EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
To get back to my original question, because there are contaminants in that existing dump, who would be responsible for reclaiming the dump?
Would that be the responsibility of the hamlet or would it be the responsibility of your department or the responsibility of the federal government?
Again, this case is really a gray area.
I’d have to say that all of the above members are in question, because again it is still very unclear at this time as we where, as to whom liability would rest.
I think I’ll let Mr. Rich add to my comments.
You were almost promoted.
As the minister said, the liability rests on all three parties and that is one of the difficult things to sort out.
We have raised this as an issue as part of our negotiations on the implementation plan, as part of the Land Claims Agreement.
One of the things that we’ve identified as a major barrier in some of the transfer of land that needs to be done to municipalities is the very issue that you’ve brought up and that is contaminated sites that are contained within that land that would be transferred.
One of the things that we looked at in the study is to try to identify when some of the contaminates and unfortunately as is true in many of those sites and communities it’s difficult to know who is exactly responsible for putting them there.
We have made the argument in some of our presentations to the federal government that Canada has the ultimate responsibility for it because of the sites being under their control before the transfer under the land claim agreement.
We will continue to have that discussion with them.
The final thing I would add is that when the site is moved the responsibility still is there for the original site.
Simply by moving the waste site to a new site doesn’t eliminate that original responsibility for the original site.
So there needs to be a restoration plan that would put that site back to a safe state.
Adjacent to the soda waste dump we have a metal waste dump.
Does this plan include relocation of the metal waste dump to the new site as well?
Chairman: Thank you, Hon. Peter Kilabuk.
I will get Mr. Sitland to respond to that question please.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Shetland.
The study that we have completed has concluded that there is some capacity remaining at the sites with better segregation and increased management of the site we believe we can still use the entire site for at least another five years.
There is a problem with the metal waste site and we need to do an additional study on that.
The project in the capital plan is for access to a future new site and that additional study determined the exactly the problems that are existing at the metal waste dump.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sitland.
At this point, an issue that applies to all Nunavut communities.
In our metal waste dump we have old vehicles, heavy equipment going back 30-40 years and you can’t just easily bury it over.
How would you reclaim or relocate a metal waste dump that has 30 or 40 or 50 years of vehicles on the site?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk.  Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation): I’ll have Mr. Sitland respond to that question.
Thank you.  Chairman: Thank you, Hon. Peter Kilabuk.
Unfortunately the method used for reclaimation of solid waste sites is generally limited to the compact, shred where possible and bury.
The member is correct that it is an ongoing problem not just in Cambridge Bay but in most communities across Nunavut.
We would not actually look at picking up the solid waste and moving it.
We would look at the best way to consolidate what was there, compact it and bury where possible.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 50 years ago the US Air Force used to take all their heavy equipment and surplus vehicles out on the ice on Cambridge Bay in the spring and when the ice melted, down it would go.
I actually saw pictures of all the junk on the bottom of the bay there, there’s jeeps and planes and half-tracks and a whole lot of other stuff.
It’s good to see things have changed in 50 years but it’s going to take a work in the next years to deal with our messes in our dump.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask, in the capital plan there was a storm fence for Cambridge Bay, they’ve been looking for one for many years.
I think it was identified for 2007-2008 and it was eliminated.
Perhaps, the minister could shed some light on why it was eliminated from the capital plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman...
The best response I can give at this time to his question is because of higher priorities that were identified for Cambridge Bay, thus the snow fence had to be removed from the list.
We use some practical solutions to snow fencing in Cambridge Bay over the years.
We stuck poles in the ground and we got some of that fence meshing there to put up two snow fences but it would be great if your department could continue to give Cambridge Bay some funding for those practical solutions.
It doesn’t cost $1 million, sometimes.
I think it cost us $10 thousand, but it probably saved us $100 thousand in snow removal fees every winter.
I want to just clarify I’m looking at Kugluktuk.
They’ve got, they say, a sewage lagoon study for $1 million and the Kuugaaruk sewage lagoon study, $150 thousand.
The Kugluktuk study, should that actually be a sewer lagoon.
It’s seems a little high for a study.
I definitely do stand corrected.
It is a sewage lagoon.
I was almost going to run out and get my degree in sewage lagoons and become a consultant.
That was all my comments.
Again I’d like to thank my colleague for bringing the sewage lagoons up.
I was going to bring this up.
On J-10 a couple of sewage lagoon studies here in my region.
For that much money, wouldn’t it be much better to build a sewage lagoon and do a study later on.
Because, it seems like to me it’s just a waste of money when you do the study before you build the lagoon.
Anyway, I’m happy with what you said about the sewage lagoon study for Kugluktuk.
You mentioned that it’s a lagoon, not a study. Is that correct.
Unfortunately in the way these projects are recorded, the word study has had it’s rightful place there.
This money is for the sewage lagoon.
I’m glad that the sewage lagoon will be built because that lagoon that we have in Kugluktuk overflows and goes down the little creek and it goes right into the bay.
We have a lot of fish, white fish, char, some lake trout which go down the rivers, that would be hanging around in that area. Also, there are a lot of white fish in the, cod and tom cod and so on.
A lot of people from Kugluktuk used to go out and do some fishing for their own use.
It’s not so nice in the spring time when the snow starts to melt and you can see the raw sewage going down to the bay.
I’m glad that this money is for a new sewage lagoon.
I thank the Minister for that.
I will just remind you of my colleague’s comments.
Mr. Rich mentioned to my other colleague, Mr. Mapsalak earlier about working with the federal government.
It occurred to me, sort of what lawyers used to do in the 1980’s, a good offense is a good defense.
Form a creative task force made up of Government of Nunavut officials like yourselves, federal regulators here in Iqaluit and Ottawa, perhaps the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and the task to find solutions to our water and sewer issues in Nunavut and look at solutions and look at all the options.
Working with the federal government, instead you get in trying to define what the federal regulations are in the next 10 to 15 years. That could buy us some time.
If you are working with them, you will be closer to understanding what our issues and difficulties are up here in terms of complying with federal regulations that are set down in Ottawa and it’s partnership arrangement.
So that might be something to talk with your counterparts in Ottawa and to talk to them because of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities meeting this weekend, I mean that is something to suggest to them.
I got to give it to this member, it’s like he has been reading our minds the last few days very clearly.
So, that’s exactly what we plan to do to join forces to form a steering committee.
So it is under consideration at this time and it’s being given its rightful and serious consideration.
Mr. Peterson: No more comments Mr. Chairman.
Back to page J-10, Department of Community and Government Services.
Total Kitikmeot Region. $3,110,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: Page J-11. Department of Community and Government Services.
Total headquarter region. $173,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: Total tangible assets. $11,100,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: J-12.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. I would like to make a brief comment in regards to Petroleum Products Division.
Just before I start it, this is a working document and sometimes it’s used and sometimes it doesn’t seem to be used.
Reading under page 2, I believe, structures and strategies part 1.3, it states that the environmental impacts, (interpretation ends) there is contaminated soil in 17 Petroleum Products Divisions sites.
An estimated cleanup cost is close to $2,000,000 over ten years.
(interpretation) Maybe you or the Deputy Minister, which ones are they, the 17 sites that they are talking about?
I must admit that we were not prepared to answer that particular question.
So, we don’t have the list of the communities my colleague is referring to, but however, I will definitely commit to providing that list.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I believe you worked on this in regards to fuel supply and the reports.
So if this is approved by the Cabinet, there are 17 PPD sites that have contaminated soil.
There should be a plan in place.
Who is responsible for the contaminated sites and if there is 17 of them, who will be responsible for them?
It’s clear that it would have cost in 2000, $4.22 million because they definitely have to be cleaned up and I know that Rankin Inlet is one of them because 20,000 gallons was spilled, when we were still under the Northwest Territories and it has never been cleaned up.
Maybe you can respond.
See if they can be worked on because they’re in the public document.
No, I concur and agree with the concerns expressed by my colleague but as I indicated earlier, I wish I could provide that list here but unfortunately, at this time, with the ongoing work to correct the problems in those communities, I do not have that list with me.
I will advise the House that as part of our responsibilities, that falls under our responsibilities at Community and Government Services.
Mr. Evyagotailak did you want to make a point of order.
Mr. Evygotailak: Mr. Chairman, we don’t have a quorum.
We’ll ring the bell.
Thank you. We’ll proceed, Mr. Curley.
I think that’s what the Government of Nunavut is going by in regards to petroleum and transportation and under page 42, under Petroleum Products, March 21, it was written 31.
(interpretation ends) For fuel and dry cargo, (interpretation) and those are stated there.
The report is incredible.
As I stated earlier in Northern Quebec, they have a free market, and in the Kitikmeot and the Eastern Arctic, there is a bit of competition there.
On dry cargo and fuel there is no choice.
Here, I would like to direct my question, if they’re still considering under Report 43, it states in English (interpretation ends) Investigate alternative re-supply strategies for fuel and dry goods.
The opening statement is very good.
I think we all agree to that.
It states in both Kitikmeot and Kivalliq where there is only one transportation company operating, it was but not now here in Kivilliq.
I just want to go back to the bottom part. It says charging of navigational routes and the construction of specialized ships may be required.
The Government of Nunavut must take the lead role in this planning in partnership with the transportation industry and not expect private enterprise to develop those complex solutions.
That would bother me a bit, if we can’t get the private sector to really play a major role, then who is really going to do it?
I just want to conclude before I ask my question, it says, and it goes on “combining the field with dry cargo will increase total volume and may help improve the feasibility of alternatives.”
I really strongly agree with that and it’s that sort of that thought, it’s still in the planning mode, it has not been ruled out, even if we were to re-arrange shipping components given that we do have a term contract but we would be able to visit any suggestions in those reports.
I would like to remind members we are dealing with capital assets on J12 and J13.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk, if you’d like to respond to that.
Very quickly I guess, to respond to his question, we will be conducting a survey involving a measurement of full satisfaction and needs of customers.
Not only are we doing this in the Kivalliq we are also doing this in all regions of Nunavut.
Chairman: Thank you, minister. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, minister.
I realize that I’m reading a document that involves fuel delivery and we’re dealing with a petroleum products item.
You can’t spend $4.8 million if you are not delivering the fuel.
So, all these reports’ recommendations are simply that to improve delivery of petroleum products into communities.
So I’m not going to accept, whether I’m out of line or not, but someone has to read the point of privilege on that.
So, given the fact that some areas of these privatized, Kitikmeot is certainly a lot more privatized according to this information that the supply is private, that the infrastructure is privately owned in Kitikmeot.
I wonder, and it also says, the supply of fuel or of diesel, is also private in Iqaluit but the infrastructure is owned by government.
The report does recommend that there should be owned with privately owned with some small delivering contracts in communities but not the infrastructure.
At that plant be finally nil, would it not be wise to maybe adopt Kitikmeot, given the fact that that region is probably easier to deliver if this shipping route was concluded.
I’m not trying to get you to commit anything I’m just trying to ask whether or not these kinds of ideas would be feasible in the future.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As a matter of fact, Mr. Chairman, I think they’d almost fit very well with the customer satisfaction needs of our customers’ study that what we want to do so I more than welcome those suggestions.
I’m sure that all of us have read this report.
As the, we’ll have to change the ships, I think it would be quite too much. (interpretation ends): Trying to convince the shipping companies to re-arrange and build specialized shipping, I think that’s way out of our head for all that matter. (interpretation) But I wanted to ask a question so that you will all reconsider it.
In the north here, it’s better to have one for dry and fuel goods.
I think we have to consider (interpretation ends) that for this report, I have not read it all, but it does say privatized partly, but not all together in order to provide efficiency and price stability.
That is the final outcome of this thing.
I know the Minister of Finance have read the document, but it raises subsidy forever, really.
But I want to ask the minister is the private sector ownership completely out of the question altogether?
No, I think I would be lying if I said they were out the picture because as I indicated to this House, just a few minutes ago, during the review, that is probably what will be appropriate, but that also what will be considered as part of the review to see where they can have more input into the plan and also the outcome of the study.
So, I think again, it is only a good suggestion, that is it’s consideration and that is, during this time of review, we also want to make sure that we do not force negative impacts or possible changes that may have negative impacts on some communities.
So, we will definitely review this to make it a more Nunavutized approach and I look forward to the review and the outcome.
We are on J-12 and J-13.
Total headquarters region. $100,000, (interpretation) Agreed?
(interpretation ends) Mr. Peterson.
On page J-13, in Resolute Bay that the upgraded fuel facility full compliance, $2,000,000, looking forward could be another $6,000,000, but I understand that that tank farm up there used to be owned by the federal government.
I am wondering if the Government of Nunavut could seek some financial assistance from the federal government, the former owners of the tank farm up there, to help upgrade it.
Unfortunately, we took the liability on this one, but do you have something further to add to that?
Mr. Peterson: Well, that answers my question, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you. Page J-13.
Total headquarters. $100,000. (interpretation ends) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $2,100,000, do you agree?
Chairman: Page J-14.
Department of Community and Government Services. Details of Capital.
I wanted to ask a question to the minister.
In reviewing the gasoline in Coral Harbour before the fuel tank arrived, and it took a while for it to arrive, I was wondering if there is enough fuel supply in our community or do you have any plans to have additional fuel for the community?
Yes, the delivery of fuel to the communities, we believe it is sufficient enough.
But, we can already forecast if they are going to not have enough fuel in the community.
Then we have contingency plans for that.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, if we were in shortage of fuel in year 2005, speaking of 2005, do you have any plans to have additional fuel tanks?
I’ll have my deputy respond, or deputy made me smile.
But, the fuel that was transported, we’re not concerned about the fuel transport to the communities, if it was insufficient.
If it happens to be insufficient, we transfer fuel by airplane.
When there is a shortage the procedure would be just the same.
Once we identify a community with fuel shortage, we will review it along with the community.
Chairman: J14.
I wanted to get a clarification on fuel delivery contract, if it is a single contract.
I was going to be talking about fuel delivery contracts for Keewatin, Baffin and Kitikmeot, and when does the fuel delivery contract expires?
The contract will have ended by next year and it would apply the same through the three regions.
Mr. Curley: The fuel deliver contract will end on the 2005 delivery season with the option to remove and what are the terms of the options to renew?
The option to renew is one to two years for the fuel delivery contract.
Supplementary Mr. Curley.
Just so I’m clear, when the sudden increased capacity co-plans that you’re building a larger tank farm for the communities so that they can hold more fuel so that they won’t run out of fuel in the future?
You factored in so, you’ve got some calculation to show that fuel consumption that the community needs over the next, say the 10 to 15 years?
Very quickly, correct, all of the above.
But Mr. Chairman, also to advise the House that during the increase of capacity of code compliance where the opportunities present themselves, if it is realigning the lines at certain tanks of those that have larger volumes possibilities then those will also be realigned to accommodate more fuel, certain type of fuel at different communities.
I know this first hand because that was some work done in Pangnirtung to be able to accommodate this just recently.
In Kugaaruk, how is fuel delivered currently.
Well, for the first time, we were able to get the fuel supplied by tanker right into Kuugaaruk, for the very first time ever.
If the community, say the typical community were to run out of fuel or forecast run out of fuel, you had to fly the fuel in, to provide the product, what would be just a rough cost to provide fuel via an airlift to see a community through until the next fuel ship arrived?
It depends on the type of gas, naphtha, diesel fuel.
It also depends on the quantity that will be delivered.
We have had airlifts in the last couple of years where costs may have gone close to $250.000, for the delivery of certain types of products.
So, investment in our fuel tank farms in the long term, the pay back could be quite substantial and that’s why it looks like we’re increasing capacity code compliance in a lot of communities Nunavut.
J-14, Community and Government Services.
Total Kivalliq Region, $2,550,000.
Chairman: Total Kitikmeot Region $50,000.
Chairman: Oh, sorry.
Yeah, I said 50,000.
Total tangible assets, $4,800,000.
Chairman: Back to J-4.
Community and Government Services, department summary.
Total capital expenses, $21,173,000.
Chairman: Do members agree that this department is concluded.
Chairman: I’d like to thank the Minister and his officials.
Minister, do you have any closing comments.
No, I would just like to thank all members for their comments and suggestions and also my staff here with me today and those waiting, elsewhere.
Chairman: Thank you very much Minister.
We will take a five minute break and after the break we’ll deal with education with Mr. Netser in the Chair.
A five minute break.
>>Committee recessed at17:19 and resumed at 17:31
Mr. Peterson: Mr. Chairman, I would like to move to report progress.
Chairman: We have a motion on the Floor.
We have a motion on the floor to report progress.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the report of committee of the whole be agreed to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Deputy Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) We have a motion on the Floor.
Orders of the day for Friday, November 26:
Returns to Written Questions  Replies to Opening Address
Deputy Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Friday, November 26, 2004, at 10:00 a.m.
>>Session adjourned at 17:36  Nunavut Canada
Friday November 26, 2004
Pages 433 – 488
Opening Prayer 433
Ministers’ Statements 433
Members’ Statements 435
Returns to Oral Questions 438
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 439
Oral Questions 440
Written Questions 460
Tabled Documents 462
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 463
First Reading of Bills 464
Second Reading of Bills 465
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 467
Orders of the Day 487
Friday November 26, 2004 433
033 – 2(2): Recognition of Community SAR Groups (Kilabuk) 433
034 – 2(2): Pinasuaqtavut 2004 – 2009 (Okalik) 434
064 – 2(2): Written Question (Alagalak) 435
065 – 2(2): Environment Issues (Kattuk) 435
066 – 2(2): Members’ Fund Raising Hockey Game (Evyagotailak) 435
067 – 2(2): Members’ Hockey Fundraising (Okalik) 436
068 – 2(2): Pangnirtung Constituents (Kilabuk) 436
069 – 2(2): Members’ Hockey Game (Tootoo) 437
070 – 2(2): Members' Hockey Game (Curley) 438
Return to OQ 036 – 2(2): Tabling of Coroner's Report (Brown) 438
Return to OQ 071 – 2(2): Update on the Condominium Units (Kilabuk) 438
092 – 2(2): Providing Financial Monthly or Quarterly Reports (Tootoo) 440
093 – 2(2): Update on Nanisivik Mine Closure (Barnabas) 445
094 – 2(2): Introduction of the Legislation on Child Advocate (Peterson) 446
095 – 2(2): Plans for Alternative Energy Use (Curley) 447
096 – 2(2): Update on the Gun Registration (Alagalak) 450
097 – 2(2): Signed Declaration by the Architect (Tootoo) 451
098 – 2(2): Bilingual Workers at the Elders' Facility (Barnabas) 453
099 – 2(2): Tabling of KPMG Report (Peterson) 455
100 – 2(2): Licence to Obtain Fire Arms (Kattuk) 457
101 – 2(2): Signed Certification Inspection (Tootoo) 458
021 – 2(2): Medical Travel Costs (Peterson) 460
022 – 2(2): Fuel Delivery (Alagalak) 462
032 – 2(2): Pinasuaqtavut 2004-2009 (Okalik) 462
033 – 2(2): Convention on the Rights of the Child (Peterson) 462
034 – 2(2): Nunavut Housing Corporation's "A Tenant's Handbook" (Kilabuk) 462
Bill 1 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2003/04 – Notice (Aglukkaq) 463
Bill 2 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2004/05 – Notice (Aglukkaq) 463
Bill 3 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2004/05 – Notice (Aglukkaq) 463
Bill 1 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 4, 2003/04 – First Reading 464
Bill 2 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2004/05 – First Reading 464