EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, the program is just to evaluate the deposits, quantities, and qualities. It identifies more deposits that are out there in close proximity to the communities, but at this time, we would have no further… .
The evaluation program is going to be going on until 2014. After that, the accessibility and the quarrying methods will still have to be dealt with.
I thank the Minister of Economic Development for his answer.
With respect to the program, how many more years will this evaluation continue?
Is it two, three, four, or five years?
Once the evaluation has been finalized, what type of assistance will be provided? Will it be via funding or in-kind contributions that you will be able to assist those communities that wish to quarry and transport the carving stone to the communities?
I really want to understand this program as the artists in Hall Beach and Igloolik who elected me to represent them will want to know what to expect once these carving stone sites have been identified to the communities.
Our first step is to evaluate the quantity and quality, and we get a lot of help from the local carvers. They do participate in the evaluations.
Throughout ED&T, our programs are aimed at usually proposal-based programs.
Down the future, if there are credible feasibility proposals to get quarrying on some of these deposits, surely we will look at that as a department.
I also thank the minister for his response. I believe that the local hamlets will have to have this information.
Wherever they have an economic development officer, the information should be made available to them because a lot of carvers are always looking for resources and they’re always looking for ways to earn a little bit of income.
Can the minister agree to disseminate information to all appropriate hamlets, economic development officers, and bodies to see how they can provide tangible benefits to the residents of Nunavut?
Absolutely we’re trying to get our carvers out there more products and more access to the soapstone deposits.
Every time we’re having a discussion or conference or even a meeting with mining companies and exploration companies, we ask them to help locate some of these soapstone deposits that may be out there.
One of the things that we’ve got to be careful about is how to actually quarry and access.
One of the huge costs is going to be actually bringing the soapstone back into the communities for the carvers. After 2014, once the evaluation is done, surely, with the help of the carvers and artists of Nunavut communities, we will be able to come up with a good plan to access these quarries and deposits.
The year 2014 is a fairly long ways off. Do you have any programs available to provide assistance today?
I believe this information is very relevant to carvers, especially those who are trying to survive through arts and crafts sales.
Prior to the fiscal year 2014, did I understand correctly that the Department of ED&T can provide assistance to a community if they submit a proposal?
Within each community, we do have economic development officers. They are the ones who help write proposals for our artists and other entrepreneurs within these smaller communities.
Absolutely we do have programs that are based on assisting, especially carvers and artists.
With the help of the CEDO officers that are within the communities, any carver or artist can put in proposals to access more funding, whether it would be for quarrying, accessing soapstone, or other various things for artwork.
Members will note that the time for question period is expired.
>>House recessed at 15:05 and Committee resumed at 15:29
In Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Bills 13, 14, and 15.
As you are aware, our committee had business from yesterday. We wish to continue with where we left off yesterday by dealing with the committee motion that is before us.
When that has been concluded, we would like to continue with the review of the remaining capital estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services, followed by the Department of Education.
If time permits, Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with the capital estimates of the Nunavut Housing Corporation. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Are we in agreement that we deal with the motion today?
We were dealing with (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Capital Planning. (interpretation) That’s where we left off.
Minister Kusugak, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
We can go to the witness table at the appropriate time.
I think it would be best if we go to the table after we deal with the motion, Mr. Chairman, as I will have to vote on it from where I’m currently sitting.
In accordance with my discretion as the Chair, I will allow you to proceed in that manner.
I was going to ask that you return to your seat when we’re voting on the motion, but it’s all right with me if you would like to remain at your seat.
We are still dealing with the motion that Mr. Ningeongan had moved and you have a copy of the motion.
The mover of the motion had already spoken, Mr. Kusugak and Mr. Curley had also spoken to the motion, but I would like to remind the members that they have 20 minutes to speak to the motion.
Using my discretion as the Chair, I will give you an opportunity to speak if you have any additional comments.
We will be following the list of names from yesterday.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yesterday during Committee of the Whole on deliberations of this specific line item, I asked a question to the minister trying to get a definite answer on whether or not this $500,000 was for the planning and design of an arena in Rankin Inlet. I did that on purpose because I wanted to determine whether it was specifically an arena or not.
In listening to all of the other members speak, ask questions, and make general comments, I was kind of curious to find out where it was going and what the project actually entailed.
In reviewing the Hansard from yesterday, I said, and I quote, “Are we approving $500,000 for a planning and design for an arena specifically or are we approving $500,000 for a planning and design for a recreational complex?”
Those were my exact words.
Mr. Chairman, to this I received the answer, and I quote, “We probably likely looking at this…” and another quote, “It’s just looking at probably the arena replacement.”
The response continued, and I quote, “If a multiplex is not sustainable, then we won’t be moving in that direction.”
Mr. Chairman, these answers seem to me that the intention of the $500,000 is to move forward on the feasibility study of a multiplex. As well, in terms of our line items, what I’m trying to do is substantiate my argument whether I’ll be supporting or not supporting the motion. We base our decisions and I know I base my decisions on what information we’re given by the government itself.
The line item that we’re being asked to vote on is actually entitled a multiplex (arena). Again, that is another sign that shows it’s working and leaning towards a multiplex.
As well, Mr. Chairman, the minister’s department has prepared substantiation forms for this project.
The forms talk about an arena, that part is true, but it also talks and mentions the idea of feasibility studies, it talks about the scope of work to include weight rooms, high capacity volume seating, as well as an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
To me, again, these substantiation forms and the scope of work define what will be done and what the department plans to do.
My understanding from what has been explained to us and the way we have passed funding for the last couple of years is those substantiation forms are the marching orders for the department to continue to work on a project.
Mr. Chairman, I am torn.
Minister Curley, when he spoke to the motion, is correct. We need to think about the youth in our communities. We need to provide healthy choices for them to participate in.
I only have to think of Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay that have never even had the privilege of an arena.
As well, all three of my communities of Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, and Arctic Bay have never had a swimming pool, let alone an Olympic-sized swimming facility.
I would further like to point out that at no time did I or any other regular member say that we did not support youth in our communities.
I will be voting in favour to strike this line item for the capital plan.
Sometimes we have to make hard decisions.
As we are all aware, regular members do not have the ability to tell the government where to reallocate the $500,000, but I will say that if this comes back before me in the form of a supplemental appropriation with the substantiation sheet specifically saying that the funds are for the planning and design of an arena, not a multi-complex, then I would be pleased to vote in favour of it.
Again I reiterate my suggestion would be that the Government of Nunavut reallocates the $500,000 with substantiation forms that back up that this will be going to the design and planning of an arena.
My suggestions will not slow down the process, but it will allow his department to align the project and get it back on track.
The next name on my list is Mr. Allan Rumbolt.
Some of my comments are along the line of Mr. Elliott’s, but I will read them as I have them written.
I would like to make some comments as we resume the consideration of my colleague’s motion.
I want to begin by stating that this issue should not come as a surprise to the minister. A year ago, I noted concerns with the scope of this project in my opening comments to the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of our consideration of the department’s 2011-12 capital estimates.
The department has had a year to clarify the information that is provided to the members in this House. It has not done so.
Only the minister can explain why not and for the benefit of the listening public, I am going to take some time to read into the record exactly what information the minister’s department has provided to describe this new recreational complex (arena).
The scope of work for this project is described as the following, and I quote, “Design and construct of the recreational complex will include a hockey arena capable of seating 3,000 people, a soccer pitch, exercise weight area, indoor games area, a gym, swimming pool, curling rink, meeting or convention area with kitchen and canteen space.”
The department describes one of the benefits of this project as follows, and again I quote, “A new Olympic-sized swimming pool will provide additional recreational facilities to the community. A new exercise weight training facility will contribute to the health and well-being of the community.”
Mr. Chairman, nowhere does it state this funding is for an arena only.
Mr. Chairman, I would also note that nowhere do we see any reference to cost-sharing with the federal government.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know if the minister reviews and approves the documents that are prepared by his department to describe major capital projects of this nature.
I also want to say that this is a good example of the frustration that we experience on this side of the House and perhaps a lesson for all of us.
We frequently ask questions only to be told by ministers that they do not have that detail in front of them.
We ask for copies of studies and reports to be tabled in the House and often it happens slowly, if it happens at all.
We are asked to approve hundreds of thousands of dollars for major projects based on very little detail.
Mr. Chairman, the department is asking for approval to spend $500,000 in the 2012-13 fiscal year for the design of a new facility.
As the minister is well aware, capital projects takes on a life of their own once enough money has been put into a given project and sometimes there is no turning back.
I would also remind the minister that the Legislative Assembly had previously approved $200,000 in funding for this project initiation and planning.
It is our understanding that a technical assessment was undertaken in 2010-11 and a feasibility study was undertaken in 2011-12.
I am sure that we would all welcome the opportunity to review these documents.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday a member stated that we may not have the best interests of youth in mind, but, Mr. Chairman, this is all about the youth of Nunavut.
In reality, we have youth swimming in our freshwater sources and we have youth drowning in our lakes and oceans because we do not have the proper recreational facilities in our communities.
The way the substantiation sheet is written, it is the hope that Rankin Inlet will get a bigger and better facility than they already have.
That is my issue with this project.
How can I justify approving this $500,000 when there are so many communities that don’t have the basic recreation infrastructure?
When we were given these substantiation sheets, we were led to believe that they were fair and accurate.
If these substantiation sheets are written wrong, as the minister states, then maybe we should be questioning the rest of the government’s capital plan.
Mr. Chairman, I will be supporting my colleague’s motion based on the information that is presented in the capital plan because we have to assume that these documents are written correctly.
Mr. Chairman, if we pass this motion today, nothing is preventing the minister’s department from going back to the drawing board and coming back to us with the request for supplementary funding based on a clear, comprehensive, and accurate description of this project.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. Ms. Ugyuk.
I wanted to make a statement of my opinion and I will also be voting for the motion along with my colleagues here.
Yesterday, during the proceedings, the minister stated that the Hamlet of Rankin Inlet wanted to see a project that would evolve into a complex and due to their plans, they have requested funding.
As members, we can approve their request or we can deny it if we so wish.
When the capital plans have a detailed substantiation sheet which is comprehensive and understandable, it is easy to follow.
In the benefits section, it mentions a new Olympic-sized swimming pool, with future extensions and additions made when the community can afford it.
To hear about it after the fact with comments such as, “No, it’s not like that; all that this is, is an ice arena,” we were misled with faulty wording as the government that approves these requests.
I am quite displeased with that occurrence.
Additionally, we were reprimanded by our colleagues that the members are not supporting young people and that we do not have any love towards them.
Look here, in Taloyoak, we have not had an arena for over three years.
So does this mean our community does not support or love our youth?
Our colleagues have accused of this exact situation and this has been flipped around to mean that.
This is very hurtful and unacceptable.
For that reason, I will be supporting the motion to delete this section.
In the future, as per previous comments, when they have completed the arena-only request for a supplementary appropriation request for funding, we can review it at that time.
Mr. Joe Enook.
I also wanted to make a few comments in support of this motion.
Discussions, particularly among regular MLAs, are very important.
We heard different stories about this issue and we don’t deserve blame for that.
We must hear about substantial matters and not stories that end up being different.
As our colleague, Ron, stated, we want to be open and although we cannot make decisions, we want to be open to revisit this issue if it arises again this winter.
This matter won’t go away just because of the motion before us today.
When a matter comes up that isn’t presented clearly or constantly changing… . As it turns out, a department submitted something where some statements and responses are inconsistent or appear to be inconsistent.
We keep saying that we want to help our youth in any way and we want to keep deliberating on their needs.
We will take this matter very seriously if it is brought forward again, but based on the way it’s drafted now within the capital estimates by the department, I find it impossible to support.
Mr. Chairman, if I could state, we act with the utmost sincerity and effort as regular MLAs. We want to speak the truth and indeed we must.
Our fellow Nunavummiut were told yesterday, according to the Blues, that regular members didn’t approve the project because Rankin Inlet is the constituency of one of the ministers.
None of the members said anything like that. If you read the Blues, not one member said that and none of us would ever say that and we should never behave that way.
If someone lives in that particular community, no matter what they do, we should not say, “Let us not give them what they want.” We can’t do that.
I didn’t appreciate that and you can read that in the Blues. Furthermore, within the same Blues, it states that we are belittling the community, at least in the English version.
I don’t believe anyone tried to put down the community. We don’t want to belittle any other community, even if it’s not where we live.
Chairman (interpretation): A point of order has been raised by Mr. Curley.
Hon. Tagak Curley: My point of order is I believe the member is alluding to my comments which I made in Inuktitut and the wording that he read in the Hansard is likely in English. What I said in my language was and it is fact that the minister responsible for presenting the item was also a member for that riding, which is a fact. That’s all I said, which makes it difficult for himself, in many respects, to defend the line item.
I think it implicates him a bit.
That was my tone of the language.
It has nothing to do with the fact that the opposition comes in as he is the minister responsible.
It really is just stated the fact that it was stated as said in Inuktitut.  (interpretation) He is the Minister for Community and Government Services and that community is in his constituency. (interpretation ends) I’m trying to clarify and help the member that it has nothing to do with what the member is stating, as I said it, and it’s perhaps an English version.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) I will take it as notice. (interpretation) I have taken it as notice and I will review the point of order later and we will make our deliberation at that time and we will report on it.
Mr. Enook, please proceed.
Can I speak to this matter?
With respect to the point of order, which was related to your comment, it is something we will have to review and deliberate upon with my staff and I, and that point of order was with respect to your comments.
I will make that decision later on as my mandate as the Chairman. So that’s why I stated I will take that as notice with respect to the point of order.
That is something we will look at shortly.
Let me clarify that that is a particular comment that was under the point of order. If you want to withdraw your comments, I will give you that option.
With your permission, I used both the Inuktitut and the English versions of yesterday’s Blues.
In Inuktitut and English versions, they seem to be saying the same thing based on what I was talking about.
However, you said you would return to the point of order. Can I speak to another matter?
This is information I really want heard and I also want to lay it out for Nunavummiut that those of us who are regular MLAs have not abandoned youth and we will never do that.
We were reminded very succinctly yesterday how we say the youth represent our future and how proud we are of our youth.
We have to continue to be proud of our youths’ accomplishments because they are our future and they will replace us one day.
On the comments we make, when you are quoted to a small part of those comments, we will completely confuse our youth.
When we quote the Blues, it would be much easier or I would find it easier if we included the whole comment.
Originally I was going to speak to the motion, but now I’m going to request if we can take a five-minute break before we vote.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. You have that opportunity to make comments to the motion, but we can take a break before we vote on the motion.
You have an opportunity to speak to the motion.
I could say a few things, but I’m not quite sure how I’m to say them now.
I have sat on the other side and I sat there for almost five years. I did make a motion in the Second Assembly to delete $500,000 from a government department and we had the numbers to do it, and then we made a recommendation on how to use the money.
The government of the day actually came back and surprised us and did use it for the purposes we recommended.
It was something that was of a Nunavut-wide benefit. It benefited many people in Nunavut, all communities, in fact.
So we were quite pleased with the government when it did that.
When I have also been on this side as the Minister of Justice in December 2009 where I was defending a capital substantiation sheet where I was looking for $300,000 to undertake a project to look at upgrades, renovations, and an expansion of the Baffin Correctional Centre, and it was… .
Unfortunately the substantiation sheet came across like I wanted money to build a new facility for 150 prisoners.
Of course, it got quite divisive in the standing committee and the Committee of the Whole, and I recall the vote at the time was a tie in the House here. Of course, the cabinet lost because the Chairman votes with the regular members.
It was quite unfortunate because now I continue struggling with capacity issues at the Baffin Correctional Centre.
Only a few months later, the Fire Marshal of Nunavut was giving us quite a ride there with some fire code issues and the media was quite eager to lambaste the government for not doing anything about the Baffin Correctional Centre and it got a lot of national attention.
I understand how these things work and I believe that… .
I read the substantiation sheet for this project.
It does say an Olympic-sized pool and I’m not sure who in Nunavut would benefit from an Olympic-sized pool. We have a pool in Cambridge Bay. It’s an above ground pool.
It is a metre deep and 12 metres long. I actually learned to swim in that pool. It’s quite beneficial to me and many other kids in Cambridge Bay.
We used to have a lot of drowning tragedies every few years. One year, there were four kids who drowned when they were out rafting.
We started teaching water safety and other things, and now I think every kid in Cambridge Bay knows how to swim and practice water safety. So it has been beneficial.
So I understand, from a small community perspective, that every community in Nunavut would benefit from a pool.
I wish, as a government, we could do that for every community because it is great for the community, it is great recreation, and kids love to swim.
It doesn’t matter who you are, you love swimming.
But I do believe that this project in Rankin Inlet is for an arena. I think it is well known that Rankin Inlet is a hockey hotbed. Their facility is getting quite old.
It’s a facility that will probably get quite a bit of use.
I would urge or suggest to the members that if they were concerned, maybe they could make recommendations that the substantiation sheet does come back for an ice arena and an ice arena only or, following this vote, make another recommendation to the government that the money be used for that specific purpose.
Unfortunately, when the motion was made, the word “deleted” complicates making amendments to the motion, so the only way we can change it is if the mover of the motion was to withdraw that motion and make another motion, and then we could proceed to vote on the new motion to give money for the ice arena only.
When the vote occurs, of course, I will be supporting my cabinet colleagues.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I’ll end my comments. Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): I have no more names on my list for comments to the motion.
The mover of the motion will have the right to the last reply.
Mr. Keith Peterson requested a break.
As the Chair for the Committee of the Whole, we will take a five-minute break.