EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They want to dismantle all the housing this coming spring and summer; the company would like to dismantle all the buildings.
So are we going to just wait for the buildings to be dismantled, rather than the government looking for other options to use those buildings?
There are several issues around Nanisivik including the environmental liabilities, if there are any with that type of clean-up.
At the end of the day, the government is put into a position where the Nanisivik mine closed down.
There are some infrastructure availabilities on the ground there, but is it worth the Government of Nunavut putting $5 million in operations and maintenance costs as well as an additional $5 million in rehabilitative costs to continue a site where there is no one presently living?
So, for example, if I may explain it this way: there is no one in Nanisivik.
Would we set up a training school in Nanisivik, send 100 people in there for three months; take them out, and so on and so forth? It doesn’t make any sense.
Would there be a better opportunity as a government, for example, to access a more central location, for example, Rankin Inlet.
There is an FOL site there on the ground.
There is a facility to be able to have accommodations for students.
Would it be better for this government to move forward on that type of plan?
As I had just indicated to the member, we are moving forward on this decision.
Breakwater Resources, under the tight constraints that are in place, or the regulatory regimes that are in place, has to have a decision. They have to clean up the site, but at the same time, those environmental liabilities and some of the other constraints are in place.
This government needs to be able to move forward aggressively to get the best dollars available spent for the… for its part, as well, to look at the logistic, financial, as well as administrative costs of Nanisivik.
Thanks to my colleague of a numbers of years; he and I have been arguing, but with constructiveness. (interpretation) But as I have said in my statement, we have much need of infrastructure in Arctic Bay, but I am repeatedly told that we have all of the infrastructure requirements in Nanisivik. That is what the government keeps telling us, but residents of Arctic Bay see $25 million worth of property that will be destroyed in Nanisivik.
I think that the government should reason with it carefully and look at what is required in Arctic Bay and Nunavut, from Nunavut to… (interpretation ends) That is a $25 million infrastructure program that was built by the federal government, and the government of the Northwest Territories back then. (interpretation) And, they are supported by $90,000 per month by the Government of Nunavut.
If we are going to be just destroying the property, would it not be better if we look at better solutions and move things to Arctic Bay, and look at using the property instead of just destroying it?
At the end of the day, everyone, all of the Members of this House and indeed the people of Nunavut, wants to see the money spent by the Government of Nunavut done in the very best way, at the same time as trying to compliment what has occurred in Nanisivik, Arctic Bay.
We have tried to market the Nanisivik area; I know that the Premier has had several discussions with our federal colleagues.
I have had an opportunity to speak to the federal minister about the Nanisivik situation.
There may be an opportunity, for example, with the deep water port that is there for military use.
We do not know that yet.
At the end of the day, Breakwater Resources had to clean up that site and the site has been abandoned since 2002.
There is no one living in the buildings in that period of time.
There has been deterioration of the sites.
When you abandon a site like that, there are costs involved.
The Department of Education looked at the need of a prevocational training school, which is something that all of the members have talked about.
What I am prepared to say is that I am moving with the request for the decision of the Cabinet to look at all options that are available to us.
We would hope to be able to expedite that in the next couple of weeks, and that may be the best decision for the government.
Just because they left the site there does not mean that there are things there that we could use.
For example, we know that DEW Lines have been abandoned all across the north.
We have had others like Echo Bay mines close down, Mr. Speaker, the Lupin site, and the Little Cornwallis Island Polaris mine.
We did not just run up there and take them over.
There are costs involved; we do not want to take over abandoned equipment.
So that is the kind of thing we are looking at.
I thank Mr. Tootoo for his hand gestures that time; it was very nice of him.
Well, we can make a lot of gestures, that is for the information of the ministers.
My question is; if we are going to be destroying these buildings, we are well aware about the cost of all of the stuff that is available in Nanisivik.
When Nanisivik was opening up, there was an agreement signed with the people of Arctic Bay. Nanisivik mine has been in operation for 27 years, and they have helped us with the arena and one other thing, which are tangible assets that were given to Arctic Bay by the Nanisivik mine.
And as you see, when all the infrastructure is destroyed we are going to be losing out a lot as the residents of Arctic Bay.
If you are going to be destroying all these offices, is it possible for the government to give us that much for Arctic Bay?
I’ve been in Nanisivik and Arctic Bay many times.
I know the site very well.
Again, as I said to the member, the preliminary estimates that we have, in this case that it would cost us at least $5 million to operate a prevocational training site in Nanisivik, as well as an extra $5 million to rehabilitate what is available… I haven’t closed the door. On behalf of the government, through the Department of Education, we’ve been looking at Nanisivik as a training site.
We are also looking at other options for the site. I’m not too prepared to go into detail about those in this forum at this present time because they haven’t been presented to the cabinet yet.
I can say to the member that wherever possible, logistically, administratively, as well as financially, we can help the community of Arctic Bay with what is left on the site, then that is what will be done.
Member for Nanulik, Mr. Netser.
Question 044 – 2(1): Tendering House Leases (Netser)
I would like to direct my question to the Minister responsible for the Housing Corporation; it’s in reference to Mr. Tootoo’s earlier comments and it is in regard to the former Speaker’s house.
If the government is going to be renting units or any other resource, or have a contract, the usual route that they go through is to put it out to tender.
In reference to those units, did the government put out a tender for the former Speaker’s unit?
Or did it go directly for the use of the former Speaker?
I believe I took that question on notice already.
So, again, I ask my colleague for his patience to get that information from my department before I can give a response accordingly.
Speaker (interpretation): The minister has taken it as notice.
Question 045 – 2(1): Joamie School – Fire Marshal’s Report (Tootoo)
I want to go back to the Minister of Community and Government Services in relation to the Joamie School Fire Marshal’s Report.
I’d like to ask the minister if he could explain to me the process in which the report was developed.
Was it something that was just one report?
Were there multiple drafts of the report?
Speaker (interpretation): Minister of Government and Community Services, Mr. Kilabuk.
I believe leading to the final report there were a number of drafts done up by our staff. This was a very comprehensive report which goes on to list many factors that they may have wanted to review as part of the fact finding mission as to why the fire started in the first place and the other factors that may have contributed or improvements that could have been made.
So it took a lot of factors to develop this report.
We know that this report had been released to the media and a later report released to the city.
I would like to ask the minister if this is a public document that could be tabled in this House.
Most definitely; we can table this report in the House.
I might do that for him tomorrow.
My question: the minister had indicated that there were a number of drafts leading up to the final report, and I’m just wondering if he could indicate, when you say draft, things usually change.
I wonder if he could indicate what kinds of changes were made through each draft, whether something more was included in the report, or if things were taken out of the report, and why.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister responsible for Housing, Mr. Kilabuk.
Well I guess if they went through the process of trying to develop this comprehensive report together...
I don’t want to comment on… my English words just left me, Mr. Speaker, so I will definitely get for my colleague the information as to what major changes were presented during the compiling of the draft reports.
I know earlier, I asked when the minister became aware of first seeing the report. I had said it was last year, some time, I think it was October 21 last year, that I had asked when that report would be released.
I’d like to ask the minister why it took so long to have that report released. Also, I’ve heard comments from people saying one of the reasons it was delayed in being released was there was a wish that it not be released until after the February election.
I would like to ask the minister if he could indicate if that was the case.
I want to assure the member that the timeframe is not out of the ordinary, as we have discovered looking at other jurisdictions, in doing such a report.
The biggest factor in why it took so long to get this report out was because of the high level of destruction.
I have publicly announced that over the radio during an interview with CBC. That was the biggest reason why it was so late in coming out, because of the high destruction.
I would like to go back to Item 5. Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
I would like to recognize a former member of the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.
She is celebrating her 25th anniversary, and she is here to say hello to us: Ms. Manitok Thompson.
Written Question 010 – 2(1): Staff Housing Requirements (Curley)
I would like to ask my question to the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
It is in regard to staff housing requirements in relation to the new Kivalliq Health Centre:
1) What staff housing requirements have been identified by the Government of Nunavut in relation to this project?
2) What contracting process for public tender will be undertaken by the Nunavut Housing Corporation to acquire the required units?
3) When will tenders for these units be issued?
4) What are the projected costs of the required units?
5) What is the timeline for the acquisition for these units?
6) Will any of the required units be acquired through lease-back agreements with private sector companies or real estate firms?
Orders of the Day. Item 9.
Replies to Opening Address. Item 10. Petitions.
Tabled Document 007 – 2(1): Northern Premiers Discuss Shared Vision For The North (Okalik)
I wish to table the following document, Northern Premiers Discuss Shared Vision for Nunavut.
Speaker (interpretation): I have a document I would like to table.
Tabled Document 008 – 2(1): Auditor General of Canada’s First Report to the Second Legislative Assembly of Nunavut - 2004 (Okalik)
Pursuant to section 46 of the Nunavut Act, I wish to table the Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, April 1 – June 30, 2004-2005 – First Reading
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet South/Whale Cove, that Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005, be read for the first time.
As well, I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005, be read for the first time.
The bills have had first reading.
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, April 1 – June 30, 2004-2005 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Rankin Inlet South/Whale Cove, that Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, April 1 – June 30, 2004-2005, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the Interim Appropriations Act in order to reflect the restructuring of the Government of Nunavut departments.
This was for operations and maintenance funding for the departments from April 1 to June 30, 2004, in order to enable the departments to deliver their programs and services.
Bill 3 has had second reading and can be referred to the committee.
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005 – Second Reading
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Bill 4, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide funding for the new departments created under the restructuring in order to take the capital programs under their responsibility, and to provide funding to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the construction of additional staff housing units.
The bill has had second reading.
Bill 4 has had second reading and can be referred to Committee of the Whole.
In the Committee of the Whole we have Bill 3 and Bill 4.
Mr. Arreak is the chairperson.
We will take a 15-minute break.
>>House recessed at 15:05 and Committee resumed at 15:33
Chairman (Mr. Arreak)(interpretation): The committee will now come to order.
Just before we begin Committee of the Whole, I would like to welcome Mr. Peter Kattuk.
During Committee of the Whole we have Bill 3 and Bill 4.
Mr. Evyagotailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We wish to deal with Bill 3 and when we are finished with that bill, we will proceed to deal with Bill 4 to deal with.
Chairman (interpretation): Is the wish of the committee to proceed?
I would like to ask the Minister for Finance, Ms. Aglukkaq: do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Yes, I do.
Chairperson (interpretation): Does the committee agree that she proceed to the witness table with her witnesses?
Sergeant-at-arms, if you can escort them.
Madam Minister, if you could introduce your officials.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
On my right is Deputy Minister Robert Vardy, and Paul Reddy, Director of Expenditure Management.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Aglukkaq.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance to make her opening remarks.
Bill 03 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 1, April 1 – June 30, 2004-2005 – Consideration in Committee
Bill 04 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005 – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to appear before your committee today to speak to Bill 3 and 4.
Bill 3 is the Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, April 1 – June 30, 2004.
This supplementary appropriation provides total funding of $44,334,000 to enable departments affected by the recent restructuring to deliver their programs and services for the period from April 1 to June 30, 2004.
The net financial impact of this appropriation is now as other June departments’ interim appropriations have been adjusted to reflect the transfer of programs and the amalgamation of departments.
Bill 4 is the Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005.
The purpose of this supplementary appropriation is two-fold: one, it provides funding of $3,803,000 to enable the departments affected by the restructuring specified to take the capital programs under their responsibilities.
This additional funding has optimized reductions in other departments.
Two, it provides funding of $5,060,000 to the Nunavut Housing Corporation for the construction of ten additional staff housing units in each of Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet.
Mr. Chairman, I would be pleased to answer any questions from the committee Members.
Just before we begin, just to remind the members that according to rule 77(1), you have ten minutes to make general comments.
Pursuant to rule 77(1), after you have made your general comments, I will give each of you a turn again to speak to general comments.
I would now like to tell you that if you have any questions, that you refer to that page that we have opened.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I would like to ask a question; are you asking whether there are any questions on Bill 3 or 4?
Chairman (interpretation): I am asking the members if they have any general comments for Bill 3.
If there are no general comments, we will be dealing with (interpretation ends) Bill 3, Supplementary Appropriations (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 1, 2004-2005, page 4.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Mr. Chairman, I will wait to take some questions from the member.
I am trying to question for the record that this supplementary appropriation for operations and maintenance is strictly internal shuffling as a result of the restructuring, and that there is no new funding included with it, and no costs associated with the actual cost of the reorganization in there.
Just strictly transfers, budget transfers from the old departments to new departments.
Chairman: Madam Minister.
During the last sitting there was interim appropriation approved by the House, and what we’re presenting here today is basically adjustment of funding from one department to the other where restructuring occurred. Those are highlighted on page three on the bill, bottom line. Net effects: there were no changes.
My question is: can we get to the $5,060,000 going to Nunavut Housing Corporation for constructing 10 new staff houses for Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet?
Which department is that money going to?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Netser, what we’re doing is dealing with Bill 3 and we’ll go to Bill 4 after we complete Bill 3.
In her opening comments that the $5 million would be allotted for Nunavut Housing Corporation to build staff housing in Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet…
Chairman (interpretation): We will get back to that.
We will go to Bill 3 at this time.
My question is on page three, in Bill 3, for $30,198,000 for community and government services.
Perhaps if the minister cannot answer the question, I would like the Minister of Community and Government Services to respond to my question.
This amount of money for public services is $30,000,000. I wonder what it is going to be used for.
I can answer that question in part, and if the minister wishes to add, I would entertain that.
The amalgamation of Public Works and Services and Community Government and Transportation, you see on the page, where a negative $14,406,000 was moved from the first department and from Community Government and Transportation, $20,946,000. Under the new department, Community and Government Services, is the $30,198,000. And basically what we show here is that under the old department we removed $14,000,000, and an additional 20, and combined those two under the new department in $30,198,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Kilabuk, would you like to make additional comments on that?
Chairman: Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, if I could ask another question.
What about the public works under the executive directory and corporate services?
The engineers division was transferred to another, because there is additional money for public works.
Can we get some clarification: did they all move, or were some of the positions redundant such as the engineering division?
Were any divisions in that department eliminated?
With the recent restructuring, the position from one department to another and amalgamated, and there have been no deductions in PYs from what I understand.
Perhaps there are ADMs?
Are they going to be the same, or is there going to be one ADM because they became one department?
The line of authority, will there be changes to that, or will you still have to do some work on that?
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From what I understand, the restructuring of those departments has been completed and those types of issues have been dealt with by the appropriate ministers.
In terms of the details on how the structure is now set up, for the appropriate departments, those will be details in the mains and business plans.
Chairman (interpretation): Anything else, Mr. Curley?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Before we get any responses, I would like to defer the items.
We will be able to deal with them when we can get a proper response; it’s useless if we are not going to get a proper response on these.
In terms of the details of the departmental structures and how these structures deal with and organize the amalgamations, I think it would be appropriate to ask each of the ministers separately, and if possible, through the Committee of the Whole.
I don’t have the detailed business plans and main estimates for each department at this time. I would ask Minister Kilabuk to address Mr. Curley’s questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Honourable Peter Kilabuk.
When we transferred the responsibility of public works, what we did was we compiled them on computer; community government has so many divisions that there are over 300 staff.
What they have to do is still have two assistant deputy ministers; even though they have one deputy minister, he still needs two assistant deputy ministers because of the huge responsibilities that they have.
It would be really good if each minister had a business plan, especially if their responsibility is regional operations in Pond Inlet. Will community government have regional operations in Pond Inlet?
If we can hear statements on those from the ministers, we would have a better understanding of what is happening.
If we could have a planning process… I know a planning process will take a long time, but the people of Nunavut would like to hear that the people of community government and public works are amalgamated. And what will happen to the regional operations, and what would then happen to the assistant deputy ministers?
I guess the public is thinking all those things.
If we can hear it through the ministers’ statements; I think I would want to wait until we could hear a Minister’s Statement on those things. But at this time I would not like to transfer $30 million to this department.
For that reason, for the voting of this bill, I would want to defer it.
Hon. Leona Aglukkaq: The information before you, Bill 3 and Bill 4, are interim appropriations to June 30.
It allows the government to operate until June, when we will be able to discuss in detail the main estimates that will be presented in the House tomorrow.
Those questions, as they relate to the restructuring of headquarters as well the decentralized operations, can be presented at that time.
As well, the business plans for each department will also be presented for members to discuss and ask the appropriate ministers about.
However, this bill in front of you allows us to operate until June 30; otherwise we have no funding to incur expenses.
I’m sure we’ll be able to complete this before June 30, and I’m sure that we can wait for another minister’s statement.
I’m sure we can complete it by tomorrow if we can get a minister’s statement, at least, some kind of information.
Like I mentioned earlier, the previous Legislative Assembly approved an interim appropriation back, I believe, in December, that went from April to June 30.
This bill is an addition to that, to identify the restructuring of the government departments.
The new departments are listed on page three.
It does not change the bottom line of $190,640,000 from the original bill that was passed in this House.
What it identifies are the changes from one department to the other, where amalgamations were made, or new departments established.