EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
On occasion, under extraordinary circumstances, the appeal makes it up to my level.
I do try to make sure that the local housing organization has the autonomy in place to be able to deal with local issues, and that is the intent of having LHOs in the communities and having community boards representing their populace in their own community.
I don’t like to interfere with community decisions, unless there’s an actual rule or policy being broken, same with the district office staff.
Question 308 – 4(3): Government-wide Priorities and Reviews (Mikkungwak)
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, on the last day of our recent winter sitting, the Premier tabled the summary report on phase 1 of the current GN-wide review and operational audit of its programs.
This report identified the capacity and capability of district education authorities as being a concern, and the report recommended that a comprehensive review of DEAs be conducted. When will this review begin?
There are always some glitches when we’re trying to get things done.
According to my briefing note, it says that it’s forthcoming, but I will try to respond to and give the hon. member the information that he’s requesting.
Mr. Speaker, I know the process is ongoing. We do have phase 1 completed. The process of giving more information and preparing action plans for phase 2 is still in the works.
Once I have that information, I’ll be happy to share it with the member and the House.
It is important to recognize that the government simply does not have an unlimited budget with which to increase funding for every single one of its programs.
One of the key mandates of this review was to identify areas where the government could reduce spending in order to free up resources for higher priority areas.
The last O&M budget before the next general election will be introduced next year.
Can the Premier indicate what specific programs are being considered for spending reductions or elimination?
Again, as I have indicated, I’ll be happy to provide the member and the House with the next phase of action items that we’re looking at right at this point.
Mr. Speaker, we’re always trying to find ways to save money. We’re always trying to find ways to become more efficient. We’re always trying to find ways to become more effective.
We’re trying to do this under the Sivumut Abluqta Mandate that we all did together. We want to make sure that we have wise use of our resources.
That’s one of the action items that we have been doing as a government.
Mr. Speaker, there are over 300 programs that we looked at. There are other arm’s-length organizations that are under the government that we want to take a good, hard look at. Some of these might be impacted by the upcoming amendments to our Education Act.
We want to be careful on how we progress forward, knowing we do want to find ways to become more efficient and effective in making sure that the government is spending and investing money with the best possible benefit for Nunavummiut.
I’ll be happy to give the information to the member and the House once I have it.
Before I ask my final question, I welcome to the House Mr. and Ms. Simailak sitting right behind me.
Mr. Speaker, my final supplementary question on this will be, in response, the Premier indicates that he will be responding to my questions.
Will he be responding in writing and cc’ing all the respective DEAs that are involved in this initiative?
Mr. Speaker, I will be working very closely with my colleague, the Minister of Education, on some of the items that we’re looking at.
Of course, one of them is the DEAs. There are other organizations that I have mentioned, not in name, but there are other organizations that we’re looking at and that’s going to be done through phase 2.
Once I have that information, I can either put it in writing or have a conversation with the hon. member and that way, I will be reporting to the House too with a report.
Question 309 – 4(3): Kimmirut Airport (Joanasie)
Mr. Speaker, during our recent winter sitting, the minister tabled the Nunavut Airports 20 Year Infrastructure Needs Assessment.
As the minister is aware, Kimmirut’s current airport terminal building is almost four decades old.
The 20-year needs assessment report, which the minister recently tabled, indicates that Kimmirut’s airport terminal building “requires immediate replacement with a new building…until [a] new airport is constructed.”
Can the minister update the House today on how her department is addressing this situation?
On the subject of Kimmirut’s runway and air terminal building, whenever we are going to be doing any project that requires construction dollars, we usually make a submission to have it included in the capital plans.
The Kimmirut Airport Terminal Building has not been approved yet in the capital estimates, but when we’re dealing with the capital plans, we will make sure that we make another submission.
We know that the Kimmirut Airport Terminal Building is 37 years old.
We will make sure that our staff reviews what we can do and looks at whether we will be moving the airport.
We don’t want to build a new air terminal building when the airport might be relocated to another site.
We have to look at all these avenues, but that’s currently what we’re doing at this time.
The Nunavut Airports 20 Year Infrastructure Needs Assessment report clearly identifies a significant number of problems with the location of Kimmirut’s current airport and clearly states that the appropriate mitigation strategy is relocation of the airport.
The minister alluded to a strategy towards this project.
Can the minister provide an update on how her department is approaching this?
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation has recognized that the Kimmirut Airport no longer has the capacity to be extended any farther, at least in the present location.
Our only future option in this regard is to move the airstrip if we are going to upgrade it. We know that is our only option as a department.
The member was copied in correspondence we sent in January outlining the challenges faced by the community related to the airstrip and the work required to undertake that in his constituency community of Kimmirut.
Perhaps most importantly, with respect to his question and the age of the infrastructure or terminal and if they were to renovate the terminal, it would be an expensive undertaking and it seems more practical to build a new terminal, as the costs would be roughly equivalent.
We feel that would be a better option.
In order to work towards that goal, my staff has started researching the requirements related to the portability of the new terminal if we are building a new terminal, as we don’t want to have it left behind when the airstrip is relocated. They are looking at a building that could be moved. To date, I believe they have found a mobile unit that could be used in the interim prior to relocation.
Mr. Speaker, Iqaluit’s new airport is being constructed as a P3 project.
Is this an option for Kimmirut?
I also thank my colleague for his suggestion in that regard. Nevertheless, Iqaluit’s new airport terminal is in another category, as it is extremely expensive around the $300 million range.
With respect to the situation in Kimmirut, we expect that it would be less expensive and we have discussed a range of options. Similar to the situation in Pangnirtung where relocation of the airport is being discussed, we anticipate the costs to be approximately $50 million for the Kimmirut Airport relocation.
As per your reference to Iqaluit, the airport here is being constructed as a P3 project and we haven’t explored this option for the Kimmirut Airport issues to date.
Question 310 – 4(3): Iqaluit Marine Facility (Angnakak)
Ms. Angnakak: Qujannamiik, Mr. Speaker.
First before I start, I want to say “happy birthday” to my sister. She is celebrating her special day today.
My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation. I’ll keep her on the hot seat.
During our recent winter sitting, the Legislative Assembly voted to approve $5 million in funding towards the new Iqaluit Marine Infrastructure Project.
This essential infrastructure, which many others and I have been supporting for years, will include an improved small craft harbour and a new deepwater port.
Can the minister confirm when her department will be issuing a detailed request for proposals for the next stage of this project, including the design for the facility?
Government contracting is under the mandate of CGS.
Maybe it’s better if you redirect that question to the appropriate minister.
A big hint for the CGS minister, perhaps, in the next coming days.
Residents of Iqaluit recognize that the timeline for completing the new marine facility is approximately four years. Until such time as the new facility becomes operational, there will be a need for regular annual maintenance of our community’s existing infrastructure, including the breakwater and causeway.
Last year, the department’s tender call for maintenance work was issued on May 29 and closed on June 12.
Can the minister clarify when this year’s tender will be issued?
Hon. Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you.
I also thank the member. Now that the beautiful days of spring are here, we fully expect the summer to arrive shortly thereafter.
Last year, the ice stuck around for quite a long time and hunters were unable to moor their boats until later on.
We do have expectations this year that we will be able to launch our boats earlier, but again, our local experts, the hunters, have stated that the ice this year may not leave until some time in late July.
The sealift ships will arrive around that time based on their schedules, perhaps starting around July 27.
It was too early to have expectations last year when discussing the marine port infrastructure. We will commence our review of the most amenable dates and we will start the planning similar to last year, although it seems obvious that we will require a comprehensive review of this process.
I didn’t quite hear a date, but I want to go on to my next question and to say that it’s very important that Iqaluit’s hunters and trappers organization is consulted on what specific work needs to be performed on our existing marine infrastructure so as to help ensure the safety of the boating public.
Will the minister commit to ensuring that her department will sit down with representatives from Iqaluit’s HTO to identify priorities in this area?
Yes, I sat with the Iqaluit HTO and every time they invite me, I’m always open and we will await their invitation.
If anyone wants to invite us, we’re available to meet with them.
Question 311 – 4(3): Consultations on Caribou Collaring (Keyootak)
Mr. Speaker, last winter, I directed several questions related to caribou management. In the Baffin region, there was a moratorium announced to curb caribou harvesting.
Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister this winter if caribou population surveys would be undertaken. The Department of Environment announced that they would use collars to track caribou throughout their range.
Inuit did not agree with this, especially our hunters, who are against any kind of collaring work, especially on wildlife and caribou in particular. It has resulted in injuries to the animals’ necks, both polar bear and caribou that were collared as part of these surveys.
Mr. Speaker, the minister made a statement that a tour would be undertaken prior to the population survey being conducted particularly related to caribou collaring efforts.
Did they tour the communities in early spring?
Yes, we were going to look into this issue with the impacted communities in regard to caribou management in the Baffin region and we have already consulted with the communities regarding the survey.
We wanted to hear a report on whether the communities are in acceptance of putting collars on the caribou.
Did all the communities approve the request to put collars on caribou during their survey?
There was a concern about putting collars on caribou during the survey.
I don’t have the detailed information on the request of the communities.
I will be able to look into that, but as the minister, I haven’t personally seen if they did collaring during the recent survey.
According to the minister’s response, can we expect that he will be able to provide a report on the details as to what the outcome is after visiting or consulting with the communities?
After the survey, will the results be communicated to us?
Yes, when surveys are completed, the results are not immediately available about the status of the population.
The survey results are now being compiled.
As I stated last year, the survey was to commence after the calving season. Last summer, after the caribou calved and up to this winter and springtime, with the calves becoming yearlings, the second phase of the survey was going to be undertaken. The results will be available upon completion, but that is the reason for the population survey on Baffin Island’s caribou.
Question 312 – 4(3): Airport Infrastructure (Mapsalak)
Mr. Speaker, a number of Nunavummiut and my constituents are disabled and face mobility challenges, including the use of wheelchairs.
Mr. Speaker, I have received concerns that the airport terminal buildings in Naujaat and Coral Harbour require improvements, such as the installation of ramps, to make them fully accessible to the disabled.
Can the minister indicate how her department identifies what improvements or retrofits need to be made to existing airport infrastructure in order to make the facilities fully accessible to the disabled?
It is a very good question. We are looking at ways of making it more accessible for the disabled and to have more comfortable access to the airlines.
As of yet, we haven’t seen any results, although we undertook a review of the equipment that would allow for easier access. We have submitted the report to the airlines outlining the legislative requirements to enable access to less mobile passengers. It currently states that the passengers are to be accommodated, but it does not outline in which manner that would enable this accommodation.
This wasn’t discussed.
We haven’t recommended that they explore the best practices specific to airline companies.
We are continually exploring ways to improve this requirement, including the review of illustrations that are relevant to realities of today.
Earlier this week, I landed at Iqaluit’s airport. While I was taxiing to the terminal, I noted that construction of Iqaluit’s new terminal building is continuing.
Can the minister indicate if the new Iqaluit International Airport terminal will be accessible to the disabled?
The new airport terminal building is being constructed at this time.
Down south, you are able to walk into the airplane without having to take the stairs.
You can walk right into the cabin of the plane, but the terminal we are building is not being set up as such.
We will have to come up with additional funding if we want to have similar access to planes.
With that, disabled people face many challenges when they are going into the terminal and onto the plane, particularly when they are in wheelchairs and can’t walk.
They face difficult challenges when they are accessing the old terminal.
I know that the capital estimates include funding for small and minor capital projects. Can the minister indicate if this funding can be used for improvements and retrofits to existing airport infrastructure in order to improve access for the disabled?
Right now, there is no funding available for use in such a project within the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada.
Today, according to Canadian transportation legislation, making improvements for the disabled are considered add-ons. In other words, they can be installed at the discretion and expense of the airlines. This would include access ramps for wheelchair-bound passengers.
However, our department has looked into the most appropriate ways of providing assistance. We’re still in the discussions stages of what to do in the future on the most appropriate means of dealing with this in the future.
Question 313 – 4(3): Baffin Island Caribou Management (Shooyook)
I think we need another term for “minister” because church ministers used to be the only ministers.
My question is, Mr. Speaker: the minister is aware that in the Baffin region, we can only harvest male caribou because that is the law.
This is very unfortunate to life in Nunavut. What is your position?
Will the quota system be in effect for 10 or 20 years? As the caribou will take a long time to come back, what have you planned for the following years? Can you tell me how many years the quota system will be in effect?
My wife is a minister also, a church minister.
During the moratorium on caribou, the NWMB held public hearings, as per the land claims agreement.
After those hearings, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board used the information they had gathered and made their decision based on that.
As a part of their mandate, they are managers of wildlife.
Last year, they allowed a quota of 250 male caribou to be harvested and I approved that as minister.
This is renewed on an annual basis.
For the people affected by caribou management in the Baffin region, if local HTOs, the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board, or the Nunavut Wildlife Management provides us with alternative actions on how long the moratorium should be enforced by the Government of Nunavut, only then would we determine how long it will be in effect.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister for speaking to my question.
Before our session ends, I would like a response, as I did not get an answer on how many years this will be in effect.
Mr. Speaker, have you had discussions with your staff or officials on how to resolve the caribou management issue in the Baffin region?
Are you aware that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit states that Inuit speak the truth?
The caribou are not being depleted.
Once they’ve run out of food, they would move to another area.
Those who do not know Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit tend to believe caribou are being decimated when, in fact, they are not disappearing.
What have you decided on harvesting caribou? There are females without calves still out there and they are actually growing in numbers.
Will you never consider making them available for harvesting when you decide on the quota? There are so many of them out there now.
Will you ever consider having them able to harvest the increasing numbers of calves or caribou? While their numbers are increasing, are you going to decide that we are only going to be harvesting males?
Can you make plans to allow the harvesting of females without calves?
Indeed, in the Baffin region, the main topic under discussion revolves around caribou, and this has been quite a challenging process.
We heard information that caribou undergo cyclic population crashes, but no one stated that the caribou were disappearing. However, people mentioned the fact that the population was in decline.
The mitigation efforts revolved around the management challenges with the caribou population on Baffin Island, especially in light of the fact that residents in the region comprise over half of Nunavut’s population.
I believe there are approximately 18,000 residents or perhaps more like 15,000 residents just on Baffin Island.
The reasoning behind people’s wishes to harvest non-male caribou is something we keep hearing, so yes, we have heard that wish.
Further, our wildlife management partners and organizations are closely involved in this process, as they are also voicing the same concerns. With the current practice of harvesting only male caribou, there seems to be dissatisfaction with this non-quota limitation.
For these reasons, our department will work with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board on dealing with the concerns expressed to date. The discussion will revolve around the 250 tags currently in use and how to fill the tags, as well as whether or not we will continue the male caribou harvesting only.
This decision is under the auspices of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, so they have that authority.
As the government, we cannot request changes unilaterally, as per the NLCA decision-making process.
Now, when we have submitted our options paper related to the caribou management issues on Baffin Island, they will review it and that is the current plan in place.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the minister.
Yes, indeed, I completely grasp the response and although I understand the background, I want to express my concern related to Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, based on my knowledge, the ministerial portfolios are the highest level of authority within the Nunavut government. As I believe a minister of this government is the highest position, which organization has the ultimate authority in your position as the Minister of Environment?
Is it NWMB or does your department have overall authority?
As the minister, which organization has the higher authority and can you perhaps provide an outline of how decisions are made?
I was led to understand that in your position as the minister of the Nunavut government, NWMB has a higher authority than your position.
Therefore, I would like to know where you hold the portfolio that Inuit have deep interests in.
When we are discussing the issues dearest to Inuit or issues that are contentious, will you be just accepting the NWMB decisions related to wildlife while holding your ministerial portfolio? It seems that you are underneath their jurisdiction when I view the decisions in this light.
I wonder what exactly the authority is of ministers within this Nunavut government.
As an example, it seems the ministers are being controlled by their deputy ministers as well as outside agencies such as NWMB.
I haven’t fully understood the authoritative chart of how decisions are made, so I would hope that it could be explained simply as to which organization has the ultimate authority in this regard.
I also thank my colleague for pointing that out.
Back when the land claims process started, quite a few of us were involved with negotiations between Inuit and government. I believe quite a number of Inuit who were involved are also sitting here.
Inuit wanted more control over issues dearest to them, so they negotiated the land claims that governed the decision-making.
Inuit voted to approve the land claims.
The Inuit position was the wildlife management was the most important aspect of the land claims agreement, specifically listed within Article 5, which outlines how wildlife management decisions would be arrived at.
The parties to the land claims agreement included the forerunner of the Nunavut government, the Government of Canada, as well as NTI.
They agreed on the land claims agreement and it was approved through legislation.
However, Inuit voted to approve the land claims agreement as the sole beneficiaries and they were the only people who could vote.
None of the governments had to vote nor did the ten other provincial governments have to vote to approve this agreement. They just followed the provisions of the agreement.
That is why I am making this statement.
We have no choice but to adhere to the land claims agreement and this agreement outlines what Inuit wanted.
As part of that, they empowered NWMB as the ultimate authority on wildlife management, at least as per the language. Nonetheless, as the ultimate legislative authorities, the governments have the final approval. It seems obvious that NWMB undertakes consultations with various groups, such as the elders, hunters, and experts on wildlife.
This also includes scientific data they have to include as part of their wildlife management authority. After they have consulted the various parties and they arrive at a decision, they submit their decision to the government and the appropriate minister to approve, deny, or amend the decision following the outlined provisions.
Therefore, as a minister of this government, that’s where I get my authority according to the land claims agreement.
Question 314 – 4(3): Increasing Support for Homeowners (Okalik)