EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
What we have done as a government is we have created tax incentives for the developers so that we can have a role above that and try and ensure that there is a positive impact coming out of development throughout the territory.
That’s not outlined in the land claims agreement but that’s something that we created as a government because we see the potential benefits and impacts of development for Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand the Premier.
The Premier already knows that at the time when we were dealing with firearms licence issues, the government took part and took the side of Inuit along with the western provinces when they faced the federal government.
I know that it wasn’t the responsibility of the Government of Nunavut if they didn’t want to take that on.
Likewise with mining development, especially for the communities that are going to have a social impact.
It is clear that the social impact of mining development can have far reaching consequences.
Let me make a preamble before I ask my question.
Social Services will try to deal with individuals who are impacted. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, does the Premier agree that a healthy working relationship between the government and the private and public sectors is an important aspect of resource development?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Yes, absolutely. Even though we don’t control development and it’s controlled by the federal government today, we are trying to acquire that responsibility.
Even though we don’t have a role today, we are finding ways to take part and make sure that there are benefits flowing to the communities that are affected the most.
I’m going to Baker Lake next week to open a road that we have a role in creating through our tax regime. Thank goodness to the minister at the time and the Member for Baker Lake.
It’s an obvious benefit that we have created for that community and I want to see that everywhere throughout Nunavut. That is something that we’re trying to do. Even though we have no control over it, we’re trying to find ways to ensure that these companies leave a positive legacy behind to Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
It is equally important to plan for the economic impacts of mining development, as well as the social ones.
The mine at Mary River will impact local business opportunities in the area of logistics, transportation, catering, and other support services.
Will the Premier commit to working with the community of Pond Inlet, along with government departments, such as Economic Development and Transportation, to develop a plan to minimize the negative impacts that the mine will have on Pond Inlet residents and surrounding communities?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) We appreciate the investment taking place throughout Nunavut and we encourage it very much because it creates opportunities for Nunavummiut.
At the same time, the regime that we have set up is that if these developers want to have tax benefits flowing to them, they have to cooperate with our government, in turn, with communities that will be impacted the most.
If they refuse to do that, they won’t get any tax benefits like the fuel tax rebate that we introduced.
So that is the give and take that we have offered to all developers, and I look forward to good discussions with Baffinland and other companies that are doing some very good work throughout the territory. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Does this mean that I can now inquire of the Premier whether they have concrete plans for development?
Using Pond Inlet as an example, Baffinland has already expended millions of dollars to date on their project. What happens if they do not get approval for this development? Will they turn on the people or government for the losses they may have incurred to that point?
Is the government bureaucracy prepared to assist communities to minimize any future impacts as a direct result of lost developments, such as mitigatory plans, for the community of Pond Inlet as it relates to this and will we be able to get a copy?
To date, we have not signed an agreement because we first have to come to an understanding as parties.
The mining companies in Nunavut have to submit their requests for assistance to the government.
If they want to get the tax rebate, they first have to approach the government and once they have submitted their requests, then we can sit at the table and negotiate the issues.
The first question we pose is, “How can you provide benefits to the community?”
Once they have highlighted the benefits, then these negotiations generally progress from there.
That’s exactly what occurred in Baker Lake and that has been a positive impact for the community as well as the surrounding communities. There are people gainfully employed in these communities.
We want to see that happen in all of the communities in Nunavut no matter where they are.
This project is not even at that stage since they are only in the advanced exploration stages and are nowhere near the production stage. They are still conducting feasibility studies for that project near Pond Inlet. Once they have surpassed the exploration stage and have progressed further, then they can request our assistance and the process would be kick-started from there.
Question 611 – 2(4): Polar Bear Quota for Sanikiluaq (Kattuk)
This winter during our last session, I posed a similar question to the minister and it was with respect to the polar bear population in our area.
The minister stated previously that the survey for the Hudson Bay population would commence this year. Can the minister advise me as to the exact date of this survey?
The researchers have yet to inform us of the specific dates as to when they would commence their survey, so I will have to request information on that date. This is a very important project and we have planned it accordingly, but they have not given the start date for their survey.
This research should be commenced as it is a critical survey.
The department stated previously that other communities received increases to their quotas, but that the Hudson Bay population required a survey prior to any possible increases.
We were told that this survey would commence in 2008 and it should be undertaken immediately.
We envied the other communities when their polar bear quotas were increased.
I would like to ask the minister this question as per his past statements that Inuit would be involved during the polar bear surveys.
The concern that is overriding for the Inuit is the continued use of helicopters by the surveyors.
Inuit could tranquilize the polar bear within minutes of sighting it, perhaps within two to five minutes.
So will the local Inuit be involved in all future surveys of polar bears adjacent to their communities?
Yes, I will request information on this issue. However, the HTO boards are fully involved with all wildlife management issues in their areas, including surveys. They would be consulted as to the start dates as well as the timing of the survey.
And as per Mr. Curley’s comments, if we were to incorporate Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, it would be much better.
We have made the Elders Advisory Committee a priority and are continuing to work at it since it would really benefit the operations of our government.
This committee would really benefit us and since these Inuit are more knowledgeable about polar bears, we want to utilize their knowledge when it comes to more effective and less intrusive polar bear research surveys all across Nunavut.
The minister stated that he is not aware of the commencement date of the survey, so perhaps he can direct the surveyors to get around to it as soon as possible.
I will speak with my wildlife officials in regard to his request and let the member know.
Question 612 – 2(4): 30 Year Anniversary of the Hamlet in Repulse Bay (Mapsalak)
I have a two-part question and all it requires is a yes or a no.
Mr. Speaker, the Hamlet of Repulse Bay will be celebrating their 30th anniversary on July 2 and our community rarely gets important visitors from our government. Can I ask the Premier if he would be available to attend to the 30th anniversary celebration in our community?
I can agree to that request, Mr. Speaker, but they will have to take me on my first narwhal hunt.
Can the Premier bring the CGS Minister along or appoint one of the other ministers to see if they can come to Repulse Bay?
I just spoke to Ms. Brown and her reply was that she would like to go if she can also go narwhal hunting.
Is the Premier saying that he’s in agreement to go to my community? We will be in agreement to take him along if he says yes.
Question 613 – 2(4): Status of Clean-up of Old Baker Lake Power Station (Simailak)
It’s slightly cold in the Chambers this morning, but very comfortable for us.
In any case, I would like to ask my question to the Minister of Energy.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, there are ongoing concerns within the community of Baker Lake and that there is a prime area of land that’s been quite heavily contaminated with fuel spills, dating back to maybe even the 60s, 70s and 80s certainly, when that land was occupied by the old Northern Canada Power Commission, Ministry of Transport houses, who had an elaborate system of pipelines going to all of the houses by carrying fuel.
Over the years, there have been a large number of fuel spills in all of that whole area and also included in that area now is what used to be the Baker Lake power plant in the process of being decommissioned.
So with all of that pollution in a prime area of land in Baker Lake, can the minister clarify for the record the Government of Nunavut’s position with respect to the allocation of responsibility between the territorial and federal governments for cleaning up that site?
The member is correct, there is contamination on the site in Baker Lake and it does go back to the 60s and the 70s with the old Northern Canada Power Commission, NCPC.
At that time, NCPC was a federal entity owned by and for as a Crown corporation of the federal government, as well as the federal Ministry of Transportation.
We believe the hydrocarbon dating and data information shows and demonstrates to us that that fuel has been there since that time, and indeed, is attributable to the federal government.
So far, Mr. Speaker, we have spent over $400,000 and that’s the Qulliq Energy Corporation, QEC, along with the hamlet, we put a Waterloo Barrier in place because where the oil and the hydrocarbons are is on an elevation and gravity is bringing them down the hill toward Baker Lake itself.
We don’t want to see a situation where the lake of Baker Lake is contaminated by oil.
We have written to INAC, Indian and Northern Affairs, as well as the federal Ministry of Transportation.
They have not given a positive response that they would be involved, or interested, or even take ownership over the issue.
Is the Hamlet of Baker Lake itself expected to cover any of those costs with their own funds?
Today, at the present time, the Power Corporation has been working very close with the hamlets.
We believe that the federal government has the fiduciary responsibility, has a legal responsibility to be involved, and indeed, to carry those costs with regard to the remediation and the clean-up of the site.
It is an extensive problem in the community.
The costs that are associated with it to date, over $400,000, has been borne through efforts of the hamlet and QEC.
I’m not in a position right now, in the House, to state what the liability and what those costs may be and again who, at the end of the day, would be ultimately responsible.
We believe that we have a legal opinion that points that the federal government, because of the dating of the hydrocarbon contamination, is responsible.
As the minister mentioned that they did put in a Waterloo Barrier last summer, are there any plans to do any more work this coming spring and summer in terms of reclamation of the land itself or any kind of work so that the Hamlet of Baker Lake can start using that land in the near future?
The Qulliq Energy Corporation will continue to operate the Waterloo Barrier to ensure that there isn’t oil seepage into Baker Lake.
Secondly, CGS has also been asked to come on board to provide assistance toward the hamlets in clean-up operations or remediation.
Those discussions have to continue and we believe that, over the next several weeks, following up with the conversations, and indeed, written work that we have done with our federal partner to see if we can get them to the table, it is going to be very costly and we believe the federal government has the responsibility here.
Mr. Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister could state in the House today what the plans are for the demolition of the old power plant. Is that work scheduled to begin this spring and be finished this summer, or what sort of a timeframe was the department looking at in terms of the demolition of the old power plant?
We will be moving forward on our decommissioning of the plant in Baker Lake. Again, I want to take this opportunity to thank the member for bringing forward not only the issue with the oil contamination but the issue with the more expedient decommissioning of the plant in Baker Lake.
I’ll have an opportunity between now and the end of the month to be in Baker Lake with the member and have an opportunity to review what has occurred on the file. Again, Mr. Speaker, the decommissioning of the power plant in Baker Lake will be expedited this summer.
Question 614 – 2(4): Government’s Plan on Effects of Development (Curley)
I would like to ask my question to the Premier to get clarification regarding mining, similar to a previous question, as Nunavummiut would like to know what is happening in Nunavut.
The Inuit organizations that assist their people by preparing for the impact agreements have to be commended and I would like to thank them for protecting Inuit and future benefits that can accrue from mining development.  I also know the federal government has legislation in place for petroleum and mineral exploration and development.
They have that legislative authority. Yes, we know that they have that power.
However, the Government of Nunavut has to consider strategies and plans to ensure that Nunavummiut can benefit further from these projects and how our people can become wealthier, especially our people who live in the communities.
This is within the mandate of our government - to plan for all eventualities and draft strategies to ensure those benefits that can accrue to our people are protected, and to provide for more opportunities for Inuit when there is a mining development project.
This government has to have a strategy in place, especially since there will be social impacts to our communities. We all know that alcohol and other social ills accompany such developments, so the government must have a plan in place. Mr. Premier, when you stated that the federal government has the responsibility for management of resource development, did I hear you say that the Government of Nunavut cannot assist due to not having jurisdiction over these matters?
Is that what you meant when you said that?
What I said was although the government has no jurisdiction over the management of resources, we have created a tax rebate program. If exploration companies want to work in Nunavut and wish to get this tax break, they have to approach our government. They are also required to come to an agreement with our government if they wish to get this rebate by offering more benefits to the impacted communities.
On top of this, we have also created a trade school to ensure that we train our Inuit to become future mine workers and this school will be in Rankin Inlet.
Our territory will continue to be explored for minerals, so the government has attempted to meet these challenges with programs such as this.
We are trying to ensure that our youth in Nunavut can have the opportunity to take the jobs that surface in this field.
We are doing this as a government and we are trying to lay the foundation for our communities through these avenues.
If Members of this House can understand the initiatives that this government is creating to meet these challenges, such as our plan to add another RCMP officer in Baker Lake, then you would not say we are not planning for our people.
Yes, we are aware of the social impacts that will visit these communities and as a government, we are offering the full support of our resources there and we continue to review these issues in Nunavut wherever it may surface.
Yes, these programs do assist our communities. We are aware of these programs and fully support the funds that filter down to our communities. However, we feel that it is still inadequate, especially the training initiatives, such as a trade school and other means of preparing Inuit for jobs.
In regard to labour, we ought not to prepare our people only as labourers for these mining developments here in Nunavut.
Some of our residents wish to create businesses, whether they are male or female, to work on contracts over and above the RIA contracts on the spin-off business opportunities created by such developments.
There will be many opportunities created by these developments and I believe that the Nunavut government has to prepare for such eventualities.
If you do not know the process that you are required to follow, I can state indubitably that the Department of ED&T grants will be insufficient to meet these challenges.
For major development projects, such as the Mary River iron ore project that possibly can operate for a 100 years, we have to revise the Mining Strategy to look at long-lived projects such as this so that it better reflects the reality we face and ensure that our residents benefit from such projects.
This is especially important if we are going to look at the shipping and transportation aspects of the project, whether it’s the maintenance of all-weather roads or others. We are preparing for that in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet.
I believe that the minister has to get to work on these challenges and not just sit there because some of these projects will have long-term impacts on our communities and only this government can deal with these issues in Nunavut for Nunavummiut. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
As I reiterated earlier, the events in Baker Lake are a model for other communities.
All businesses are working with the mineral companies to look at these challenges and create solutions that benefit both parties. If businesses and mineral companies work together, they can come up with innovative solutions here in Nunavut.
The communities in that area, such as Pond Inlet and surrounding communities, have not reached that development stage as of yet.
They are only in the exploration stages. We are waiting for the company to approach us so that we can come up with an agreement. Mining development can benefit all Nunavummiut if done properly.
We will continue to travel down this road and we have seen examples of how best to deal with the opportunities presented by such developments.
We have seen how goals and objectives can be reached, and as a government, we want to work with the mining companies as well as the communities to deal with these issues in the future.
In regard to these developments and the processes that have already been followed and what we have witnessed, why is it that the government only has a ten-year mining strategy?
What I’m trying to say here is that opportunities arising from the mining development projects are increasing, over and above the issues listed as negotiable under the IIBA process, as well as the federal government programs geared towards benefiting from such projects.
I can state that the loan program administered by the Government of Nunavut has to be revised to increase the amounts.
When a loan of $1 million is approved, this House tends to act as if the world is falling apart.
The loan program is inadequate, especially with the increasing business opportunities offered by projects here in the Baffin region.
The government strategy for economic benefits also has to be reviewed in light of these developments.
Will the Premier direct his staff to undertake these strategies?
We are always looking at ways on how we can make improvements.
In fact, yesterday, we had a meeting about the obstacles that we encounter, legislative barriers in particular.
Further, this House passed a bill yesterday and I thank the members for that. This will benefit the private businesses who wish to create businesses to take advantage of the emerging opportunities here in Nunavut.
These barriers, where we have found them, do require revision and updating. We try to update and revise them to have them minimized. This is what we have done as a government, of which I am quite proud, due to the fact that we started seeing the real benefits of these programs.
As I stated earlier, I’m preparing for a trip to Baker Lake to go and see for myself what has transpired and I know that there are many Inuit working on that project.
In terms of private businesses that are trying to take advantage of these emerging opportunities, this is something that all of us want to see and we will try to work with them to assist in any capacity that we can.
I thank the minister for the programs that assist the people of Nunavut to take advantage of these emerging opportunities, but they must reflect the desires of Nunavummiut.
What I and my fellow MLA for Tununiq are trying to tell the government is that they have to revise and improve these outdated programs to allow Nunavummiut to benefit. Some of these programs are too limited, while others are not meeting the needs.
An example here is in the North Baffin. They will soon need a bank since the growth will be phenomenal and this includes infrastructure such as a new airport.
The impacts on transportation have to be looked at and we have to improve the infrastructure prior to the mine being opened in order to take advantage of the opening.
This government has to plan accordingly so that we don’t lose out.
Why isn’t the government willing to do that?
I don’t want to debate these issues needlessly since we are continuing to look at ways of how we can assist communities that are impacted in regard to banks for example.
These are not controlled by the government, so why are we being queried about issues we don’t administer? I don’t even want to discuss this matter. The things that we do administer and manage, yes, we can look at ways to improve them, and we will continue to try and improve these programs and services.
I would like to thank the Members of this House for continuing to work with us to improve these programs and how best to assist the private businesses that require our assistance so that we can better serve Nunavummiut to take opportunities that arise in Nunavut.
Please note that Question Period is now over and that there were other people who wanted to ask questions.
Before we proceed, I would like to acknowledge the Member for Hudson Bay, Mr. Kattuk.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
The member is asking for unanimous consent to go back to Item 5.
I don’t get to recognize too many people in the House, but there is a person from Sanikiluaq who is here for the Anglican Synod.
I am happy that I’ll be joining them as they head home on the charter.
You probably know this individual; he is a former Member of the Legislative Assembly of the NWT, Moses Apaqqaq, I would like to welcome him and his daughter, Caroline Meeko, who lives here.
Recognitions of Visitors to the Gallery.
When I was young, I saw Moses Apaqqaq for the first time while working for Lootie Palluq in Yellowknife. I welcome him as well.
I would like to recognize my youngest son, who is named after my stepfather, Paingut Bob Barnabas, who is here as well and I would like to recognize him.
Committee Report on Bills 016 – 2(4): Bill 6, Official Languages Act (As Amended) (Mapsalak)