EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In many communities, they burn combustible materials. At least that is how it is in our community. If we do not burn the materials, our land is subjected to high winds from the north and the materials would immediately get blown all over the land, so we have no choice but to burn the materials in our communities.
The practice of burning garbage causes many discomforts in our community, especially since we are situated in a fiord with high mountains on both sides that can recycle this particulate smoke.
Here in Iqaluit, the smoke at least is able to be blown in other directions and I am glad that is the case, but that is not the case in Pangnirtung. Due to the high mountains on both sides, the smoke just lingers in the fiord, especially when the wind dies down. The entire town starts reeking of this stench of burnt materials.
I noticed that here in Iqaluit when smoke from this current dump fire lingers above the government buildings, they are usually closed immediately, followed by the schools. Unfortunately that is no longer the case in our community because they are getting used to the smoke smell from the garbage. Even though they can smell the smoke from the garbage, they stay in at work or in school.
In some ways, this seems to have become just part of the daily life of our community, particularly with being stuck with the stench during evenings when the wind dies down and the smoke just lingers. That is how our community acts.
Between mornings and evenings, it is windy during the day and in the evenings, the wind dies down. When it reaches the period where the wind dies down and the smoke is just lingering, the fire department tries to lessen the impact of the smoke by dousing the flames.
We thank the firefighters for doing their part to lessen the impact on our residents with that practice.
However, it is not always possible to douse the dump fires, especially as we have learned now from the situation with the dump here in Iqaluit where the smoke becomes quite dense and it is impossible to douse the fire.
It has to sometimes be allowed to burn itself out. This has been the case continuously in our community. It would be ideal and beneficial to get an incinerator in our community and we feel that it’s an urgent emergency case because of the situation we have found ourselves in, being continually subjected to smoke.
If I understood correctly, the report from the consultants will be available by December 2010 and that we will have a better idea of the health issues.
However, will it be only after the conclusion of the report that we will be able to see a plan to deal with this issue of burning waste in the communities? Will an incinerator be purchased or will we allow the dangerous practice of burning garbage at our dumps?
Yes, the review would identify how the various communities would work towards resolving this garbage or incinerator issue within their communities.
At this time, we cannot make any decisions until the consultant report is completed.
When the report is completed, most of the matters you raised in your question would be clarified.
I would like to thank the minister for his answer. I have another question I want to direct which relates to the proposed recreation centre for Rankin Inlet.
In some ways, when questioning issues, I tend to use my community as an example since that is what I am familiar with. We are faced with several issues related to the recreation centre in Pangnirtung, specifically the arena section.
Over the last few seasons, we have had difficulty opening the arena during the winter. The primary reasons are due to the weather changing.
Even when it is winter, the temperatures are still not cold enough to freeze the ice in these times.
If things remain the same, it seems obvious that down the road, we may experience even later openings or even a time when the ice does not freeze.
It even came down to having a separate little area where they poured water to create a little skating area so that people could at least skate in the meantime.
With respect to the plans for Rankin Inlet’s new recreational facility, I believe that there are already existing arenas which utilize the artificial ice so that it can be used.
I imagine it would be more prudent to review whether or not other communities could get artificial ice surfacing before they look at a new facility for a community that already has this option. I would prefer that other communities get artificial ice and catch up to bigger communities before these communities get another facility. I want to see a more equitable allocation of our scarce resources.
Furthermore, in our community, the hockey arena is situated right below the mountain and the drainage patterns from the mountain are eroding the land around the arena to the point where you can see space between the walls and the surface. You can look outside, but none of the engineers seem to notice this problem that will have to be resolved eventually.
We need a new facility in our community.
Will our community only be able to get another facility after Rankin Inlet gets theirs or do you have a list of which communities will be on the prioritized list for these facilities? What criteria do you use to push projects forward to the prioritized list?
With respect to your comments in regard to community facilities and the number of requests we have seen to date, there are two communities requesting artificial ice for this year.
With the materials arriving this summer, the contractors are now completing the artificial ice in the arenas of Sanikiluaq and Igloolik.
If you include those two communities, then we will have six arenas with artificial ice. We are expecting to see this resolved over the next couple of years and, where possible, we should be adding two, or three, or more resurfacing projects for the communities that want to have artificial ice. We would provide artificial ice equipment to the communities that are requesting them.
The municipalities have their priority list and as long as they are in the priority list, we will try to follow their list.
Furthermore, there are other agencies that can support these requests, such as the Committee of the Whole, that can look at these projects and provide more support.
I cannot tell you exactly which community would receive the artificial ice surfaces over the winter, but maybe you could ask me next year.
However, most hamlets will be working on their capital projects listing. We would like to assist communities to get their facilities. Not all communities want artificial ice as some communities are not into hockey.
Some communities are getting frustrated awaiting the completion of their local facility. We will work with local communities to deal with their capital projects list and slowly try to have all communities with the same facilities.
If there was a request from Pangnirtung for this type of surface, then they can start identifying that project as a priority utilizing their local municipality and its processes, and then proceed from there.
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Minister Kusugak.
I would prefer that you keep your portfolio until all of these things are completed in the communities.
I want to raise another question on a separate matter with respect to the recycling program in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Kugluktuk. The program is geared towards shipping recyclables, such as pop cans, out to the south.
Our community wants to undertake shipping more recyclables, but just recently, we were informed that the program may be axed due to the high costs involved.
The recycling program is important since many communities are just accumulating materials and garbage in the communities.
Many communities had looked forward to using this program. Is it discontinued, Mr. Chairman, or are we going to see some kind of a recycling program in the communities?
The recycling program was very beneficial to the communities because they stopped throwing out cans or garbage to the environment.
We would like to see recycling occurring in all of the communities. This program should be expanded rather than discontinued as many communities are looking for ways to resolve their waste management issues.
I cannot respond to your question as the Department of Environment is responsible for that. So I cannot respond to you because CGS is not responsible for this, Mr. Chairman.
Just prior to asking a question on the minister’s opening comments, I wish to get some clarification on this matter. Quite a few of us have kept abreast of the developments facing the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. It seems as if that organization has fallen flat on its face, at least from our perspective.
What I would like the minister to clarify is who is representing the NAM Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee in your departmental capital project reviews. I would like to know if members of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee are involved. What is the extent of their involvement?
With respect to the question, I cannot determine who is representing NAM in our reviews as I do not have the information readily available.
Once I have that information, I will commit to providing that information.
From my recollection of the organizational chart, I know that three mayors are supposed to sit on that committee, but I do not have the information as to which mayors are on that committee.
Once I have the information, I will gladly provide that to the member.
Personally, I feel that if it was deemed important enough, then the names would be readily available as to who sits on this committee. Based on my knowledge, there used to be a good relationship between NCIAC and the department.
I had thought that either the minister or his deputy minister would have that information readily available and that was why I asked about the membership on that committee.
However, I would like to return to your opening comments on page 3 since I would like to get further clarification on the draft sustainability plans scheduled for completion on December 31, 2010.
I believe this is a good venue to show the communities what plans the government has with respect to their communities and the projects slated for their communities down the road, and what they can reasonably expect in the future with respect to their capital projects. It would allow the communities to prepare for these projects.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, as many members are aware, when we discuss issues with our local hamlets, the capital projects are not adhering to the plans as outlined by the government and the community nor do they seem to be following the allocated year projects.
I would like to know if the minister or his departmental staff have an actual five-year capital plan or if it is under development.
Perhaps the minister can commit to providing that information on which communities are on the priority list and which projects will be included in that prioritization of their community plans. Has this been included in your preparations?
In your opening comments you also stated that many communities are stuck with aging fleets and many of these pieces of equipment need to be replaced. I believe most of the hamlets are in that situation with aging equipment and facilities.
Do you have a priority list categorized by community requests as to which community projects will be given priority? I imagine that this will be the process, so I want to know if that will be the case.
Prior to responding to your question, I will make a response regarding the membership of NCIAC.
With respect to NCIAC, I have just been informed that the Mayor of Iqaluit sits on this committee as a representative of NAM. There is also the Kivalliq representative and that member is the Mayor of Chesterfield Inlet. Currently we do not have a representative of the Kitikmeot region and they are awaiting the selection of an appointee from that region.
It should be finalized after the Kitikmeot mayors’ meeting. The person who represented that region was not re-elected and the mayors will have to appoint a new representative.
With respect to the question you just raised, we are collaborating with that committee that we spoke of, specifically the prioritization we place on projects as well as funding allocations to the projects for the communities.
We are going to be working with NCIAC and we expect that this process will be given more weight in the future, especially with the communities having a clearer priority list, particularly for dilapidated and antiquated facilities.
The Department of CGS will work with NCIAC to develop a priority list.
We are going to work with NCIAC to determine which community is in most need of newer facilities or equipment, or which communities will be prioritized for allocations of funding through this process.
As you stated earlier, this process has a completion date of December 31, 2010, which would be another way of facilitating the future allocations.
During that period, once the analysis is completed, will this process be undertaken for the communities to identify their priorities?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, once that process has been completed, the communities will have ownership of this process as it relates to their priorities. I would hope that the communities take advantage of this process. They can provide the reasoning for the facilities or equipment that they are requesting, as well as their arguments for that priority.
I certainly hope that the hamlets will utilize this process once it has been implemented as it will allow the development of our communities.
This will give the communities an opportunity to provide their reasons for the requested infrastructure projects. We support this initiative due to these reasons.
Perhaps I am the only one who is not lethargic in this discussion since I notice that our microphones are taking a while to go on.
I am pleased that the minister spoke to the initiative that is being developed, primarily for the reason that most communities do not have a strategic plan outlining what is needed and since they do not have a foundation whereby they use past projects to identify new projects for future requests. It’s very hard for the communities to make substantiations for their requests. In many cases, it causes misunderstanding between the hamlet and the government department.
I believe that in the past, NAM identified that or at least while I was the president of the association, we identified this need. I am proud that this initiative is finally being fleshed out.
I look forward to the day when they use this process to conduct their plans. It would allow them to start from the same page when they are discussing these issues.
This is just a comment that I wanted to make and it is not a question.
That was a comment there, but if you want to respond, Mr. Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, I want it noted that I concur with your statement, especially as it relates to the people who are councillors or the mayor representing that hamlet. When you are in that position, you want to voice your position loudly and be supported by your association. So I would hope that this is used in that manner when it is available.
I support the members here, irrespective of whether you are a minister or a regular member, especially when you are supporting your hamlets. I hope that you work with your community to identify the priorities that the hamlet will request. This allows for a meaningful relationship, especially when planning infrastructure projects.
I believe that we can all utilize this process.
We will now proceed to page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page H-3. Community and Government Services. Branch Summary.
Capital Planning. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $25,653,000.
Details are on page H-4 and H-5.
Are we going to go to page H-4 or ask questions now on page H-3?
Chairman: Yeah, well, the detail is on H-4 and H-5, so you can ask questions on all of those three pages.
On page H-4, the Resolute Bay Arena for the $174,000, I was just wondering if the minister could give us an update as to whether that project is on time and within budget.
I am very pleased to report, Sir, it is on time and on budget; knock on wood.
On page H-5 under capital planning for Iqaluit, the RECAPP for $1.4 million, is that that program you were talking about for the inventory?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Again, Mr. Chairman, you are correct.
If it’s a program that has been used since 2005, do we pay $1.4 million a year, or why is it such a substantial cost now?
If I could ask my deputy, through you, Mr. Chairman, to answer that so he could get a detailed answer.
There is actually a great deal of effort for a number of consultants to examine in detail the number of buildings and look at roof structure, building envelope, doors, windows, mechanical systems, boilers, electrical systems, and to do a fairly detailed condition assessment of each one of those components of a building.
So the cost is actually around the time and expertise it takes to do that. We’ve got a template of how we gather the data and that is how it has to go into the database itself.
So, really, the cost is to get all of that data with real information on the real condition of the various components of all of our buildings.
The costs aren’t actually associated with the computer program itself; it’s actually associated with the gathering of the data to be inputted into the database.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Again, Mr. Chairman, you are correct, Mr. Elliott.
Again, I think you had mentioned that the information that they are gathering is for both assets that are GN assets and hamlet assets as well.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Mr. Chairman, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Do the hamlets have access to this information?
If they are responsible for updating their infrastructure sustainability plans and they are responsible for continuing to keep track of what assets maybe need to be updated or new facilities, will they have access to this information or is it specifically a tool for the GN?
If it’s a tool for the GN, it would be most accessible to the municipalities. They will have full access to it where it applies to them once it is all completed, Mr. Chairman.
I guess there are no more names on my list.
We will go back to Capital Planning on H-3.
Total Capital Expenditures. $25,653,000.
Chairman: Now we will move on to the Branch Summary. Community and Government Services.
Petroleum Products Revolving Fund. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $8,369,000.
That is on H-6 and there are details on H-7.
We can ask questions on both pages. Any questions?
I want a bit more information on one of the items here.
In our community of Pangnirtung, they are currently constructing a tank farm and the tanks are almost completed. They should be able to transfer fuel even without the outside paint.
I believe that the welding is almost completed. I am unsure as to whether they will fill it up this year, but I am aware that it is almost completed. Due to the cold weather, I do not imagine that they will be painting in this fiscal year.
With respect to the figure that is listed here, the $1,910,000 allocated towards this project, is this for the completion of the project or is this for another tank project? That is what I want clarified.
I can tell you that the bulk fuel project being built in your community has a completion date of October 19 or thereabouts. It is going to be completed this fall. The fuel tanker ship will arrive prior to the winter season to fill up the tank farm for the upcoming winter.
Furthermore, they will be constructing another tank next year. That is what the situation is at this time.
Mr. Rumbolt
On page H-7, there are three communities; there are Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset, and Sanikiluaq each getting $75,000 for bulk fuel storage capacity increases.
What exactly will we be getting for the $75,000?
You will be getting a study.
Following the question that Mr. Rumbolt asked, the $400,000 that is estimated for the 2012-16, is that for actual work or is that a continuation of the study?
That will be for the design of the tank farm.
I don’t have any more here on the list, so we will go back to page H-2… hang on; we’ve got to do this here. Branch Summary. Petroleum Products Revolving Fund.
Total Capital Expenditures. $8,369,000.
Chairman: Now we will go back to page H-2. Department Summary.
Detail of Expenditures. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $34,022,000.
Chairman: Is the committee agreed that we have concluded with the Department of Community and Government Services?
I would appreciate a copy of the opening comments made by Mr. Rumbolt as I didn’t get a copy at the start of the day, so I would really appreciate that.
Maybe there is one at my seat, but at some point, I would appreciate a copy.
Mr. Chairman, Community and Government Services has a very large department and sometimes a daunting task, but I would just like to take this opportunity to thank you for your contributions and concerns with your municipalities and CGS.
I would like to, at this time, thank our staff at CGS.
We have a very hard-working department and they are spread throughout this beautiful territory of ours.
I would just like to take this opportunity to appreciate the hard work that they do in ensuring that the department runs smoothly and, more often than not, helping the municipalities to ensure that the municipalities run smoothly.
Thank you for chairing this session, Mr. Chairman.
I also want to thank you for showing up here and answering the questions, some tough questions they were and you had a yes or no answer.
I would like to get the Sergeant-at-Arms to escort the minister and his officials out.
What is the wish of the committee? Mr. Rumbolt.
Your committee has been considering Bill 38 and would like to report progress, and furthermore, your committee has concluded its considerations of Tabled Documents 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2).
Just a reminder of meetings for tomorrow morning, there is a meeting at nine o’clock of the Management and Services Board, there is a meeting at 10:15 of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development, and at 10:30, there is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges.
Orders of the Day for October 20:
This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 20, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 17:30 Appendix – October 19, 2010
Return to Written Question 018 – 3(2): Attendance Rates in Nunavut
Asked by: Jeannie Ugyuk, MLA (Nattilik)
Asked of: Hon. Louis Tapardjuk, Minister of Education
Date: June 1, 2010
Currently there are attendance systems used in all three regions of Nunavut.
Two regions’ systems also record lates.
There is a new student information system being developed that will be used in all regions and all schools in Nunavut.
This new system will bring a consistent tracking system for many types of data, including attendance and lateness.
There are slight regional differences in methodology, but all three regions of Nunavut have monthly reporting mechanisms or regular reporting at DEA meetings.
The Department believes that attendance information is being reported monthly to DEAs, but we do not have confirmation on a month-by-month and school-by-school basis.
The Department of Education does not have complete data on DEA reporting to their communities on attendance.
Some DEAs have held public meetings on attendance or used local radio.
There are also DEAs who we believe have not been reporting regularly to their communities on attendance.
The Department of Education will continue to work with DEAs to understand the requirements of the new Education Act, including training on reporting requirements.
New regulations for reporting are also planned; when the regulations are prepared there will be training delivered.
There will be new procedures required at that time to implement the full system of reporting under the new Education Act and its regulations.
Section 37 (1) of the Education Act sets out that DEAs shall have a registration and attendance policy.
Section 15 of the Transition Regulations delays that requirement for the first school year, but carries over any policies under the old regulation.