-11 capital plans for the Wildlife Management Division focus on maintaining and renovating present wildlife offices, planning for construction of a much needed replacement wildlife office in Coral Harbour, replacing some of our aging wildlife mobile equipment, and some other minor capital projects in various communities.
The Department of Environment also plans to purchase recycling equipment for our three pilot recycling projects in Rankin Inlet, Kugluktuk, and Iqaluit.
These recycling pilot projects require recycling depots as well as equipment purchase and set-up.
Mr. Chairman, my department’s 2010-11 capital estimates also include a variety of parks projects throughout the territory. Territorial parks play a crucial role in the protection and promotion of Nunavut’s outstanding natural and cultural heritage. They also support positive recreation and tourism experiences that help Nunavut communities.
Through our capital plan, we are continuing to ensure our parks meet the needs of Nunavutmiut and visitors to Nunavut.
My department’s 2010-11 capital projects include the completion of tent platforms and outhouses in Ovayok Territorial Park in Cambridge Bay, the final installation of newly constructed interpretive panels for the Fossil Creek Trail in Coral Harbour, and the installation of new interpretive signs and facilities at several parks throughout the territory.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s capital plan is focused in areas that clearly support the needs and priorities of the government as set out in Tamapta and also meets the needs of communities throughout Nunavut.
I would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Ma’na, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to introduce to my right the Deputy Minister of Environment, Simon Awa, and to my left, the Director of Corporate Services for the Department of Environment, Camilius Egeni.
Chairman: Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Environment have any comments?
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Environment’s proposed 2010-11 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for 2010-11 is $2,160,000.
Its capital budget was $1,685,000 in 2009-2010 and $1.7 million in 2008-09.
A further $100,000 was allocated for this project in 2009-2010.
There is no funding allocated for this project in the proposed 2010-11 capital estimates.
Members have been advised by the minister that further consultations and work will occur with respect to such issues as land tenure and mineral prospecting in the area.
Members look forward to receiving ongoing updates on this project.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2010-11 capital estimates includes funding for the replacement of a wildlife office in Coral Harbour.
The department’s five-year capital plan indicates that wildlife offices in Pangnirtung, Repulse Bay and Resolute Bay will be replaced in coming years.
Members would like to acknowledge the recent correspondence received from the minister to the standing committee regarding members’ concerns with respect to the replacement of wildlife offices across Nunavut.
The standing committee appreciates the minister having provided a “Wildlife Office Replacement List by Priority” to the committee following his appearance.
The Committee looks forward to ongoing updates on this issue.
The department’s 2010-11 capital estimates proposes $150,000 in funding for renovations and repairs to wildlife offices and research facilities across the territory.
The department’s proposed 2010-11 capital estimates includes $1.2 million in funding for small capital projects.
Members generally support improvements to Nunavut’s territorial parks and look forward to progress also being made with respect to the development and implementation of management plans for our heritage rivers, such as the Thelon and Kazan.
Members also support the work being initiated on Napartulik, the Axel Heiberg Fossil Forest Territorial Park, and look forward to progress on this project.
On February 8, 2008, a federal-territorial news release announced that the Government of Canada would invest approximately $1.6 million in the Sylvia Grinnell Bridge project.
It also announced that “Indian and Northern Affairs Canada would contribute $838,669 as part of the Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development initiative, and the Department of National Defence would contribute over $800,000 to design and construct the bridge and manage the project through the Bridges for Canada program.”
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, it was confirmed that the department’s 2010-11 capital estimates have allocated $200,000 towards this proposed project.
Mr. Chairman, on March 6, 2008, the Minister of Environment made a statement in the Legislative Assembly concerning the GN’s plans to establish a recycling program. The department’s five-year capital plan includes a project to purchase recycling equipment and establish recycling depots.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, he stated that “the department plans to purchase recycling equipment for three pilot projects in Rankin Inlet, Kugluktuk and Iqaluit.”
Members note that the department’s information concerning this project originally indicated that the Kitikmeot community to be involved would be Cambridge Bay. Members look forward to receiving an explanation as to why the participating community has been changed.
Members appreciate the minister’s recent correspondence to the committee concerning the status of this initiative and look forward to ongoing updates on it. The standing committee also encourages the department to work with businesses and shipping companies to explore the potential for removing recyclables from the territory.
The standing committee encourages the departments of Community and Government Services and Environment to work closely together with respect to the development and management of such infrastructure as sewage lagoons and municipal landfills. This is a comment that I also made during the review of the 2010-11 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2009-2010 business plan states that “a lack of modern community waste management infrastructure impacts compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.”
It is clear to the committee that issues related to the enforcement of environmental protection legislation require further scrutiny.
The committee looks forward to its review of the department’s 2010-11 main estimates and business plan at the upcoming winter session of the Legislative Assembly.
At its recent annual general meeting in Cambridge Bay, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities passed a resolution concerning the removal of scrap metal waste from Nunavut’s communities. The standing committee appreciates receiving a copy of the department’s response to the resolution and encourages the minister to table this document in the Legislative Assembly for the benefit of the public.
The standing committee also encourages the department to work with all stakeholders to ensure that the “End of Life Vehicles” project in Iqaluit proceeds during the next shipping season.
Mr. Chairman, during the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members suggested that the department consider the use of reverse vending machines as a potential approach to recycling in smaller communities. The standing committee is pleased that the minister’s recent correspondence to the committee indicated that the department is reviewing this option. Members look forward to ongoing updates on this issue.
The standing committee is also pleased with the department’s recent purchase of environmentally-friendly unpainted pencils that will be provided to children in schools across the territory. This is a small, but welcome, step in the right direction and members encourage the department to continue such initiatives to promote the use of environmentally-friendly products in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2010-11 Capital Estimates of the Department of Environment.
I don’t have any general comments, but I do have a question.
On the third paragraph of page 1, the Hon. Minister of Environment talks about parks and special places.
My question then is: what are the special places? Bird sanctuaries? What are these things?
Caribou calving grounds and so on? Will the minister elaborate a bit on the terms “special places”?
Thank you for the question to the member.
Special places or parks do include park areas and areas where there are old traditional camps.
They may include special hunting areas, calving grounds, and culturally sensitive areas that communities are interested in.
My subsequent question from the answer of the hon. minister is then: is his department overlapped with CLEY, or Culture, Language, Elders and Youth?
Yes, we do work very closely with CLEY on these areas and protecting some of the areas.
I have nobody else on the list. I have no more members on my list for general comments.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page G-3.
We are starting our review of these items and I would like to refer to the amount listed on page G-4. Can you provide some details on what is included in this $1.2 million allocation? I would like to be provided some information on what is included in this amount.
If the minister could highlight some of these items, I would appreciate the information.
The $1.2 million is targeted for areas of small equipment replacement in all 25 communities, which includes snowmobiles, boats, ATVs, vehicles. It also includes wildlife office renovations in all of our 25 offices across the territory.
It includes small park equipment that we may need in our parks, small equipment that we need for research people in all of the regions, and it is going to include small recycling equipment too.
So it’s all of the smaller equipment that we need to function in all of our wildlife stations.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) According to my colleague here and the committee report, there’s also $200,000 in there for a bridge at the Sylvia Grinnell River. Is that the case?
There is $200,000 allocated in there for site development of the Sylvia Grinnell Bridge.