EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to the comments that were made by the committee chairman on page 3 it says that the Wildlife Act is still being worked on to date.
I think we know why it’s taking so long.
We would like to see some changes made.
If you look at the Nunavut Wildlife Act, we have a public government; that’s the Nunavut Government and then we have the Land Claims Agreement.
I would like it to be seriously considered because it is costing a lot of money to do a review of the Act and this is more of a comment than anything else, but one thing that’s not here but is still in the capitals is that the National Parks are under the responsibility of the federal government.
The federal government, I’m not sure where their head office is, somewhere in Canada, possibly in Winnipeg, but they are the ones who set up the policies and if you look at Pond Inlet’s for example the CBs have a relay where you can call somebody who might be very far.
My question to the minister is if it’s possible for your department to talk to National Parks and see if the communities can be included in the frequency and what we hear is that the National Parks doesn’t want to give that frequency to the hunters.
If there is an emergency, you know it takes quite a while to fix the HF, or to tune in the HF radios and it takes a lot shorter time to get in contact with somebody out there with a CB. I would like to urge your department to work closely with the National Parks and the HTO because the HTO don’t have a lot of money.
We would like to have the hunters be able to go through that channel in case of emergencies.
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page I-G, I-6, sorry.
I welcome the minister and his officials to the House today.
Can the minister expand a little bit on what the $1 million is going to buy, it is listed there under small capital; it says $300,000 and less. Are there any projects in there that might be $299,000?
Could he repeat that question please? I kind of missed it somewhat.
Mr. Peterson, could you please repeat your question to the minister.
On Page I-6 there’s $1 million budgeted for small capital projects, $300,000 or less. What I’m seeking information on, Mr. Chair, can the minister provide some detailed explanation of what projects he anticipates that $1 million being directed towards in 2007-08?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can find page I-6. I didn’t get your question.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, on page I-6. Detail of Capital.
Environment. Program Development.
In the headquarter section. There is $1 million budgeted for 2007-08 capital estimates. It is under the item titled small capital $300,000 or less.
I am seeking information. Can the minister provide us with any specific details of projects that they may be planning to fund in 2007-08 with that $1 million? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for that question from the member. (interpretation) Part of the $1 million will be used for the wildlife officers and for an office in Cambridge Bay.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Peterson, do you any more questions? Mr. Peterson.
I am not quite sure if I understood the answer because on the next page there is $775,000 budgeted for the wildlife officers placement in Cambridge Bay and that would clearly exceed the small capital budget which says $300,000 or less.
So I’ll ask the question to the minister again: can he provide a detailed list of the small capital projects that they plan to finance in 2007-08, for $300,000 or less?
Hon. Patterk Netser: We have at least 21 projects that we would like to do with that $300,000 or less.
Can the minister provide the information, or names of the projects, or where they are located?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Okay, I’ll go down the list. (interpretation) For Cape Dorset, there is $50,000 for park development; in Clyde River there is $55,000 for park development; Hall Beach for the completion for the wildlife office there is $50,000; for Iqaluit for the Sylvia Grinnell Park development there is $50,000; Kimmirut $50,000; Pangnirtung $100,000; Chesterfield Inlet for the completion for the wildlife office $50,000.
For Cambridge Bay for the office $775,000; and for Baffin $212,000 for wildlife, equipment replacement parts; in Baffin area, $15,000; Kivalliq mobile equipment wildlife, $118,000; Kivalliq area there is $15,000; Kitikmeot various equipment mobile equipment wildlife, $107,000; Kitikmeot various equipment replacement there is $15,000; Nunavut various wildlife offices renovations there is $100,000; Nunavut various equipment replacement for parks, $10,000; lab monitoring mobile research equipment $20,000; and Nunavut Parks legal survey, $20,000; and last of all mobile research for mobile equipment is $25,000, which totals our budget for $2,025,000.
I understand the minister’s information he’s providing, he’s provided the information for all of the projects under his department this year, next year, including the projects listed on page I-7.
I think we can decipher from the information what the $1 million will be used for.
That’s all of my questions.
Welcome minister, and your staff.
I have some questions here, before I ask my questions, I received a letter from the minister dated October 23, 2006. This letter was to inform me that the transfer was made in the amount of $70,000 from the Kugluktuk Bloody Falls Project, Parks Project to meet a shortfall on the Sylvia Grinnell Park Signage Project in Iqaluit.
The hamlet and I were very upset about this, and we would like some clarification from the minister on this issue.
I have a couple of questions, Mr. Chairman. Can the minister provide me with today, with the detailed update on the status of the Bloody Falls Project, and tell me whether this transfer was, will delay the project?
I believe the reason why we transferred the funds from the Bloody Falls Project to the one in Iqaluit is because of the limited budget that we have for Parks and Special Areas in the government.
We transferred, temporarily transferred that funds to finish the project here in Iqaluit but we allocated the money to finish the project up in Bloody Falls.
Mr. Chairman, the substantiation sheets for the Bloody Falls Project indicated that a total of $921,000 was, will be spent up to 2011 and beyond.
The letter to me stated that the department will be investing $111,000 in the departmental management plan for this project. Can he give me some details on this plan also?
I’m going to ask Mr. Monteith to answer that question, they are detailed so, Mr. Monteith.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Monteith.
Mr. Monteith: The Bloody Fall Project is a very complex project.
We have been working on it for several years; we have been working with the hamlet on developing a trail out to Bloody Falls. We have put some interpretive signs out at Bloody Falls. We’ve done, completed a master plan for the park which gives us some ideas on expansion for the park and we are now working on the Heritage River Designation.
The management plan for which you have seen advertisements in the newspaper for that work, we are working with the local HTO and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association.
We need to have that document completed before we determine how we are going to, what we’re going to do next. The management plan will give us some sort of direction on what kind of development might take place at Kugluktuk, on the river and in the park, but that work still needs to be completed and we’re hoping to have it done in April or May next year.
Mr. Evyagotailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Minister. Thank you, Mr. Monteith.
Mr. Chairman, can the minister please ensure that he will keep me and the hamlet fully informed on the status of this project when it is changed?
Hon. Patterk Netser: Yes, we will.
In my opening remarks, I talked about the wildlife offices have been deferred, and especially what I’d like to understand that the offices that were supposed to have been built for the wildlife offices in the communities such as Whale Cove and Chesterfield Inlet for instance and Hall Beach. Have you completed those, or have you started the construction on the wildlife offices in those areas?
Those three communities Chesterfield Inlet, Whale Cove, and Hall Beach have started construction.
We are Item I-6.
Maybe Mr. Mapsalak has a question on I-6.
Please keep with the page.
If I can ask a question: do all the communities in Nunavut have a wildlife office, or is there any community that doesn’t have a wildlife office?
They all have offices in Nunavut communities.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister. (interpretation ends) Before I recognize anybody else, I would like to recognize and welcome to the Assembly the Honourable Mayor of Landpark Islands, Ontario Mr. Terry McDermott and her Worship the Mayor Elisapee Shieutiapik of Iqaluit. (interpretation) Welcome to them.
Chairman (interpretation): We are still on (interpretation ends) Environment.
Total Headquarters. $1,100,000.
Chairman: For Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $50,000.
Chairman: Environment.
Total Kivalliq Region. $100,000.
Chairman: Kitikmeot Region.
Total Kitikmeot Region. $775,000.
Sorry, Mr. Peterson.
My question for the minister; I received a couple of letters from the minister in September that the funds for this project were transferred to another project in Nunavut due to costs. I guess the costs are increasing for the wildlife offices; to build new wildlife offices.
My question for the minister is: the Cambridge Bay Wildlife Office; was that a priority project under the Government of Nunavut’s new prioritization system?
Yes, that was on the priority list, Cambridge Bay and it will be a two-man station once we complete that we plan to start construction next year.
Maybe raise your voice a little bit, sometimes we hardly hear you.
Just maybe for the benefit of all the Members of the Legislative Assembly, is it possible for you to provide a list of the current wildlife offices by community that are scheduled for replacement? I think the plan is to replace one every year for 25 years.
I want to know if that’s possible; it doesn’t need to be today, but if we can get that information at some point.
Can you hear me properly now? At this time the wildlife office will have to be deferred because of the lack of funding.
If we were to get more funding we will continue on with the construction, but right now it’s off the capital budget.
I’m not quite sure that I understood that last answer. As far as I understand the wildlife office for Cambridge Bay is budgeted $775,000. My question was: could we get a list of the wildlife offices by community that are proposed to be constructed over the next 25 years?
We’ll give him the list, but unfortunately, we don’t have any funding to do any more projects after Cambridge Bay.
I thank the minister. According to the Minister of Finance’s economic update last week we understand that the capital funds are short in Nunavut, and I also understand the prioritization system that is going to be implemented by the Government of Nunavut, actually it’s probably already being implemented.
So if I understand you correctly, you’re saying that you don’t have funds for future capital projects, but in fact, you’ll probably have to submit projects through the prioritization system that the government is implementing to deliver projects.
Who knows, maybe a few of those wildlife offices will receive priority consideration, over and above the other departments.
Perhaps the minister can clarify if my understanding of it is correct.
We had wanted to do one wildlife office every year but due to cutbacks we are unable to meet our plan.
Again, I understand that it’s a problem that the minister faces. I think we all want a wildlife office in every community upgraded and the capital funds are short. I understand that the initial promise, or commitment by your predecessors were; one wildlife office every year for 25 years.
I understand that that is a commitment he can’t keep, and I appreciate your honesty in telling us that, but I would like your reassurance on behalf of my colleagues that you will fight very hard and diligently to make wildlife offices a priority project when you compete with the other government departments in the future, under the government’s prioritization system.
Yes, we have, under wildlife office renovations we have $100,000 for next year, but I will do what I can to try and live up to our obligations.
Detail of Capital. Kitikmeot Region.
Total Tangible Assets. $2,025,000.
In my opening remarks, I stated that there needs to be cooperation between the National Parks personnel and the territorial government, and the communities affected, to share equipment that is made available, especially through National Parks.
They are the ones who seem to have all kinds of dollars to develop their National Parks Program including relay switches for CB communication, and they don’t want to share that with the communities.
Can the minister find out why they don’t want to share that with the communities? Could he find out later, and urge his federal counterparts to cooperate with the communities, because there is only one boat in the whole area that uses that CB with those antennas, and several mountains. That could be utilized for search and rescue, and the hunters who have boats in the area.
This is the first time we have heard this information. We will work with the officials of the federal government and find out what is happening.
Stating that, if they refuse to cooperate, would he consider utilizing...I don’t think they are that expensive, I think they’re around $70,000 a piece. That would fit nicely with the small capital items, Mr. Chairman.
Would he consider utilizing some, especially for mountainous communities like Pond Inlet? CB radios for rescue work and hunters are not very reliable. As soon as you get behind the mountain, you can’t communicate anymore, even if you’re very close.
Having those kinds of relay switches would help. Would the minister consider reviewing that idea and maybe bring it up in the next capital budget?
I believe that falls under the responsibility of Community and Government Services on the search and rescue, so the lady is listening and she’s up on I think she’s next on the witness stand.
Detail of Capital. Tangible Assets.
Kitikmeot Region. Total Kitikmeot Region. $775,000.
I-4. I-4, no bingo. I-4.
Environment. Departmental Summary.
Detail of Expenditure. Total Capital Expenditure. $2,025,000.
Are agreed the Department of Environment is concluded?
Some Member: Agreed
Chairman: Thank you, Committee.
Thank you, minister and your staff.
Minister, do you have closing remarks?
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you for being gentle with me. Thank you.
Chairman: Okay, Minister.
I would now like to ask Minister Brown for the Department of Community and Government Services to make her Opening Remarks.
Bill 26 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2007-08 – Review in Committee – Community and Government Services
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to appear before your committee and to take part in this review of the proposal by the Department of Community and Government Services for forthcoming capital expenditures.
This document before you includes my departments’ proposed Capital Estimates for the 2007-08 fiscal year, and our proposed Capital Plan for the period from 2007-08 to 2001-12.
To assist with your review I have with me today Pam Hine, Deputy Minister, and John Dawe, Director of Community Infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, through our capital expenditures and other programs CGS supports the communities, and gives them the tools and capacity to meet the needs of their residents. Added to this challenge is our role in helping other departments achieve their capital programs.
Housing, health care and education rely heavily on CGS expertise in delivery of their own capital infrastructure.
Once constructed, these facilities themselves continue to rely on the municipal service infrastructure provided by the department.
Thus, the capital plan before you is truly comprehensive in its beneficial effect upon the well-being of all Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, this particular capital program is a significant milestone in CGS infrastructure planning and development.
The past year was one of great achievement, and many of these achievements are reflected in the plan as you see it.
Most of the major projects approved in previous years under the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund are well in progress and we have recently revamped some internal accounting processes to simplify payment and make more timely use of available federal funds.
The Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee became fully functional over the past year, and this program is the first one to incorporate fully dedicated and comprehensive community consultation and priority ranking through the NCIAC.
Agreements for the two new federal funding programs (MRIF and Gas Tax) have been finalized and the resulting new funding has been incorporated into this plan.
This achievement has not been without its challenges. Fiscal pressures continue to challenge governments to make the best investment decisions in an atmosphere of demand far exceeding the supply of resources. Our partnerships with the communities through the NCIAC have been instrumental in trying to achieve a reasonable balance.
However, that relationship is still evolving and must be fostered to gain the most long- term benefit, especially in the post-approval phases when the results may not necessarily have met expectations.
The GN itself has started to modify its capital budgeting process, and this similarly must be developed over time to meet the needs of government. Our achievement in incorporating the new federal funding must not stop there, as we are challenged to pursue new or extended programs as the existing ones draw near to close.
Mr. Chairman, the longer-term future holds even more challenges. Fiscal pressures will always be found, and must be met. Community priorities must be recognized and their frequently changing nature accommodated.
Technical requirements are challenged by aging infrastructure and evolving regulatory regimes in such areas as municipal waste water and fuel storage.
We must keep up a reasonable level of investment in basic community infrastructure, to avoid falling so far behind that we will never catch up. Recognizing this, the proposal before you represents a reasonable compromise between needs, wants, and affordability, and balances that against what we cannot afford not to do. I earnestly commend it to your consideration.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your attention.
We are now ready to answer your questions.
Chairman: Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, could you please escort the witnesses in.
On my right is Pam Hine my deputy minister. On my left, John Dawe, who is Director of Community Infrastructure.
Ms. Hine and Mr. Dawe, welcome to the Committee of the Whole.
I thank and welcome the minister and her officials to the House today.
Just before I begin I would like to send our best wishes for a speedy recovery to our regular chair, MLA Tagak Curley from Rankin Inlet. I’m sure he is resting up and probably eager to get back to work. We hope he’s enjoying his time off.
Mr. Chairman, as co-chair of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Housing, and Economic Development, I am pleased to be able to provide opening comments as we begin the review of the 2007-08 Capital Estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee had the opportunity to meet with the Minister of Community and Government Services in September to review the draft 2007-08 capital estimates.
Members noted the Government of Nunavut’s new practice of combing all capital projects with an individual value of $300,000 or less into one capital item called; Small Capital.
Members are concerned that this practice does not allow for the review of future years’ spending under this item.
Taken together, this fund represents $3,895,000, or more than 23 percent of the Department of Community and Government Services total 2007-08 capital budget, and includes heavy equipment purchases and regional programs such as block funding, community planning, and mobile equipment repair.
Members urge the minister to ensure that long term planning for the replacement of heavy equipment is clear so that the municipalities know when their equipment will be replaced and can plan accordingly.
Mr. Chairman, members are concerned that tank farm projects have been delayed, and in some cases completely removed from the five year capital plan. Members note that some communities continue to require high cost airlifted fuel in the spring to ensure that there are no shortages.
Given the current rate of community growth, and the new federal environmental regulations related to bulk fuel storage, tank farm projects must be considered to be a priority.
Mr. Chairman, members were concerned that the capital plan does not include any granular projects for 2007-08. Last year, members were pleased to note the new Quarry Management Program that was supposed to have started in 2006-07, with further funding in 2007-08. Members are concerned that this project does not appear in the 2007-08 capital estimates.
Members note that all construction projects require granular materials and that many communities do not have access to quality granular materials.
Members are pleased that the 2007-08 capital estimates include projects with funding under the federal Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund. Members look forward to receiving updates from the minister on the progress of projects that are 100 percent funded under the federal Gas Tax Initiative funding.
Members recognize that the Government of Nunavut has limited resources for community infrastructure but are concerned that those limitations are not being clearly conveyed to municipalities.
It is important that all municipalities be made aware of the reality that infrastructure funds are limited, and are kept informed of long term planning for existing federal funding to ensure that their expectations are realistic.
Mr. Chairman, members noted that the five-year capital plan has changed from that which was presented last year.
Members look forward to reviewing the eight-year plan that is currently being developed by the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee.
Members recognize that the Government of Nunavut’s funding priority lies with projects that require us to provide matching funds to leverage funding from federal infrastructure programs.
However, members are concerned that the funding guidelines for the federal projects restrict the Government of Nunavut’s ability to set priorities when almost 100 percent of the capital budget for the Department of Community and Government Services is allocated to meet the matching requirements.
Members are concerned that this unduly restricts the Government of Nunavut’s ability to plan for infrastructure needs that lie outside the federal guidelines.
Members are aware that some projects that have been funded in the past through appropriations in this House are now being 100 percent funded through the federal Gas Tax initiative.  Members want to see a transparent plan for a reallocation of the Government of Nunavut funds that have been approved by members of this House for use in specific projects.
Members will note that 2007-08 is the final year of the Iqaluit Capital Contribution Agreement. Members understand that the department is currently negotiating with the City for a new Capital Contribution Agreement.
Members want to see details of the projects that have been funded under the current agreement prior to approving further allocations for similar agreements in the future.