EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Your second shot is going to come in a lot sharper once you get a general comment from the minister.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation) At this time we are on page J-6. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Grants and Contributions. Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $2.4 million.
I wanted to get some clarification from the minister on how they… As in my opening comments I mentioned there is a municipal infrastructure deficit of between $500 million to $600 million, and the department only has, at least in this capital plan, $23 million to allocate to projects over the next year.
She mentioned in her opening comments, the work of the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee, which is comprised of three mayors and three GN employees, I know, Mr. Chairman, as a former mayor, as many of us around the table are former mayors, there are 25 mayors in Nunavut.
How does the minister get 25 mayors in Nunavut to agree on the allocation of the limited funding that’s available for these projects? Can you take us through that process?
I will get Mr. Dawe to answer the question.
A quick outline of the process by which we boil down the projects:  It starts, basically, with a consultation process through our own regional people and the Members of the Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee.
That committee consists of not all 26 mayors, as the member might’ve indicated, but it actually consists of three mayors. They are members of NAM that are appointed by the Nunavut Association of Municipalities to our committee. The committee also consists of three GN employees, two from CGS and one from the Department of Finance.
So, basically, there is consultation done with all of the communities and we gather together the information on the projects that they would like to see done.
There’s basically a process of prioritizing and trying to allocate the money that we figure is reasonable that we should be able to get towards the most important projects. That’s a joint venture of the CGS people and the NAM people to this committee.
Those are the projects that eventually wind their way up through and come on the table as you see the program before you.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and Mr. Dawe for that answer.
I understand the process, but if I’m a mayor of any Nunavut community and I really want a community hall or a new hamlet office, and I believe we need it because our facilities are 25 to 30 years old and our community has grown substantially, I’m putting my faith and trust in this committee.
How is a mayor who, let’s say, is not on the committee, how can I have faith and trust, and be reassured that my project that my community has asked me to get for them is going to receive some serious consideration.
And if not be a priority project in this go-around, let’s say, in this fiscal year or in the next fiscal year, what stage will my projects for important community infrastructure become a priority?
Because after all, what you do is go through this process every year.
So do those projects remain in the priority line, or do they drop off and you start all over again on square one? It’s quite a wonder it becomes another case of six people sitting down and cutting and chopping, and narrowing it down to $23 million worth of projects.
I was wondering if you can give me a sense of how, if I was a mayor, that my projects will be priorities and at some stage, if not this year but the next year, at some future year, that that project is going to make it to the top of the list?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have Mr. Dawe answer the question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Brown. Mr. Dawe.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically, the decision is made on a ranking system basis, which attempts to address the issues that you’re talking about in that how one mayor can be sure that another mayor is giving them a fair shake, if you’ll allow me to paraphrase.
Every single project is considered; that’s an operational part of the committee. The projects go into a process where they go through a ranking system. We look at the technical merit of things; we look at the costs of it; we look at are there other ways of doing it; how important is it; what kind of risks there are if we’re not doing it; and these are all the assigned waiting factors through a system which basically removes the impartiality so that lobbying, if you like, is kind of minimized.
We can make recommendations purely on the basis of priorities for what money is available. What happens to those projects after the fact of the ones that don’t get approved? We try to keep them.
If we get them in the capital plan, we try to move them through the capital plan fairly reliably until they come to the year where they can get funded.  Having said that, we do recognize the priorities change and one of the main goals of the NCIAC for the year coming up is to re-consult on a major basis with the communities, and say, “Okay, we have some projects left.
Are these still priorities? They have no priorities.” So it’s an evolving process.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Dawe. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and Mr. Dawe for that explanation.
I don’t really have a concern with the process.
It’s just the question of whether my projects, as a mayor… obviously, I’m not, but I have been there and know what it’s like. We lobbied for three or four years before we got our water supply line, even though it was like 27 years old and breaking down all the time. So I know how complicated and convoluted the process is, but that was before this committee.
So if I was a mayor and you make promises to your constituents, they elect you, obviously, because you say you’re going to deliver certain capital projects to your community, you want to have some assurances that your community’s priorities are being taken seriously and will eventually plan it into the capital plan. I understand the waiting system as well.
I’m wondering, Mr. Chairman, and I’ve asked this questions before.
We do have 25 communities in Nunavut, I’m wondering if the minister and her staff have had time to assess all of the infrastructure in each community. What’s currently there? What should be there?
What the age of all of the infrastructure is and when it should be replaced. How long past its expiry date is it? What the total cost, by community, would be to replace the all of the infrastructure.
Also, Mr. Chairman, if I had an opportunity to take a typical Nunavut community, maybe take two or three out, because they are different sizes, and compare them with communities in Southern Canada to see how we stack up against southern communities in terms of the quality of infrastructure that we have and its impact on improving the living standards of the residents in our communities? Have you done anything like that, or is that something you’re thinking about doing?
I’m going to get Mr. Dawe to answer it a little bit later.
(interpretation ends) I wanted to mention, because you keep referring to 25 communities, of course, there are 25 communities, but one community in Nunavut is quite successful in acquiring their capital plans because that one community is consistent every year when they do their planning for capital plans.
They have their priorities from J-1 to J-5. It never changes; every year, it’s the same one that they present. When it’s not changing, then it’s easier for the committee to determine that this community has been consistent and this is what their priorities are.
I just wanted to state that because I’ve learned from one community where they are very consistent and very strong in what they want, and I think that that’s a good example to follow because some communities change their priorities when new mayors or when new councils are elected.
They kind of jump around and that has been a factor in the past when they present their priority plans and it’s kind of hard to... last year they wanted this but this year now, it’s different again.
So I wanted to state that but I will give it to Mr. Dawe to add to what you were asking. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have, basically, two approaches in the inventory type of question that the member raises.
One is through our insurance program in that we assist the municipalities in insuring all of their infrastructure, and of course, there are assessments done with the value of it and what we need to do to insure it. So that necessarily puts a value on some of this infrastructure.
More directly, we do have a management system in place, it’s called RECAP, which is an acronym for re-engineered capacity in... it fools me.
It’s basically an infrastructure management computer program, if you like, that lists all of the infrastructure that we have, its value, and a maintenance schedule for costing out the life cycle of it.  We do have our municipal infrastructure, ARMET, but we don’t have it fully populated yet with the final costs and that’s a work in progress that we’re working on as we can get to it.
I thank the minister and Mr. Dawe for that information. I am interested in that RECAP program.
Some of us are getting a little older and our memories are starting to fade, but I can remember very well when we got our community hall and when we got our ice arena, and all of the other sorts of stuff have been around Cambridge Bay for quite a long time. You start to lose track of time but you know that your infrastructure is old and needs to be replaced or upgraded.
So that information will be good to have available for mayors, standing committees, and for you own purposes. I look forward to getting an opportunity some time to read some of the reports that have been generated from the RECAP particularly for my community and my riding.
I wanted to ask the minister, Mr. Chairman, because she mentions it a couple of times here – the Gas Tax and the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Funds, and there’s another one, the Building Canada Plan - these are all federal government programs to help communities across Canada to provide infrastructure for their communities.
You’re preparing a document; I think... are you preparing a document to do some lobbying?
Is there any lobbying going on currently in Ottawa with the federal officials and with the government to continue to make the case that Nunavut needs a major investment or infusion of infrastructure funds for our communities? Can you give us an update of your lobbying efforts in Ottawa?
Yes, every year we go down for a meeting and I meet with my federal counterparts. The deputy ministers also go down for meetings, maybe even more than us
(interpretation ends) My department officials are negotiating the Framework Agreement in collaboration and it is anticipated that the Framework Agreement will be finalized some time in the fall of 2007.
There’s also another program called the Building Canada Fund. This has been announced and its intent is to provide reliable long-term funding for infrastructure planning and development. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
So there is some progress in Ottawa, I guess, albeit it’s still small levels of funding.  Can you give us… you probably provided this information in the past, but under the Building Canada Plan or the Building Canada Fund that you mentioned, how much funding would be available for Nunavut per year or let’s say the next five years?
Almost $250 million is guaranteed funding to be delivered to infrastructure projects in Nunavut from 2007-14, which has worked out to about $25 million a year for the next seven years. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
That’s a lot of money for us but I hope it will be well used. Is it money that’s specifically targeted for certain infrastructure projects, or is it available for any kind of Municipal Infrastructure project in Nunavut with no strings attached?
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The eligibility categories are still being negotiated, as Minister Brown mentioned, we are negotiating on the Framework Agreement.
The category that we reviewed is quite extensive.
It covers pro-economy for… because this is a national-wide theme, on the highway system, clean environment, public transit, green energy, solid waste management, strong communities that’s on drinking water disaster mitigation, cultural sports, tourism, and regional and local airports.
It covers a lot of eligibility.
As we are just negotiating on the framework, the scope isn’t narrowed down yet but it’s currently a lot to do with territorial, national, and municipal infrastructure. (interpretation) Thank you.
I thank the minister and her officials for that information. When do you anticipate the Framework Agreement being concluded?
The reason I ask that is I’m trying to get a sense of when the funds from that program will be available for use in Nunavut. What fiscal year will it be? Will it be the curent or the next fiscal year, or the fiscal year beyond that?
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) The program that was announced is to start for this fiscal year. So we are negotiating on the Framework Agreement.
As the minister mentioned, we are probably one of the first jurisdictions to sort of come to some agreements.
We are still doing an internal review of the legal, financing, and policy-wise. Once that is done, the next step would be to negotiate on the funding agreements and once those funding agreements are done, the funding would flow through from the federal government.
So it is our anticipation to get this funding for this fiscal year. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks for that information.
Just to clarify, when you say this fiscal year, do you mean the current fiscal year, 2007-08, or next fiscal year, 2008-09?
The 2007-08 fiscal year.
Go back to page J-6. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services. Detail of Capital. Capital Planning and Technical Services.
Total Grants and Contributions. $2.4 million.
Chairman: Tangible Assets. Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $3,895,000.
Chairman: Qikiqtaaluk Region, including J-7.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $3,652,000.
Chairman: Kivalliq Region.
Total Kivalliq Region. $4.4 million.
Total Kitikmeot Region. $6.5 million.
A couple questions here.
Although Cambridge Bay is not on the list, on one of the committees I thought I would ask for an update on the status of the projects that were on a capital plan last year - the sewage lagoon and the dumps - if the minister could give me an update on those projects.
I will let Mr. Dawe respond to the question.
Mr. Dawe: Thank you, very much, Mr. Chairman.
The reason that you don’t see some of the money that you’re talking about here is because some of that work is funded from the Gas Tax program, which, of course, is not Vote 2 here and it’s not voted here in this program.
The member is quite right, there is quite a bit of work in Cambridge Bay’s schedule. We have, at the moment for the solid waste work, a Request for Proposals out at the moment to stake an engineering consultant now to do the detailed design work for what’s necessary at the landfill. That’s the landfill - the water flow problem through them - and the metal waste as well.
That consultant, I believe, is now already in place and that work should be proceeding.
I know we have done the preliminary work and they should be now proceeding to detailed design.  The sewage lagoon work is not quite at that same schedule, it was funded more recently than the landfill work but, again, it is proceeding.
We’re trying to get our consultants in place to get the detailed design and schedules done.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Dawe and the minister for that update.
My next question ties back to my earlier discussion on the work of the committee prioritizing various capital projects.  I know in Cambridge Bay that, over the years, we have asked for a larger community hall, a new hamlet complex, and we’ve talked about a new metal waste dump, or certainly improvements to the metal waste dump.
I wonder if the minister or Mr. Dawe can give me an idea of where those three projects are in terms of priority ranking through that process that you described earlier.
I’ll have Mr. Dawe respond.
The metal dump project, as I just mentioned, is already funded and is proceeding. It’s part of the overall solid waste project that’s underway there at the moment.
The other projects for Cambridge Bay... okay, we don’t have either of the other two projects that the member mentioned on the capital plan at the moment.  The one thing I can advise is that, as I mentioned before, it’s time that we went out and re-consulted with the communities now.
That’s one of the major initiatives that we have in progress for the year coming. It’s to get out and redo the entire round of community consultation process that we did before because projects like the ones that the member mentioned, if they were community projects two or three years ago when we did the first round of consultation, if they were not funded, it’s now time to check to see if they are community projects that still have high priority, or are these new ones that we should be moving up higher on the priority.
Basically, as we’re working our way through some of the NCIAC projects, we have to keep aware of these things and give opportunity for change where it’s required.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and Mr. Dawe for that information.
It’s good news to hear on the solid waste site. When I heard the term “solid waste,” I was thinking about the main garbage dump but I see now it includes the metal waste dump. That will be quite a challenge for you because you’ve got like 30 or 40 years of history in that metal waste dump.
I know somewhere in your materials I read you’re trying to develop a policy of repatriating vehicles back south. I don’t know if you can repatriate vehicles going back to 1950s or 1940s, but certainly, they are there if anyone wants to look at them.
In terms of the community hall that we have there right now, that is 20 years old and it’s in good shape. I believe and many of us in the community believe that it’s undersized for the population. I was in there last week for a community event and there wasn’t enough room for all of the folks to gather around.
And, I have been in there for funerals, and for some of the funerals, you have to stand out in the porch and outside. So it’s just not large enough for the size of the community.
The hamlet offices that we have are, I think, close to 30 years old and they weren’t originally designed as a hamlet complex. They were designed... in the Kitikmeot, it used to be administered out of the Fort Smith region, so they needed some government offices. So they quickly built those offices.
I think it was in 1979 or 1980.
When the government moved into the Enokhok Centre, they turned it over to the hamlet. It wasn’t designed as a proper hamlet complex. Over the years, the administration at the hamlet has grown significantly and it’s overcrowded.
The building is wearing down and they really need a new facility. I know when I was mayor in the early part of this decade, it was a hot topic then and discussed several times. So I can’t see seven years on that it isn’t still a priority for the community.
I appreciate the minister’s comments about when a community makes the same case every year for the same projects, you know, a priority, and maybe that’s what Cambridge Bay has to do is changing it every couple of years.
I certainly hope that we do get out to do some consultations with Cambridge Bay that you do bring up the community hall with them, the hamlet offices, and the other facility that they need over there.
So with that, I’ll end my questions.
I didn’t pay attention and didn’t realize that there was a question.
I don’t know whether there was a question or not but I’ll have Mr. Dawe to respond to that question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Brown. There was no question.
We’re on page J-8. (interpretation ends) Community and Government Services.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, in view of time, I move that we report progress.
Thank you, Minister Brown and your officials.
Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the witnesses.
Speaker (interpretation): Members, going back to the Orders of the Day.
Your committee has been considering Bill 16 and the Capital Estimates, and would like to report progress. Also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be concurred with.
Orders of the Day for October 26:
This House stands adjourned until tomorrow, October 26, at ten o’clock in the morning.
Friday, October 26, 2007
Pages 1960 – 2007
Opening Prayer 1960
Speaker’s Ruling 1960
Ministers’ Statements 1961
Members’ Statements 1964
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 1971
Speaker’s Caution 1972
Oral Questions 1972
Tabling of Documents 1990
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 1991
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 1991
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2006
Orders of the Day 2006
Friday, October 26, 2007 1960
088 – 2(4): Health Committees of Council (Aglukkaq) 1961
089 – 2(4): Assessment Rates & Rebate (Netser) 1962
090 – 2(4): Increase in Apprentices (Picco) 1962
091 – 2(4): Project Management In-Service with CGS Project Managers and Officers – May 14 to 18, 2007 (Brown) 1963
092 – 2(4): 2007 Summer Student Employment Equity Program (Tapardjuk) 1964
202 – 2(4): Governor General’s Order of Canada to Reverend Mike Gardener (Okalik) 1964
203 – 2(4): Preventing Pollution in Arctic Waters (Arreak) 1965
204 – 2(4): Environmental Concerns (Curley) 1967
205 – 2(4): 35th Anniversary Hamlet of Coral Harbour (Netser) 1967
206 – 2(4): Concerns with Federal Government’s Treatment of Nunavummiut (Kattuk) 1968
207 – 2(4): Recognition of Ulikattaqs of Repulse Bay (Mapsalak) 1969
208 – 2(4): Nunavut Health Benefits (Barnabas) 1969
209 – 2(4): National CBC Award – Joanna Awa (Picco) 1970
210 – 2(4): Predators – Thrashers Hockey Game – 3rd Star Jordin Tootoo (Tootoo) 1971
256 – 2(4): Accreditation of Qikiqtani General Hospital (Tootoo) 1972
257 – 2(4): Review of the “Child & Family Services Act” (Arreak) 1975
258 – 2(4): Canadian Dollar Value (Curley) 1978
259 – 2(4): Health Benefits Coverage of Scooters/Wheelchairs (Barnabas) 1979
260 – 2(4): Health Committees of Council (Peterson) 1981
261 – 2(4): Who Purchase Skins – Vacant Wildlife Officer Position (Kattuk) 1984
262 – 2(4): Cultural Training for Social/Mental Health Workers (Mapsalak) 1985
263 – 2(4): Health Care Facilities’ Operations & Medical Care (Curley) 1987
126 – 2(4): Letter to GN Minister of Environment re. Clean Up of Old Town Clyde River and Cape Christian Sites (Arreak) 1990
127 – 2(4): Information and Privacy Commissioner Annual Report 2006-2007 (Speaker) 1990
Bill 18 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act and Related Statutes – Notice 1991
Bill 19 – An Act to Amend the Income Tax Act, No. 2 – Notice 1991
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2008-2009 – Consideration in Committee – Community and Government Services 1992
Speaker (Hon. Peter Kilabuk)(interpretation): Thank you. I would like to ask Mr. Netser to say the opening prayer.
Speaker’s Ruling  Speaker (interpretation): Good morning, Members.
Before we proceed to the Orders of the Day, I will be making a Speaker’s Ruling.
On October 24, 2007, the Minister of Health and Social Services raised a point of order during question period in relation to a line of questioning posed by the Member for Iqaluit Centre.
The House will undoubtedly be pleased to hear that my ruling on this matter will be brief and to the point.
It is clearly a difference of opinion between the members involved as to how the public should interpret the proceedings of the House with respect to Bill 11, which was passed earlier this year.
I note that both Members have offered us vigorous questions and responses on this issue, which is completely appropriate for a parliamentary forum such as this.