EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Certainly, we calculate the student-educator ratio with the full-time attendees and those are the numbers we use to calculate how many teachers we would have in that particular school. As I said, student-educator ratios are calculated by Statistics Canada. Again, that is the system we now use.
I can say that, as you and I know very well and the House knows very well, right now, there’s a special committee on the Education Act review and those are things that would ultimately be talked about at that level. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Your final supplementary, Mr. Alex Sammurtok.
I understand that enrolment and attendance are critical issues in our schools.
However, reducing the number of teachers does not encourage more students to attend school. In fact, it sends out the message that education is not a priority for our government.
Will the minister commit to reviewing how his department allocates teacher positions to our schools and ensure that our children’s education once again becomes a priority for this government?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I can say that I just recently visited the community of Arviat and certainly, this was an issue that was brought to our attention, an issue that was brought to us from the local district education authority.
The district education authority in Arviat is now doing a lot of activities, such as parental engagement, and that is certainly one way of ensuring that we have our students attending schools.
That is the whole purpose of having family engagement.
Certainly, education is our priority, and one way of ensuring that our students are attending the schools is through parental engagement. This is one area that I was really happy to see, that the local district education authority in Arviat was trying to deal with this issue. For example, another way the local district education authority in Arviat is trying to rectify this situation is by getting the elders to visit houses to ensure that students are attending.
This is one way of ensuring that the more students we have, the more teachers there will be.
I can also say that the department has submitted a paper to the special committee on the Education Act review and this is one of the items that they have brought forward to the committee. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 500 – 4(2): Activities of the Qulliq Energy Corporation (Hickes)
My question today is for the Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Earlier this year, I asked the minister some questions on how the government could use some of the savings that were realized from the lower fuel cost and put these dollars towards alternative energy projects. At the time, the minister wasn’t able to provide a number related to the savings and coincidentally, the next sitting day, the minister responsible for PPD mentioned a number in excess of $30 million. I would like to follow up with that issue today.
Yesterday, the minister tabled QEC’s response to our standing committee’s report on the hearings that we held here last September on the corporation’s annual reports and business plans. I’m sure that in doing so, he anticipated some of the questions that I’ll be asking on this topic.
On page 7 of QEC’s response, it states, and I quote, “Presentations were made to the QEC Board in December 2014 concerning private sector opportunities to fund and develop alternative energy sources (hydro and tidal).”
Can the minister update the House today in more detail as to which direction Nunavut is heading with respect to these alternative energy sources?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. Hickes for asking that question.
Mr. Speaker, as we always say at QEC, the proponents who make presentations have to be able to deliver power at equal to or less than what we currently deliver to residents of Nunavut, particularly in Iqaluit, since these two projects that he referenced are based here.
We have heard from the proponents. They haven’t given us much information.
The tidal energy is, how to say it, immature technology. It hasn’t been well tested around the world.
I’m not convinced that it will work here. Hydro energy, as we all know, is very expensive. We’re talking in the neighbourhood of $250 million to possibly $500 million.
Those are the numbers we’re working with, but that’s the reality.
Currently, the hydro project work is more or less on hold and we’re not going anywhere with the tidal energy.
I thank Minister Peterson for that response.
I don’t think it’s any secret that I have been a strong proponent of moving forward on the proposed hydroelectric project near Iqaluit.
In QEC’s response, again, to the standing committee on page 8, it states, “The hydro project as was developed by QEC currently needs additional funding to proceed to a feasibility study which is the next step before seeking construction funding.
Funding options within debt limitations are being explored to advance this project.”
The minister just stated that it’s on hold, but I would like to ask the minister to maybe put on another hat that he has in his wardrobe, his Minister of Finance hat.
The minister confirmed yesterday that the federal government has agreed to increase Nunavut’s debt cap to $650 million.
Can the minister clarify what impact this will have on QEC’s plans to move forward on the Iqaluit hydro project?
I feel like a dual personality here.
Mr. Speaker, yes, I did mention that the Government of Canada has proposed to increase our debt cap to $650 million.
That only gives us an additional $250 million, but with the P3 airport project and our current debt, we’re close to $400 million on the existing debt. $250 million is still not enough debt to pay for a $500 million proposed project.
As I said before, though, we have to receive some solid proposals. We have a huge demand in Nunavut for critical infrastructure. There may be projects coming forward to us.
I don’t know if there could be that better value for Nunavut. I don’t know. We will see how well it goes.
I always have been and will continue to be a strong proponent of alternative energy solutions for Nunavut and investments in that course of action.
Just to go on, in QEC’s response to the standing committee, it also states, and again I’ll quote, “Preliminary discussions have also taken place on private sector financing of diesel generation.
QEC will be developing Independent Power Producer guidelines to facilitate the pursuit of such opportunities.”
Mr. Speaker, can the minister indicate what companies have expressed interest in becoming “independent power producers”?
I again thank Mr. Hickes.
I appreciate that he is a strong advocate for alternative energy. There is potential in the north. Unfortunately in the north and in Nunavut, it’s very expensive.
As I said earlier, we have huge demands.
I have asked the Government of Canada for help of about $200 million for energy and was unsuccessful, and money for housing. My colleagues ask for help all the time.
We don’t demand money. We have to put all the business cases together for the Government of Canada to invest in Nunavut.
Any significant investment in Nunavut is going to have to have a solid business case and rationale.
As a government, we simply can’t afford mega projects in Nunavut.
With respect to your question on which companies are proposing to become independent power producers, no, I can’t comment on that.
Question 501 – 4(2): Strategies to Address Reliance on Income Assistance (Angnakak)
Mr. Speaker, according to statistics available on the Nunavut Bureau of Statistics website, the percentage of Nunavut’s population receiving social assistance is steadily increasing with close to a 6 percent increase in 2013 to over 41 percent of the population.
Can the minister provide an update on what specific actions her department is undertaking to help those who rely on social assistance become more self-sufficient?
The Department of Family Services is aware of what’s being used in social assistance. Since 2004, it has been steadily increasing and the people of Nunavut have to rely on social services and that’s how many there are.
We will be reviewing the social assistance policies in an effort to change some of them.
The work will start this fall.
I look forward to hearing more about specific actions that the department is going to be implementing.
Mr. Speaker, social assistance expenditures in 2014 almost reached $38 million, nearly $10 million more than just five years ago.
Can the minister clarify how her department proposes to better manage expenditures in this area?
Hon. Jeannie Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for requesting more information on that.
We’re trying to turn clients over to career development officers because we are able to refer clients to them.
The regulations that we are following were developed in 1998 in the NWT days and we’re still following them, but we expect that we will be starting to change them this fall.
Now, the career development office refers them to either more education or more career development.
We understand the numbers. We want to make sure that the young people are trained, so we will be pushing for that.
Question 502 – 4(2): Status of New Cape Dorset Power Plant (Joanasie)
My next question is for the Minister responsible for the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Mr. Speaker, in every sitting since the election, I have been asking about the status of Cape Dorset’s new power plant, and I have been very clear in expressing my support for the government to take whatever decisive action is necessary to resolve the land issue that has been holding up the start of construction.
Mr. Speaker, Cape Dorset’s power plant is decades old and the community has run out of patience with the endless delays.
Can the minister tell me today what the status of this issue is?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank Mr. Joanasie for his question.
I do recall him asking this, in fact, every time, every sitting that we’ve had. I also recall from the last sitting that he hopes the new power plant will be built in his lifetime. I certainly hope that happens as well.
Mr. Speaker, the latest information I have on it is that the mayor and council have written a letter to QEC offering a new location.
I believe that the officials at QEC have been in contact with the community and they’re planning meetings this month to discuss the implications of that new piece of land versus the originally proposed parcel of land.
Can the minister clarify if he will be partaking in the upcoming meetings with the council and mayor regarding this issue?
I’m not certain of the date, so I can’t confirm if I’ll be participating or not.
My last question is: what is QEC’s current timeline for constructing a new power plant in Cape Dorset?
It all depends on what parcel of land we’re talking about. If it’s the original parcel of land, that’s still to be determined.
We’re not familiar with the new parcel of land. There could be conditions or geographic… .
I’m not a soil technologist or a geologist or anything and I’m not sure of the site itself, but it may be unsuitable for a power plant.
We’re quite certain that the original parcel of land will be suitable and if things work out with the original parcel of land, we could get in there this year and do our geotechnical and environmental work and proceed from there.
I think the original plan is, based on what I recall, having a power plant in there by 2017-18, if things work out.
We will have to see how things go, but it is a priority for the corporation, Mr. Speaker.
Question 503 – 4(2): Long-term Homelessness Strategy Action Plan (Hickes)
My next line of questioning is for the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Well over a year ago, the Nunavut Housing Corporation tabled the Government of Nunavut’s Long-term Comprehensive Housing and Homelessness Strategy and last year, I was asking some questions regarding that strategy that there was an action plan associated with it.
I was wondering if the minister would be able to update the House today on the schedule of that action plan.
Mr. Speaker, in regard to his question, we started working on it last month in April and we sent out an RFP.
Now we have contracted someone to look into housing in Nunavut along with our stakeholders in the government and outside the government to review housing in Nunavut.
I can say that the work has started and the contractor has been awarded the contract.
It is part of the (interpretation ends) Blueprint for Action on Housing (interpretation) and the work will be proceeding.
With the action plan and the RFP that has been put out, is there a timeline associated with the completion of that action plan and when it would start implementation?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member again for the question.
Mr. Speaker, this past month, the contract was just awarded so that the work can get started and the work will proceed until 2016.
In 2016, at some point, it hasn’t been quite decided when the deadline will be, but it will be in 2016.
Some time ago, there was a 10-year Inuit housing action plan that was developed in coordination with NTI and the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Although the role is very similar to this strategic plan that was outlined and tabled in the past year, there are some differences, more specific to Inuit housing.
At the time, I had asked the minister, it’s almost a year ago now, if any discussions with NTI had been occurring and at that time, he had stated that there were no discussions with NTI on furthering the Inuit action plan.
I’m wondering: is there an update that the minister can provide to the House today on whether discussions with NTI on the Inuit housing plan has been started and what the status of them are?
As I stated earlier, with respect to the (interpretation ends) Blueprint for Action on Housing, (interpretation) we will be working on it.
Not just within the Nunavut Housing Corporation but the whole government, along with NTI and other organizations, we will have to be involved in working with this plan and strategize with other entities on the Blueprint for Action on Housing in order to strategize for the future.
NTI will be fully involved with that.
To answer the member’s question, whether we have worked with entities outside of the Nunavut government, I can say that we worked with NTI, but I haven’t heard or haven’t been briefed on whether there are other entities that we’re working with.
Members, please note that the time for question period has expired.
Tabled Document 149 – 4(2): 2013-2014 Minister’s Annual Report on Poverty Reduction (Ugyuk)
I am pleased to table the 2013-2014 Minister’s Annual Report on Poverty Reduction.
Tabled Document 150 – 4(2): Towards a Representative Public Service Statistics as of December 31, 2014 (Peterson)
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table Towards a Representative Public Service Statistics as of December 31, 2014.
Tabled Document 151 – 4(2): Printout of Signatories to Online Petition Concerning Investigation into the Death of Baby Makibi Akesuk (Joanasie)
I wish to table a printout of the names of over 1,200 individuals, including dozens of my constituents, who signed an online petition calling on the Government of Nunavut to undertake a full investigation into the death of baby Makibi Akesuk in Cape Dorset.
Although this document does not strictly conform to a formal petition under Rule 43, it does demonstrate the public concern that exists with respect to this tragic incident.
Bill 22 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:35 and Committee resumed at 16:04
First of all, Nunavummiut listening to the radio broadcast and watching the televised proceedings, welcome to your committee.
Does the committee agree that we will now deal with Bill 22 and the contents of the bill?
Bill 22 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016 – Consideration in Committee
At this time, I would like to ask Minister Peterson if he has any officials that he would like to bring to the table.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the committee agree to have Minister Peterson’s witnesses at the table?
Mr. D’Arcy and Mr. Tumilty, welcome to the House.
As we proceed, Minister Peterson, with Bill 22, if you have any opening comments, you now have the floor. Minister Peterson.
I am pleased to present Bill 22, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2015-2016.
Bill 22 is a supplementary appropriation for 2015-16 capital totalling $117,901,000.
This appropriation addresses carryovers from the 2014-15 fiscal year to the 2015-16 fiscal year in addition to a request to expand the Gjoa Haven Tank Farm.
There are two types of capital carryovers in Bill 22. All projects have been approved in previous capital plans and have funds appropriated to them.
The first type is approved capital projects that have a financial or contractual commitment to continue the project into the next fiscal year. We call these FAM compliant.
Mr. Chairman, these projects are ongoing and Bill 22 ensures their continuation.
The second type is projects that we have not been able to start in previous years. These are the non-FAM compliant projects.
Mr. Chairman, the objective of this set of carryovers is to immediately include these projects in this year’s capital plan.
If this is not done, the funding will lapse and the project will either be dropped or possibly included in a future capital plan.
There are a total of 106 projects in this carryover request, 19 fewer than last year.
The total capital carryovers are broken down as follows:
$171,000 in two projects for the Office of the Legislative Assembly for improvements;
$50,000 for the Department of Finance for renovations to the offices in Cambridge Bay;
$8,545,000 in eight projects for the Department of Finance in support of Nunavut Arctic College operations, including the Kitikmeot Mine Training Centre – Student Residence phase, four community learning centres in Iqaluit, Whale Cove, Sanikiluaq, and Grise Fiord, and the Rankin Inlet Trade School;
$1,013,000 in three projects for the Department of Justice covering some minor capital in the Iqaluit Overcrowding Relief Structure and the Rankin Inlet Healing Facility;
$85,000 for the Department of Family Services for minor renovations to the children’s group home in Iqaluit;
$6,035,000 in 21 projects for the Department of Education, which includes repairs and renovations to several schools;
$20,863,000 in seven projects for the Department of Health, which includes the repair, renovation, or replacement of several health centres, including the Baffin Regional Hospital, as well as medical diagnostic equipment;
$3,769,000 in 10 projects for the Department of Environment covering wildlife office replacement and renovations and territorial park development;
$61,039,000 in 40 projects for the Department of Community and Government Services covering a wide range of municipal and community infrastructure projects; and
$15,831,000 in 13 projects for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation covering a number of airport improvement projects, replacement of the Motor Vehicle Information System, the Kivalliq Regional Visitors Centre, and small craft harbour planning.
In addition to carryovers, Bill 22 also includes $500,000 to CGS to start the planning and design work required to increase the capacity of the Gjoa Haven Tank Farm.
Before you start asking questions or making comments, I would like to remind the members of the following, as it has been a while since we had Committee of the Whole meeting, just to remind the members: according to the first rule, Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter of discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
We will start off with general comments to the opening comments.
Just remember that you will be able to ask your questions on the pages that we are on.
I don’t see any show of hands.
In the opening comments, he talked about $3 million for the Department of Environment and wildlife offices.
Are we talking about conservation officers?
I would like you to explain that for the committee.
Could you elaborate on that, Minister Peterson?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Shooyook for his question.
If I understand him correctly, he is asking about wildlife officers.
This is capital that we’re dealing with, capital which is a wildlife office, not officers and not person years.
Is that clear now? There are different ways of saying it in Inuktitut depending on where you come from.
They’re called one in a particular dialect and another in another dialect, but it’s the same person. We’re not talking about person years; we’re talking about offices and capital projects.
General comments or requests for clarification?
If there are none, please go to the bill.
Supplementary Appropriation, No. 2, 2015-2016.
We will begin with page 4.
Before I begin, even when I’m reading, if you have any questions or comments, you can raise your hand and you will be recognized or we will be able to hear you.
It reads, Office of the Legislative Assembly. Not Previously Authorized. Total Department. $171,000.
I believe I just have one question here.
I’m looking at the Iqaluit Community Learning Centre carryover of a little over $3 million. If my memory serves me correct, we carried over that amount in last year’s budget.
From the look at the substantiation sheet, it speaks that there have been some planning changes to include more program space.
I’m just a little curious as to why it’s taking so long to do that planning and how many years are we going to be carrying this money over.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Mr. Hickes for that question.
Yes, it has been carried over two years. I think this is the second year proposed.
We discussed in standing committee earlier today that the department realized that the original plan didn’t meet the needs, so they had to do some more planning and design, meeting with the department, and that’s ongoing. There’s a possibility that they may come back and seek additional funding.
With the latest occurrence at the old residence here in Iqaluit, is that going to dramatically change the future plan for this facility?
And if it does, I’m anticipating quite a substantial change to offset the use that the old res. facility was being used for the number of classroom space, including the 90-bed residence.
I guess what I’m trying to get to is if that is all taken into consideration, I’m anticipating quite a substantial design change and quite a substantial request for additional funds for a project of this nature.
Maybe if the minister could clarify it a little bit for me.
At the time that this is all prepared, we’re dealing with capital carryovers from last year.
As I said, they are still in discussions on a design.
I am personally unaware of any discussions to enhance the facility to accommodate the situation that occurred there recently.
I don’t know if Minister Quassa wants to add any information to that.
That’s all the information we have at this time.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Minister Quassa, if you would like to comment on that, I now give you the opportunity.
For the Iqaluit Community Learning Centre, the original plan is still set for the 2017-18 fiscal year. I believe you’re referring to the community learning centre.
We haven’t made any changes to the plans, but we’re asking as how we can increase capacity of that building.
We haven’t made any changes to the plans for 2017-18.
I hope I responded correctly.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Minister Quassa.
I’m just going over, in the rationale for carryover, it says that a portion has been used to develop a comprehensive business case presenting the available options for this development.
In light of recent occurrences, I guess the question I’m getting to is: has that impacted the planning process for this new facility and is it going to have to encompass more of the use from the old res. facility?