EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
At its September 2004 Retreat in Arviat, Full Caucus announced that one of the key priorities for the Second Legislative Assembly is “ensuring the security of Nunavut’s cultural legacy by implementing plans for a territorial heritage centre and the repatriation of Nunavut’s cultural treasures from other jurisdictions.”
The information provided to members on the heritage centre project indicates that the total cost of a new Heritage Centre is budgeted at $60 million.
A total of $50 million is anticipated to be recovered through third party funding.
In 2004, the GN established a trilateral working group with NTI and the Inuit Heritage Trust to develop a strategic plan for capital fundraising for the Centre.
Although the department has allocated $1.5 million for the 2006-07 fiscal year towards this project, it is not entirely clear how the funds will actually be spent.
A capital fundraising plan is apparently being developed.
The community selection for the facility has not been formally announced, although members understand that it will likely be located in the capital, in order to be able to access potential federal funding for the project.
Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Finance’s recent presentation to all MLAs stressed the need for the GN’s capital planning process to include more comprehensive planning for future O&M costs for new facilities.
The committee would urge the Department of CLEY to bring forward realistic O&M and staffing projections for the new Heritage Centre.
The department also needs to define its capital spending plans with respect to its responsibilities for the Territorial Archives, given the potential for the facilities to be combined.
It is also important to clarify the extent to which the Departments of CLEY and Education are communicating and cooperating in the development of the proposed Nunavut Cultural School and the Nunavut Heritage Centre.
The committee looks forward to the minister providing regular updates to the Legislative Assembly and the public on the progress of this important initiative.
The committee would stress the importance of the minister tabling CLEY’s Annual Report on Grants and Contributions at the earliest opportunity.
The committee notes with approval that the 2004-05 report has been tabled this month.
Given that the department is seeking approval from the Legislative Assembly for a significantly enhanced capital budget, it is important that all Members of the Legislative Assembly have the opportunity to consider in detail the department’s past expenditures in this area.
The department’s annual reporting should also include information on the extent to which it is able to measure the effectiveness of its expenditures, in addition to information on the number of submissions that did not receive funding approval.
It is important to clarify the extent to which the Department of CLEY cooperates with the Department of Community and Government Services and the Nunavut Association of Municipalities in the administration of CLEY’s program to provide capital contributions for recreation facilities.
The committee notes that the department has committed to reviewing its policies on recreational facilities to better meet the needs of communities. The committee looks forward to a revised policy being formally tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
The department has responsibility for the Nunavut Historical Advisory Board, which is established by law in the Historical Resources Act. One of the responsibilities of this body is to provide advice to the government on the establishment of museums.
A number of individuals were appointed to this board in 2001. However, the appointments lapsed in 2003 and remain vacant to this day.
In light of the department’s plans to move forward with the establishment of the Nunavut Heritage Centre, it be would appear desirable to fill these positions at the earliest opportunity.
Members noted in a recent letter from the minister that a review has been initiated on the statute, and that the department does not plan to make new appointments until the review has been completed.
The 2004 GN departmental reorganization resulted in the transfer of responsibility for Nunavut’s public libraries from the Department of Education to the Department of CLEY.
Members would wish to see CLEY identify capital spending needs for public libraries across the territory’s communities. In light of Nunavut’s disappointing results in the recent international Adult Literacy and Skills Survey, investments in our public library system would support other GN efforts to deliver literacy programs to our residents.
Mr. Chairman, the GN’s June 2005 Inuit Employment Plan statistics reveal that the department continues to face challenges in filling its positions in Igloolik. Almost half of the department’s positions in the community remain unfilled. This situation has also been noted with respect to the Department of Environment.
The standing committee was informed by the Minister of CLEY during his recent appearance before the committee that funding for some of the department’s Igloolik positions is being used to pay for the shared services agreement with the GNWT to house cultural items in Yellowknife.
The standing committee would question why these positions remain on the department’s organization chart, given that there is apparently no urgent need to fill them.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee recommends that the department table information in this House concerning the final costs of its major capital projects, including information on the Inuit labour content of each project, as well as any bonuses or penalties that have been assessed under the NNI Policy.
That concludes my opening comments. Individual members may have their own concerns and comments as we proceed.
Before we proceed I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77 (1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77 (2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to the matter under discussion about but not until every member has spoken.
I suggest to members that where ever possible you ask detailed questions during page by page review of the departmental estimates. Do members have any general comments?
Minister, welcome; and your officials, David, I don’t know the other person.
I just want to comment that you feel strongly about the Inuit language and culture. And the territorial libraries they are very important and very beneficial. But I have concerns that these projects it seems I don’t know where are they going to be built and why don’t you specify as to where we are going to build them.
And we keep saying we want to be transparent. It doesn’t seem to be that way. It seems like if we are going to be building something we have to have a site in plan and check other communities.
I wonder if the minister knows where they want to see these projects.
It seems right now that the government folk school $1.5 million, and the trade school, which we heard through the commissioner’s speech that they will be discussing as to where the location will be.
But if regular members were being asked just to approve you don’t know where it has to be. It seems just to the discretion of the Cabinet and that seems to be the case and we are always reminded to spend our money wisely.
And they want to find the final costs and they were told last fall I have a concern now. Why aren’t you willing to tell us where they are going to be?
Is it going to be in Iqaluit, the heritage centre or other communities?
You don’t care about the other regions.
Is it easier just to put them in the headquarters and for members to approve?
Because once it is up to the Cabinet they can decide and I think we are just giving them a blank cheque.
During the campaign we were saying that we will inform the public and we will work cooperatively. What is going on with the ministers?
Once we get to the appropriate page I will be asking because we shouldn’t be working this way. There are other communities and other regions in which people are looking for employment. There are more jobs here in the headquarters than in any other.
I don’t think I am the only one who has concerns about this and we should be given the chance to have that explained to us. Those were just my opening comments.
Chairman: General comments.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d like to welcome Tapardjuk, David and another David.
And I’d like to welcome but Arctic Bay isn’t included in the heritage site in regard to the operations.
There doesn’t seem to be estimate for operations because our elders don’t have a place to meet. What they do is go to somebody’s residence and have a meeting because the building that is designed to be part of the elders committee it is also part of the youth centre. So it is combined and it is very, very old.
I believe it was built around 1945 the present building that they use and they tried to use it as a youth centre and for other organizations to use. For smaller communities we are given and handed everything whether it is an old building just as long we have a building.
Maybe they should be given buildings that are a bit attractive. We see the heritage centre is going to be opened and if it doesn’t have proper management it’ll be just wasting funding and I believe it will be just wasting money.
So if it is going to be built they spend about $50,000 and they have to abide by government policies and it has to be like an old sod house. But it requires two entrances and two exits anyway because it has to follow the code and requires lighting and fuel.
And I just wanted to point that out. Our youths also needs a youth centre.
We will now go to page-by-page in the review of departmental estimates.
Starting on page F-6.
Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth. Directorate.
Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $1,623,000.
I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the minister’s officials to the House, to the Chambers, to the hot seat, you can call it whatever you want, but just welcome.
My question on these two programs, especially the community, heritage, elders, and youth centres funding and the recreation facilities: over the last year or so, what has been the uptake, basically, on that?
Is it something that’s a very popular program and the applications are being denied because of not enough funding? It seems to be an adequate amount of funding level.
I’m just curious to find out.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) For the community, heritage, elders, and youth centres for this year, although the minister mentioned in his opening comments, there was a second call for proposals.
There was still funding available for this fiscal year for that program and for the recreation facilities projects. The requests are far greater than what their need is for this program.
So far, we’ve got a very small amount left for this fiscal year and expecting to finish them.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Akeeagok.
Mr. Tootoo: I don’t have any further questions.
You caught me by surprise, Mr. Tootoo.
I thank the minister and his officials for coming here today.
I just want a clarification on a couple of things here. The funding for youth centres; is that funding available to every community in Nunavut; every community has a youth centre, or a proposal to build a youth centre?
The reason I asked, Mr. Minister, is that there’s a program down in Ottawa called the ‘Urban Multi-Purpose Aboriginal Youth Centre’ fund, I’m not sure of its exact acronym.
I know in Cambridge Bay, we used it one year to help get our youth centre going. The cut-off limit was a population of 1,000. We accessed that fund to help get a youth centre going, but does that necessarily prevent any community that’s over a thousand from accessing youth centre funding?
Yes, to answer the member’s question.
The money is there available to be accessed by anyone who has a place for a youth centre that’s an old building.
That’s just for the older buildings to be accessed for youth centres and they have to have an application to access funding for that.
I thank the minister for the answer. It clarifies something for me.
And my second question; I just wonder if the community heritage...I’m referring back to your opening comments, a stone church in Kugaaruk as an historic site, what is the definition of a historic site under your criteria?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, the one in Kugaaruk, that’s a historical site and we get some funding from the federal government to be accessed by heritage sites, such as the one in Kugaaruk. There is some money available for historical sites.
The heritage facilities are also part of the definition of heritage sites. Those are the ones that are protected, that are in the communities, for which the money can be accessed.
The reason I ask Mr. Minister, is because in Cambridge Bay we also have a stone church and it’s referred to locally as the Old Stone Church.
It’s probably that old. I think it was constructed in 1954 or ’55 but it’s in a real serious need of repair. It’s a tourist site, a heritage site, and it’s part of the community, the history of the community; the old town.
It’s actually the only part of the old town that is still over and across the bay where the old town site is. I know from my own experience, when tourists come to town, they like to go over there and take pictures and ask questions about it, but it’s in really bad shape.
The cross has fallen down. I know from the Government of the Northwest Territories days, there were funds available. I think they were accessed a couple of times to try and upgrade the church.
I think it would be something that our hamlet would like to talk to your department about in terms of accessing some funding in the coming years to upgrade the church before it deteriorates too much further because it’s already in bad condition.
It’s probably posing a danger to people who go near the church. I’m not 100 percent sure that it’s a historic site as defined by your department, but it’s certainly something in our community that is defined as a historic site.
I said we refer to it as the Old Stone Church.
I’m wondering Mr. Chairman, if the minister could comment on whether his department would be willing to work with the hamlet council in Cambridge Bay to look at how to protect the stone church as it is now and then look to upgrading it or repairing it in the coming years.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): The funding that we have available for the heritage sites and heritage facilities, the money is there available for those types of things to upgrade them and to renovate them. That’s what the money is there for.
The minister was saying that the hamlet then could just put in an application to your department with plans and then you would review it and consider it and hopefully it gets approved.
Just go through that process?
I understand that the minister is planning to come to Cambridge Bay, I think maybe next week or the week after. Perhaps we could discuss it more over there with the hamlet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Under the same page, in the minister’s opening remarks, he said that his department has capital funding of $3.183 million allocated to four capital projects; that those four projects at the beginning...can he state which four projects he’s talking about?
Chairman: Minister Tapardjuk.
If I made a mistake, please let me know but, office renovations in Baker Lake and Igloolik, and it will cost in the amount of $60,000; capital contributions to heritage, elder’s and youth centres in the amount of $968,000, and capital contributions to non-profit community based individuals and organizations for recreation facilities projects.
Say recreational facilities projects, such as swimming pools or the construction or the... and that amount is $655,000.
There is $1.5 million that is set aside for a Nunavut heritage centre.
In total, that is $3.183 million allotted to the four capital projects.
Yes, I understand, but last week and last year you had some contribution money for those projects, for projects that people requested in the communities, for renovations and other contributions.
Your department hands out money for people that apply to your department for funding. There are quite a few communities that benefit from these monies.
Is there any funding available for people who request funding from your department? Will we be able to get some listed facilities that have requested funding from you and that have been approved?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will get my deputy to respond to that question, David Akeeagok.
You’re looking at page F-6 of the capital estimates.
That amount of money is available for communities that request funding from that amount of money but we have not.... there was a list that the minister provided as to who got funding from these amounts on page F-6.
Every year, the minister hands out a list of the names of the facilities that received contributions and so on.
As I stated earlier, there are quite a number of projects that are slated for operations and maintenance and not necessarily capital.
I don’t seem to see any breakdown, but I would like to ask the minister if you would be able to give us a breakdown of the costs; what is allotted for capital; what is allotted for operations and maintenance, and the dollar amount on each project, whether they’ve been used for equipment or for facilities.
I’m sure that these monies will be used this fiscal year, but I would like to ask the minister to give us a copy of everything broken down.
Yes, I agree with you completely.
I think that it’s very important to give you a breakdown.
For 2004-05, we tabled a document in the House and of course, for this fiscal year, we will also be giving you some information with details once this is approved.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is very hard for your department when you just sign it and it just says it’s for this particular community.
When you’re following the acts, I’m sure that there are guidelines on what monies could be donated to certain organizations and what can’t. For example, you can’t make contributions or grants to religious groups.
There are specific guidelines that you have to adhere to. How do you know who to make donations and grants to?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, there are grants and contributions that are given to various organizations like cultural activities, language activities and capital and so on.
Everything single line item has guidelines that have to be followed. If you don’t have a copy, we could give you a copy of the guidelines that we use to make grants and contributions to the communities.
There are three especially that we’re talking about in capital. There is community heritage, elder’s and youth centres and others at the community level projects, that have been identified and they can apply for grants and contributions and they also have guidelines that they have to follow.
One thing I’m concerned about is Nunavut is quite large and I’ve seen a lot of requests for capital and for minor capitals.
As I stated earlier, you can’t give grants or contributions for religious organizations or their activities. Sometimes it must be quite hard to know whether the request is made for a renovation for something that’s owned by a religious organization. What happens in that case?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): First of all, there are different activities and they all have review committees; they do the review. Usually what they ask for is to put a call out there and ask people that they should make an application prior to March 31.
Once we get all of those applications, we have specific committees who review the applications following their criteria.
If it meets the criteria, then a contribution agreement would be signed by both parties.
We have this expectation, as a government, we have an expectation to see how these monies would be used and dependent on the amount of the grant or contribution, I think it’s capped at $15,000, we would set up criteria that would be covered under the contribution agreement. They would have to give us a summarized report of the activities that they carried out with the money. We have criteria that are followed by the financier and also the criteria that have been met by the client.
That didn’t answer my question at all. I think it was more of a yes or no answer that I was requesting.
There are a lot of different religious organizations out there. Accidentally, if we should make a grant or contribution for religious purposes, would those monies have to be returned to the government?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): There’s a contribution agreement that is signed by both parties that has to be given back to the government; if they didn’t meet that criteria, that is why they signed that contribution agreement prior to receiving that money. If we hear afterwards that they didn’t meet that criteria, then we would expect to get that money back.
We are on F-6. Questions to F-6. Capital.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): I will leave at that for now, Mr. Chairman.
Questions to F-6. Capital. Mr. Netser.
Under F-6, we have $655,000 for recreational facilities like swimming pools. It’s not geared towards new recreational facilities, is it?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): For example, it’s the existing facilities. We are now looking at the existing facilities like buying or renovating community recreational facilities.
If they would like to make renovations on those existing facilities they would be able to get the money but if they want to erect a brand new swimming pool for example they would approach Community and Government Services.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you very much for that explanation.
What about the arenas. Usually in the communities we don’t use the arenas in the spring or summer if it doesn’t have artificial ice.
And usually those facilities are not utilized. Could we access some of this $655,000 if we would want to build a swimming pool for example in that existing facility?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): I will refer that question to my deputy minister.
Chairman: Mr. Akeeagok.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Under our rules one community can access up to $250,000 for three years.
We have that rule that we abide by.
So do I understand that if we build a swimming pool inside an existing arena or the outside of the building that the community is eligible to apply for $250,000 right?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, if it going to improve the facility or if it is going to expand the facility, $250,000 can be accessed for three years to improve or enlarge an existing facility.
These monies could build that swimming pool if it would be an improvement.
That is very pleasing to hear because the population in our communities are increasing and arenas are not utilized in the spring or summer.
Are you going to make that announcement to the communities so they’ll know so that they’ll access those funds?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Very much. We could use different modes of communication to inform the communities.
We usually get the message out when there are monies available that can be accessed and we can also send out the communiqués to the Hamlets and the interested parties at the community level.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Tapardjuk. Mr. Netser.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you. This $250,000 can be accessed and used within three years, so it would come out of that $655,000?
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, it would.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): That is it for now.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Netser. Mr. Curley.
Minister, according to the way I see it, these amounts of money aren’t enough for the whole communities, although I am in support of grants and contributions to assist in the existing facilities for youth, recreation, and elders facilities.
With that small amount of money they are not enough for communities.
I’m in full support of you to increase this amount.