EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Has the Department of Family Services considered healing centres or treatment centres or healing centres for the future?
Who have you discussed this with? Can the minister explain that?
We are all aware that the Department of Family Services is having discussions on healing or treatment centres, which fall under the Department of Health, but that being the case, we have to move things around.
I am having discussions with the Minister of Health and our staff are working together.
They’re still in the process of moving from the Department of Health. With respect to all the things that now fall under the Department of Family Services, I cannot really respond to his question right now.
We are taking this under careful consideration with the Minister of Health concerning these issues.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank him for the response.
In the capital estimates that we’re considering right now, you have identified communities that will get new vehicles.
Perhaps he can provide an update on the communities the Department of Family Services currently has vehicles in and how many communities need replacement vehicles.
That will be my last question for now, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for calling you the Speaker. I didn’t realize that until someone mentioned it.
This is only the third year the Department of Family Services has been operating as an independent department.
There are still some things under the Department of Health. When social services fell under the Department of Health, the old offices and vehicles were being transferred over to Family Services.
I can’t tell you exactly which communities.
I think my colleague is asking whether all communities have vehicles.
We can identify vehicles, but for 2017-18 I already identified them in my opening comments. It was in my opening comments. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know which staff member, but maybe you can give the one on my left the opportunity to identify the communities and respond to the question.
Most of our communities have vehicles. We have been ordering vehicles since 2014-15. So far we have purchased 25 new vehicles as a replacement from those vehicles that were transferred from the Department of Health.
These are the communities that have vehicles: Cape Dorset, Grise Fiord, Hall Beach, Iqaluit, Kimmirut, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Baker Lake, Coral Harbour, Rankin Inlet, Naujaat, Cambridge Bay, Kugluktuk, Kugaaruk, and Taloyoak.
The plan doesn’t really indicate child and youth centres.
Ilagiittugut has been closed twice now here in Iqaluit and they don’t seem to have anything in the plans on what next steps they will take on that.
Yes, I can only state that it has not been identified in the capital estimates as to what the next step will be for the Ilagiittugut building.
It is only through the operations and maintenance section that it is being worked on.
I believe my colleague is probably asking about renovation for that building.
That’s the only response I have right now.
This facility has been closed twice now. First of all, children were removed from the building and then recently the employees were laid off.
What about the youth and children?
Where do stay now with there being no facility now?
What are the department’s plans for this?
This is sort of outside of what we’re discussing right now, but I can say that there were only three clients at the facility and the contractor didn’t want to renew the contract.
The services are presently being worked on and the facility will be reopening.
It will open again this fiscal year and the contribution agreement will be more detailed for a contractor who will be able to run the facility. There will be some slight changes in the request for proposals out for the Ilagiittugut building.
The reason I asked is because I would like to know how many clients have been sent south since we don’t have a facility anymore. This is touching on capital estimates. How many children and youth are presently down south from Nunavut?
We’re talking about the Ilagiittugut facility right now and I’m responding to that.
When the facility closed, we announced that it would be temporarily closed.
Since then there have been no clients sent down south. There’s one we returned home and one here in Iqaluit who has been placed with foster parents who can take care of children, but we haven’t sent anybody down south since the facility closed.
The main reason is that we are trying to put a contribution agreement together to renew services without using the old contribution agreement where people were sent down south and with the idea of returning clients from down south. That is presently being worked on. There are tenders being dealt with right now and that is what I can say at the moment.
The other question is I thought I heard that as a part of their plans for the case management system, it’s not really geared towards income support assistance, but the minister seemed to say that they will be using that system for income support.
The funding request seems more geared towards children and family services.
Can the minister elaborate on that?
If I said that, I apologize. What I was trying to say is that the case management system that we talked about earlier here will improve the way we work with social service clients. The way we work with children will improve.
There is a lot involved with respect to social assistance and child work.
Thank you for reminding me of that.
We’re on page D-3. Family Services. Corporate Management.
Total Capital Expenditures. $3,170,000.
Chairman: Go to page D-2. Department Summary.
Family Services. Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $3,170,000.
I thank my colleagues for supporting our capital estimates for the Department of Family Services for the coming 2017-18 fiscal year.
This will help the department a great deal and the people we represent, especially the children. It will help give assistance to them even more.
I thank you all for asking questions and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are a good Chairman, just like I am.
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2017-2018 – Environment – Consideration in Committee
As we just heard, Mr. Akoak was a very good Chairman and I would like to be a very good Chairman too.
We can now proceed with the Department of Environment’s capital estimates.
If you are ready, Minister Savikataaq, you may now make your opening comments. Minister Savikataaq.
Mr. Chairman and members, I am pleased to be here today to introduce the Department of Environment’s capital plan for the 2017-18 fiscal year.
For this fiscal period, the Department of Environment is proposing a capital budget of $2 million.
This expenditure will allow the department to concentrate on two program areas: wildlife management and parks and special places.
Within our Wildlife Division, $500,000 is dedicated towards renovating various conservation offices throughout the territory. The main project for the 2017-18 fiscal year is renovating the Gjoa Haven Conservation Office.
Mr. Chairman, the remaining $1.5 million is combined various capital funds which will be used to replace aging mobile equipment for our Wildlife Division and for funding our Territorial Parks and Special Places projects.
In keeping with our Umbrella Territorial Parks Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement, we will commence the master planning phase for new parks in Sanikiluaq, Arviat, Clyde River, and Napaaqtulik on Axel Heiberg Island.
These projects will focus mainly on establishing and training of the community joint planning and management committees.
These committees are required to proceed with park development.
It is our intention to continue to monitor and maintain infrastructure in all of our territorial parks and campgrounds throughout Nunavut.
In closing, the Department of Environment’s capital plan is focused in areas that clearly support the needs and priorities of Nunavummiut.
Opening comments from the standing committee, Mr. Rumbolt.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Government Estimates and Operations as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Environment’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2017-18 fiscal year is $2 million. The department’s capital budget for the 2016-17 fiscal year was $3.2 million.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates include $500,000 in funding to undertake wildlife office renovations in various communities and $1.5 million in funding for the department’s small capital projects.
Members encourage the minister to provide the standing committee with a detailed breakdown of which wildlife offices will receive funding for renovations during the upcoming fiscal year.
The department’s proposed 2017-18 small capital budget includes funding for the replacement of mobile equipment and the development of infrastructure in territorial parks.
On March 3 of 2016 the minister of the day announced the establishment of the Nunavut Joint Planning and Management Committee for Territorial Parks in Nunavut.
The standing committee recognizes that the establishment of this committee is a step towards meeting the expectations laid out in Article 8 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Members look forward to receiving ongoing updates on any additional committees that may be established to guide planning and management decisions related to specific territorial and national parks.
The department’s 2016-17 capital estimates included $1.2 million for the construction phase of a new wildlife office in Resolute Bay. The department had previously indicated that the department intends to replace all 25 wildlife offices in the communities.
Information provided by the department indicates that its schedule will require the replacement of one office on an annual basis over a 26-year cycle.
In his January 21, 2016 correspondence to the standing committee, the minister indicated that his department had decided not to build a new wildlife office in Resolute Bay and that his department had instead decided to undertake renovations at the existing wildlife office building in Resolute Bay at “significant cost savings.”
Members look forward to ongoing updates on how these changes may affect the department’s schedule to replace and renovate wildlife office buildings in Nunavut.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2017-18 capital estimates include $320,000 to replace mobile equipment for wildlife offices across the territory.
During the minister’s appearance, members raised concerns relating to the manner in which the department allocates this funding across the territory.
Members encourage the minister to provide the standing committee with a detailed breakdown of which wildlife offices will receive funding for mobile equipment during the upcoming fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2017-18 Capital Estimates for the Department of Environment.
Minister Savikataaq, as we proceed, do you have officials that you would like to bring to the witness table?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Mr. Chairman, yes.
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Savikataaq would like officials with him at the witness table.
Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses. Minister.
To my left is my DM, Mr. David Akeeagok, and to my right is my ADM, Mr. Steve Pinksen.
Welcome to the House, Mr. Akeeagok and Mr. Pinksen.
We can now proceed. We’re on page I-3 and it includes I-4.
You can ask questions on both of those pages.
At this time are there any general comments?
Are there any questions on those two pages? We can now proceed. I’ll read it in Inuktitut.
We’re on Environment. Program Management. Total Capital Expenditures. $2 million.
I just have a few questions around the mobile equipment replacement for communities.
I know that not all communities have a truck for the wildlife departments in the communities. I’m just wondering if the department is ever intending to work towards having a pickup truck in all of their communities for their wildlife officers.
Right now we’re not looking at putting vehicles in every wildlife office in Nunavut. It’s just not financially feasible at the moment.
In some communities, maybe in most communities, the wildlife offices all have a boat that’s on a trailer and these boats are fairly heavy. They’re required to get these boats in and out of the water every year and sometimes quite often.
What are they supposed to do for getting their boats in and out of the water when they don’t have a vehicle in the community?
Yes, every community does have a boat, I believe, but not every community has a truck to put the boat in and out and they have to find someone to help them.
We can hire a contractor to do that if need be or they can ask someone to do it, but we are also buying some UTVs, side-by-sides, for some of the communities and those are also capable of launching boats.
I don’t have too many questions, but I’m just trying to get some clarification first of all on park development.
We have a nice breakdown of all the different parks that you want to develop in the territory and they have different amounts that you allocate, for a total of $1.5 million.
Can you explain how you came up with these figures for each of these?
I’ll just use as an example the Baker Lake Thelon and Kazan River, $80,000; Ovayok Territorial Park, $20,000; Sylvia Grinnell, $100,000.
How do you come up with these figures?
Minister Savikataaq, before you proceed with your response, members, if you have any questions, please raise your hand ahead of time so that we won’t have to wait for you.
Each project is budgeted on its own in terms of what is going to be happening or developing in the park.
It is not “Here is $200,000. You seven guys divvy it up.” It doesn’t work like that.
Each project comes up with a business case and a plan on what they want to do and that budget is looked at on each individual park and project.
I have another question. In one of the substantiation sheets you have Nunavut Centres.
Let me just find it here.
(interpretation) I apologize, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Maybe if you want to move on to another member, I’ll find that specific page that I’ll ask questions on.
Chairman (interpretation): Okay, I’ll get back to you once you raise your hand again.
I’ll move on. Mr. Qirngnuq.
I was going to ask a question in regard to the parks, but my colleague already asked the question.
I’ll move on to another topic in regard to having a vehicle, even a bigger vehicle or, as the minister mentioned, (interpretation ends) a side-by-side. (interpretation) We have a boat in Kugaaruk. It’s quite heavy too. In the summertime an individual usually takes the boat in and out of the water using a small Honda.
The tide is quite high and although it’s not like Iqaluit, our low tide shoreline is quite far.
I believe that your department should consider what kind of vehicle is best suited to use to launch the boat and return it to the trailer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As I stated earlier, for the wildlife officers who have a larger boat on a trailer or even if it’s not on a trailer, then we can look at coming up with some kind of arrangement with a contractor or someone to assist them in putting their larger boats in and out of the water.
We are also looking at getting UTVs for some of the communities because some of the communities do have them, but that’s only if they have a boat and a trailer. Not all communities have a boat and trailer. Some of them only have boats.
That was quite fast.
On November 2, 2015 during the Committee of the Whole’s consideration of your department’s 2016-17 capital estimates, you indicated that the next communities scheduled to have their wildlife offices replaced included Gjoa Haven, Arctic Bay, Cape Dorset, Taloyoak, and Igloolik.
Can you confirm if your office will be replacing the wildlife offices in those communities?
Our 2017-18 budget will not include construction of wildlife offices.
Why is your schedule written like that even though your capital estimates indicated that the next community is scheduled to receive a wildlife office?
Is it due to a lack of funding?
My understanding was that, as indicated, these communities would receive wildlife office replacements. Is it because there is lack of funding that you won’t be building these replacements?
We wanted to construct wildlife offices annually, but because of lack of funding, we won’t be constructing wildlife offices in 2017-18.
We will know by the next fiscal year in 2018-19 if wildlife offices will be constructed, but for 2017-18 we won’t be replacing old offices due to lack of funding.
I believe I can ask questions on pages I-3 and I-4.
The first question I would like to ask is under small capital.
That’s the terminology I am familiar with now.
I would like to welcome the Minister of Environment and his officials.
The minister may be well aware of what I’m about to ask.
Baker Lake has two heritage rivers, the Thelon River and Kazan River.
What are your department’s plans for these two rivers?
On these here, we’re still in IIBA negotiations. It’s a heritage river; it’s not a park. It’s a slightly different category and negotiations are between the federal government, NTI, and us.
Heritage rivers, like I said, are not in the same category as parks and special places, so we’re still at the IIBA negotiations.
Although I understand that the funding will be used for that, what are your plans for those two heritage rivers? Are you going to involve the local residents?
It would be premature for me to even come up with a plan yet.
The IIBA is not even negotiated yet, but the plan would definitely involve the communities that are involved in the surrounding area.
Right now we will just do the first step first. We will get our IIBA and then we will come up with a plan.
In 1990 the rivers were recognized as heritage rivers and they’re still heritage rivers.
In your substantiation sheet the funding in the line item is marked as class “X.” Can you explain why it is listed as class “X”?
It would be an “X” because we don’t know what we’re going to do yet, Mr. Chairman.
Until we know exactly what we’re going to do, we can’t figure out how the money is going to be spent. The money is there for the planning of it of the park, but until the IIBA is settled, we can’t start the planning process.
Today is October 31, 2016.
In your substantiation sheet it stated that you’re planning dated April 19, 2016. That’s how it is written. In the 2017-18 and 2018-19 fiscal years up to 2022, you have plans to work on that.
What are your initial plans with those?
We are asking for the money, but there’s no IIBA and until there’s an IIBA, we can’t actually do the planning and we have no control as we are only one part of the process for IIBAs.
The best explanation I can give is we have to have the money in place in case the IIBA is settled.
Otherwise we would have to wait a whole year again and come up in front of you to ask for money again.
On the same line item, Baker Lake North, what are the plans for the Back River?
It would be in the very same category.
I believe it’s a heritage river too and the IIBA negotiations have to be settled until we can do any work.
It’s in the same process and we just have to wait for the IIBAs to be settled.
Regarding the two heritage rivers and also the one that is in the works, when they’re going to be working on those two rivers, the Department of Environment will be working on the land.
Do you know if the federal government, the Inuit organizations, or the Inuit of Nunavut know where the special places are?
Of course it’s going to have to have an effect.
If I understood the member’s question correctly, whenever there are Inuit-owned lands involved, it’s another part of the equation that has to be worked out for the purpose of the IIBAs.
We are aware that if there are any Inuit-owned lands involved, it makes the process just a little bit longer because there is another party to the negotiations.
Having been a KIA land inspector prior to being elected, I’m pretty familiar in some essence, but my question here is, and I’ll rephrase it: Department of Environment, are you fully knowledgeable and aware of the two heritage rivers, if they are on Crown land or Inuit-owned land?
The other being Back River, which is another development in the works, is your department fully knowledgeable of what lands they sit on?
Yes, we would be fully knowledgeable because a background study would have to be checked. We don’t just say, “Oh, there’s a good river.
Let’s make it a heritage river.” There is a lot of work involved before it gets to be classified as a heritage river.
Yes, we are fully knowledgeable on that.
The reason why I’m asking questions on this subject is that we now have the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and we have the Nunavut territory.
These three are going to have an effect on Baker Lake: the Kazan River, Thelon River, and Back River.
Looking at the map, a part of that parcel of land belongs to the Kitikmeot.
That is the reason I’m asking those questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I didn’t hear a question on there, but I assure the member that whenever there are any parks or heritage rivers or any stuff like that going on, all the affected communities would be consulted.
When we look at these three river development projects, under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement IIBA obligations, do you foresee any non-compliance issues?
I don’t think I see non-compliance issues, but I’m not sure what the member meant by that.
That is why there are negotiations with IIBAs. If the member can clarify his question, I might be able to answer it a little bit better.
I would like to remind you that we shouldn’t ask hypothetical questions.
Maybe you can rephrase your question, Mr. Mikkungwak.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Basically my question here was: when you look at Crown lands and Inuit-owned lands, as the minister is fully aware, and me having a little bit of knowledge from my previous career, is your department fully aware or have you done your background checks on possible regulations and Acts regarding Crown land and Inuit-owned land as you’re doing heritage river developments on these three particular rivers surrounding Baker Lake?
Yes, when the background work is being done, all that is taken into consideration.
Just on a different note, there is no legislation on heritage rivers, but all the background checks are done and we do our homework. If there’s going to be a heritage river, then yes, you would have to find out who owns the land around it because, as we all know, Inuit-owned land is actually private land that is owned by the regional Inuit organizations. We do all the background checks before any decisions are made.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Savikataaq.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I found the page I was on.
It was on park centres and this is for $25,000 for 2017-18. By looking at the substantiation sheet, are you able to say what equipment or what thing are you using this money for? It’s for territorial parks; general maintenance and site development at Katannilik Park Visitor Centre, Kimmirut, Mallikjuaq Park Visitor Centre, Cape Dorset, and Vera Akumalik Visitor Park in Baker Lake.
I was in Kimmirut recently on one of my last visits and they had displays and I think this might be the fund that was used from.
Are you able to say what they will be using to buy this fund from?
Yes, the member is right that these funds were used for that sign. We can’t say right now what it will be used for, but it’s for all the parks.
We don’t know exactly what we may need or there might be some kind of emergency repair or signage that might have to be done. That’s why we can’t state right now exactly what it’s going to be used for because all the territorial parks have access to these funds.
When will you find out what you will be using this fund for?
We might know by March or April. It depends on what comes up.
The proposals would be looked at from each park.