EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Chairman, two major projects with which the GN has been involved are the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road project and the Manitoba-Nunavut Road.
Members note that no funding has been allocated for these two projects in the 2011-12 draft capital estimates.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were informed that the GN had contributed approximately $360,000 for a collaborative baseline study in relation to the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road project.
Members note that a recent news release issued by the GN and the Government of Manitoba indicated that both governments will initiate consultations on a cost-benefit study on a Manitoba-Nunavut all-weather road.
Members were pleased with this announcement and look forward to ongoing updates on this important initiative.
Mr. Chairman, the department allocated $700,000 for a new Kivalliq Visitors’ Centre in its 2010-11 capital estimates.
The proposed 2011-12 capital estimates do not include any further funding for this project and it is not included in the department’s five-year capital plan.
Members look forward to the minister providing an update on the status of the project to the Legislative Assembly.
On September 15 of this year, the GN issued a news release in which it stated that “Cabinet will work together to provide community freezers in all 25 communities.”
Members have raised this issue in the House in the past and were pleased to note that the GN will work towards its implementation.
The standing committee notes that the news release did not indicate which department will be responsible for this initiative or how much it will cost.
Members look forward to clarification on this project.
The department’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates do not include any funding for projects, such as new meat or fish plants.
While members recognize that federal investments will be essential for realizing a number of the department’s longer-term capital projects, the department is encouraged to not lose sight of its economic development responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2011-12 Capital Estimates of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Because you are chairing the meeting, I’m going to ask the question on behalf of yourself for Chesterfield Inlet.
Apparently the airport terminal is in dire need of repairs and replacement. I assuming that you have allotted $800,000 for small capital projects.
Is this one of the terminals that’s going to be repaired and when are you seriously going to look at replacing it?
For the Chesterfield Inlet Airport Terminal, there’s going to be some renovations and repairs done to that but it’s still further down the line for replacement of that unit.
Also, you were talking about small harbours built in different communities.
I know I had mentioned about Cape Dorset and somebody had said that it’s coming out of a different funding.
I’m just wondering what the status on the Cape Dorset small craft harbour is.
I’ll have my director of policy respond to that question.
DFO Real Property is looking into that project.
They have the preliminary design done for it and they have it in a queue for their capital plan.
It is not a very fast moving capital plan and I don’t know how quickly it would move forward in that program that they’ve got it under.
It is not actually a small craft harbour; it’s as a resupply harbour.
One of the questions I had was in terms of… . You had mentioned Arctic Bay as a small craft harbour success, but do you have an update as to when the Arctic Bay Airport will be opening?
The scheduled date for the opening of the Artic Bay Airport is January 2011, and I would like my director here to get into more detail for the member’s satisfaction.
There is a lot of work being done at this time, but I want my director to respond further with details.
The minister is correct; the projected date is still January.
There are a few steps in the certification process that are ongoing right now.
The issue is trying to get everything in order prior to publication dates which have a deadline of 52 days before anything can open.
All of the documentation has been submitted to Transport Canada and has been reviewed by them, and the certification data has been forwarded to Nav Canada.
There are still some unknowns in this process and we are expecting that date, but there could be some hiccups.
If there are any issues on that, we will let the member know as soon as we can and it would delay the publishing of the airport in an aeronautical publication by some 52 or 54 days.
In regard to the airport equipment shelter, I know you had mentioned that there are other communities that are receiving it, and then there were announcements of the $600,000 by the federal government and $200,000 by the Government of Nunavut.
Is this money going to be spent in this fiscal year and then construction is going to be next year?
I do not see any construction dollars in this document for next year.
Yes, the scheduling is for the tendering for this winter 2010-11 and the construction is for next fiscal year for the equipment shelter in Arctic Bay.
This is where I always get confused because of overlapping years and whatnot.
So the tender that is going out this year for $800,000 for the construction of the Arctic Bay Equipment Shelter will obviously have to be completed and paid for by March 31, 2010.
So the two tenders in terms of construction dollars would be paid next year or do you give them the one-time deal and then it straddles over two years?
In terms of an explanation, in my mind, how the money flows, that would be great.
The member is quite correct; the funding is only allocated once a project starts. It’s going into a capital carryover for the next fiscal year.
With spending some extra time in Grise Fiord this summer, I was able to meet with the community a bit more, talk with some of the workers up there, and also attend some of the hamlet council meetings. I know some of the talks that they have been having and I guess your department has been talking with the community about resurfacing the runway in Grise Fiord.
I don’t again see anything in the capital plan for this, but is this something that would fall under minor capital or small capital projects?
It is ongoing and the project is being done through a capital carryover.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the answer.
With two questions being asked and two of them being capital carryovers, how many projects within your department are actually capital carryover projects that are happening?
Are there quite a few airports that are waiting for things to be completed?
That is one of the facts of life within a small department. Capital carryovers are bound to happen with every department.
I’m going let my director of policy get into more details of the carryovers that we have within the department.
Mr. Elliot.
I believe the minister said he was going to let one of his representatives add to that.
Yes, the department has several projects in capital carryover. Some of these are from the Building Canada Plan, where the funding is appropriated in a single year for the entire project, fully knowing that it is going to be carried over as we go.
Some of them, such as Grise Fiord, unfortunately have been in carryover for several years now and those are really logistical issues in getting the project underway.
A project such as Arctic Bay has been carried over to now.
I don’t really have a listing of what will be carried over into the next fiscal year because we haven’t completed all of our expenditures for this year.
The members will all be seeing that in the next sitting or in the next fiscal year, but Grise Fiord is in carryover. The Kimmirut Airport is in carryover.
The airport redevelopment, the small craft harbours, the Iqaluit and Cambridge Bay airport planning and design are both in carryover, the Qikiqtarjuaq Air Terminal Building; the last three projects I mentioned are all underway but they were appropriated in a single sum.
The airport equipment shelters are in carryover as well. Three of them were tendered.
Igloolik, Repulse Bay, and Chesterfield Inlet were all tendered. They were tendered late in the season. The bids came in over the budget of the project and the project has been re-scoped slightly and will be re-tendered in the next month or two, at a better time to get proper bids for them.
So in terms of the Grise Fiord resurfacing, is that something you foresee happening next summer in 2011?
The airport resurfacing for Grise Fiord, including Kimmirut, it has been very difficult to initiate.
Of course, by this fiscal year, Grise Fiord will be underway and hopefully completed by next summer.
Of course, the completion of next summer is again a capital carryover from this fiscal year into the next.
If a bulldozer is needed for that project, I hope you realize that last year, we were promised a bulldozer in Grise Fiord but that never did happen. So if that is needed, maybe put that in your plans.
Of course, to initiate and complete any projects, we’ve got to look at all of the options that are available to us.
We will keep that in mind when we think of that and when we think of Grise Fiord and the project that we’re trying to complete up there.
When the person who sits next to my chair was telling a story, they referred to Iqaluit and its airport and what is happening to this project, including the strategic plan that was presented last year.
What is the status of the strategic plan initiative at this time?
I welcome you all to the witness table.
The designing and planning is pretty well done.
The plan for initiating the project is underway.
At this time, Mr. Chairman, the process of putting the plan together for submission to the federal government on the cost estimate, we have to put a document together that establishes a good estimate.
Once that happens, we will be putting it forth to the government and not only that. At this point too, there are some discussions on a possible P3 project for the Iqaluit ATB and airport.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for his response.
Since this project was referred to as part of the Small Craft Harbours Program which was planned out in the past, I would like to know what the status of that project is today.
I’ll have my assistant, director of policy respond to that question in detail.
The Iqaluit port study has been completed as far as this phase of it will go.
The study looked at five different options and looked at the cost, the feasibility, and how they would functionally operate and work in the sealift environment, as well as small craft owners and local boaters.
The study has narrowed down to a couple of options. Some of them were found to be technically not feasible, unfortunately, but the study has been narrowed down to a couple of options that are equivalent in price and we again have to find someone to fund them. They are both in the $70 million price range.
I do not want to keep returning to this issue. However, we all know for a fact that the port project will not be initiated immediately.
It would be preferable to get this $70 million construction funding, but I doubt that we will be able to get this funding.
I am wondering how we can offer or provide more support for this project, or if the department has alternative plans in the event that this is not approved. I refer to the ED&T department.
Of course, we have been looking at several different options for possible funding.
P3 is another one again and also from industry, from the mineral companies and exploration companies that are out there. There is that possibility of a P3 with them and other partners.
But yes, it’s a big project and it does have a high cost that this government is unable to carry out on its own.
For the most part, we are looking at all options, including assistance and possible P3s with the federal government and other Inuit organizations, including the exploration companies, like I mentioned.
I have conducted studies in the past and I have met with various organizations regarding shipping and related issues.
I have been told by several people that if they had made improvements to the previous port, they would be able to use our causeway for offloading sealift materials.
I’m wondering if that old causeway has been the subject of any study or if the Department of Transportation has looked at it.
There are discussions with the city and other potential users of the facility.
I will have my assistant get into better detail to answer the member’s question.
The old causeway was one of the options that were examined in the study that we undertook; it was actually one of our preferred options.
The engineering firm that was undertaking the study identified engineering problems with it.
The structure itself is actually quite small in comparison to anything that could bring enough out of the water to make it usable on a regular basis and usable for the kinds of loads that it would be expected to carry.
It was actually constructed as a fairly temporary structure, and they felt that the base underneath it wouldn’t carry the weight that was required for the structure that they were proposing. Now, further geotechnical work may prove that wrong and we would hope so, but there appears to be a lot of silt underneath that structure.
As per his comments, there has to be more geotechnical work on that causeway, especially when you look at the future possible uses down the road. I would like to see them conduct a study to determine the feasibility because it seems like that facility is one that requires the least work.
We have to try and ensure that those projects that are less work intensive go forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With limited resources within the department and of course, the government, we do have to partner in with potential partners to get some of this infrastructure built.
Yes, I agree that the infrastructure, the marine facility there is outdated, it’s old, and it doesn’t provide the functions that we need for the city, including the region.
So, yes, we do have to make sure that we get the proper engineering done and the proper design, and come up with a plan that is going to be beneficial to all users, Nunavummiut, especially Qikiqtaalummiut.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Yes, I’m sure that my colleagues will want to ask more questions, so I’ll stop at that for now.
Actually I don’t have any more names.
My question is very short. It is not long, although it may seem fairly long. I just want clarification on this issue.
Roughly two years ago, our community experienced erosion around the bridge foundations when the river overran its banks. The bridge became unusable, so a new bridge was constructed and it is now in use by our community.
The north side also had an access road constructed last year, but it will become available for the public only after the road is no longer in use by the heavy equipment.
They have completed the surveying for the north and south side where the bridge placement site is identified.
They have completed the surveys for the north side, but the funding for the south side apparently ran out, so the turnoff to the bridge was not done properly.
I know it was surveyed. What is the status of that project now? Will they be completing the new access road, or is it due to the federal government funding that was limited, or did the funds not cover the road construction?
We were very happy to hear that the south side was being constructed, but the funding disappeared. So, luckily for our community, the Tower Arctic Company that was constructing our harbour agreed to do this work at no cost since the community did not have any extra funding.
They straightened the road and took out the big turnoff and made it less dangerous. We were very happy that they were able to do that improvement.
My question to you is: will this form part of the project or will it be a separate project?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The member is quite correct; we do a lot of work in conjunction with the other departments.
CGS has that responsibility with the surveys and the planning of the community, including the usage of some of lands that you are referring to.
I will leave it at that. I am sure you will probably be asking the Minister of CGS the same question down the line here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I will leave that for another day for the time being because it relates to access roads, I believe.
I do not have any more names, so we will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates starting with page I-5.
We normally go to I-3, but I was told that the Department of Transportation is inclusive of issues that would normally be on page I-3. I-5. Economic Development and Transportation.
Transportation. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $3,925,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) We will go back to I-2. Department Summary. Economic Development and Transportation.
Detail of Expenditures. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $3,925,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Is the committee agreed that the Department of Economic Development is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would now like to ask Minister Taptuna if he has closing comments.
I appreciate the questions from the members of the committee.
For the most part, in this department, we are trying our best to make sure that we maintain our mandate and make the best use of our resources that are available to us.
Again I’ve got to thank the members for their very good questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Taptuna and your officials. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the officials out, please.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would now like Minister Peterson, responsible for the Department of Justice, to make his opening remarks.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Justice – Consideration in Committee
I am pleased to present the proposed capital estimates for the Department of Justice for the 2011-12 fiscal year. A total amount of $3,450,000 is being allocated for the Department of Justice.
The majority of our capital estimates, $3,050,000, is being allotted for the final phase of construction of the new men’s correctional facility in Rankin Inlet.
Upon completion, this medium to minimum security facility will accommodate up to 48 inmates.
Construction of this facility is well underway and is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2011.
This new men’s correctional facility will alleviate some overcrowding issues at the Baffin Correctional Centre and enable offenders from the Kivalliq to serve their sentences closer to home. It will also provide area residents with employment opportunities.
We have also included $400,000 for minor capital expenses.
These are funds to cover capital expenditures that arise over the year, such as minor building repairs to the existing correctional facilities, the replacement of corrections vehicles, snowmobiles, and computer technology that is necessary for the delivery of programs.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Peterson, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Janet Slaughter, Deputy Minister of the Department of Justice, and to my left is Ted Dingle, Director of Corporate Services for the Department of Justice.
Welcome, officials.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Social Wellness have comments? Mr. Aupaluktuq.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Yes, I do and thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Standing Committee on Social Wellness has reviewed the proposed capital estimates of the Department of Justice for the 2011-12 fiscal year, and I am pleased to provide you with the committee’s comments.
Standing committee members note that the department’s total proposed capital budget for 2011-12 of $3.45 million is primarily allocated to the ongoing development of the Rankin Inlet Men’s Correctional Centre, which is scheduled to be completed in September of 2011.
An additional $400,000 is allocated for minor capital projects, such as upgrades to the Kugluktuk Men’s Healing Centre and vehicle replacements.
Mr. Chairman, members recognize that it is important for as many Nunavut inmates as possible to serve their sentences in their home territory.
Members recognize that while the new women’s correctional facility has indeed reduced overcrowding at the Baffin Correctional Centre, this continues to be an urgent issue.
Members are pleased to note that the new Rankin Inlet Correctional Centre was originally and still is designed to allow for expansion in the future.
Mr. Chairman, members also note that the staff housing costs associated with the Rankin Inlet Correctional Centre amount to $11.88 million.
Mr. Chairman, members are pleased to note that the new territorial correctional facility for women opened in June of this year in Iqaluit.
The standing committee is pleased that female inmates now have a gender-appropriate facility that will be conducive to the delivery of healing and rehabilitation programs.
During his recent appearance before the standing committee, the minister stated that he encourages anyone who is interested in establishing an outpost camp to contact the Department of Justice.
Members recognize the importance of effective healing and rehabilitation programs that will help enable inmates to successfully reintegrate into their communities. Members also recognize the importance of incorporating cultural components in rehabilitation.
Outpost camps can play an important role in achieving these goals.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2011-12 Capital Estimates of the Department of Justice.
In your opening statement, you were stating that the construction of the facility is underway and is scheduled to be completed by the fall of 2011. Is it still on schedule?
Yes, Mr. Chairman, it’s on schedule for the fall of 2011. I don’t have an exact date but some time between September and November, hopefully. Anything can happen, so I’m not guaranteeing it.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) This question is to save some money for my colleague from Baffin South.
Since the minister appeared before our committee, some news has come out that there needs to be some help for gun owners, in particular, storage and locks for long gun rifles.
Has the minister given this more consideration of late?
Mr. Chairman, I’ve had my officials looking into the matter.
I have an official in Cape Dorset and I believe she went in today. I have also had a conversation with Chief Superintendent Steve McVarnock about the question of gunlocks and trigger locks, so we’re having that discussion.
This concern has been brought up previously that the minister wanted debated.
When would the minister be able to identify that this assistance is available for Nunavummiut who require a gun lock?
Mr. Chairman, I can’t give any timeframe. I don’t even know what the costs are right now, what the plan is, and what discussions there are.
I know Mr. Schell has generously offered to pay for them himself.
I don’t know what the costs are, but it could be quite expensive. We will have to do some more work on that and report back when that information is available.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I look forward to the ministers hopefully updating the House before our session concludes so that good people like Mr. Schell can plan and perhaps purchase gun locks for his constituents, if he must, in the foreseeable future.
So I look forward to a progress report on this in the next few days, hopefully.
My next question is on the issue of outpost camps.
As my colleague mentioned, it’s not in the capital budget, but I think we have to let potential operators know about the program and the useful purposes of these outpost camps need to be highlighted further. Are there any plans to advertise for prospective outpost camp operators in the future?
I thank Mr. Okalik for his question.
Mr. Chairman, I believe that there is an annual call for proposals for outpost camps.