EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I understand that for Kimmirut they had built a sewage lagoon in prior years, but it was never commissioned.
Now there’s this project. They’re going to use the current existing sewage lagoon as the main sewage lagoon and they’re just going to build it up to be able to withstand the community’s need for the next 30 years.
Is this a correct analysis?
Minister Savikataaq will answer that question.
Minister Savikataaq, if you would like to respond, I give you opportunity to do so.
We’re not sure if we’re going to build a new one or enhance the new one that never became operational.
We’re just looking at all options right now.
The reason the old new one never got operational was due to poor planning. Now we have these preplanning studies to avoid situations such as this.
I’m getting a little confused now. If they’re not sure what they’re going to go with in terms of options, what is this $625,000 going to be used for?
I’ll ask Mr. Devereaux to answer that question.
Mr. Devereaux.
In terms of the Kimmirut wastewater project, the carryover, it is our intention in 2017-18 to move towards the design phase.
We have been looking at a number of options for this project and alternate sites for the sewage lagoon.
That would be our intent in 2017-18, to begin the design phase such that we could move into a tender for construction the following year.
Given Minister Savikataaq’s response about the old new or the new old sewage lagoon, but then there’s the current existing one that’s being used.
Can I get clarification on which option CGS is moving towards in terms of spending more money on it to be the main sewage lagoon for the community?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I believe Minister Peterson has indicated that he wants Mr. Devereaux to answer the question and with that, Mr. Devereaux.
As I indicated, it is our hope to go out with an RFP to begin design for the Kimmirut sewage lagoon project. During that early schematic design we typically look at schematic design alternatives.
At the end of that component of design, once we move through that, we would solidify the exact location of the long-term Kimmirut sewage lagoon.
This will be a brand-new location for a new sewage lagoon site. Is that correct?
(interpretation ends) The minister has indicated to me that he wants Mr. Devereaux to answer the question.
With that, Mr. Devereaux.
As indicated, when we get to the end of the schematic design alternative stage in the design process, we would solidify the particular option and location on that sewage lagoon.
Yes, it’s Friday and it’s morning.
I look forward to progress on that project.
Moving along on the next page 13, this project has been on the books ever since we started out four years ago, the Cape Dorset Garage 525 Rehabilitation.
It’s still here in another carryover for $500,000.
I understand in the substantiation sheets, I read that land was an issue in acquiring. Can I get an update on if this project will in fact be getting done this coming fiscal year?
The reason for the delay in that particular project for the carryover is that the land had to be secured. That has been done and it’s anticipated that the project will go to tender later this year and be completed on schedule.
Ms. Angnakak: Well, my turn. I thought I had a bit more time.
I’m interested in finding out about these. I see in a couple of places it talks about code compliance on page 13. We have Pangnirtung to increase capacity code compliance.
We have another community there. We also have the Nunavut Tank Farm Code Compliance. Can the minister tell us if all of these are related?
When I look at the Nunavut Tank Farm Code Compliance, seeing it says, “Nunavut,” I’m assuming that the amount of a little over $3 million would include communities across Nunavut.
That’s a little over $3 million. I’m wondering if that budget would be enough to address all issues.
As the Premier mentioned this morning, we have a lot of aging infrastructure in Nunavut and tank farms are no different.
The federal government has identified four tank farms that need code compliance. I think there’s an annual…yes. I’m trying to remember everything here.
There’s annual funding that we’re seeking.
This year there will be $3,250,000 to deal with code compliance and then going forward over the next several years, there would be an additional $9,750,000. I’m not saying that’s all that will be required, but we’re working with, I just forget, the environmental protection agency of Canada. We’re working pretty closely with them.
We understand that it’s important to bring our tank farms up to code and standard.
I wonder that because I know this issue of code compliance came up in a recent settlement for a tank farm that led to quite a bit of money.
When we are not in compliance, what kind of a risk does that pose to Nunavummiut when tank farms are not in compliance?
Furthermore, do you have a good indication or an inventory of all of them to see which ones should be made a priority versus the others that maybe aren’t in such dire need?
I remember when I was mayor and then the president of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, quite often some of the mayors would receive letters from the federal regulatory agency saying that if your tank farms weren’t brought into compliance, you could be fined and/or receive an X number of years in jail. A joke among a lot of us was that maybe some time in jail would relieve some of our problems.
All joking aside, yes, the PPD in Community and Government Services has a pretty good idea of the tank farms that are aged and that need to be brought into compliance.
They have identified 18 additional facilities that are non-compliant and need to be brought into compliance. Close to $18 million has been identified in the capital plan to address the deficiencies between 2016 and 2021.
Of course some tank farms probably have to be replaced entirely, so you may, in future capital estimates and we’re talking… . For example, the Gjoa Haven tank farm has to be upgraded and that will be coming up in Bill 46.
Can the minister tell us how old most of the tank farms are? What is the lifespan of a tank farm? How long is it supposed to last?
We don’t have that level of detail here today, but we can certainly get that information provided to the standing committee.
I look forward to that information. I think Nunavummiut should know.
My other question was: is anybody in danger with the current state with the current state of the way when they’re not in compliance? Are there any risks that residents should be made aware of? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We don’t believe any residents are in danger.
Mr. Akoak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, ministers and staff.
On page 12 you have the Gjoa Haven Warehouse, $1.3 million.
In your substantiation sheet on page 2 of 4 it states that a “portion of the building is in violation of building codes and has severe structural issues.”
The next paragraph also states that “…the community recognized the benefit of repurposing their old fire hall building into a warehouse and small workshop.”
On page 1 of 4 the current status states that it’s “…currently out for tender.”
The next bullet says that the project was tendered in the spring of 2017. Can you explain that to us?
I apologize, I wasn’t following that.
I understand what you’re asking. Is there a particular issue?
Our briefing note says here that the anticipated completion date is October 2018.
It says that they’re using an old fire hall for a warehouse right now. The building that they’re using now, I guess, is a garage. It’s a pretty old building and it’s in violation of codes.
I’m just trying to find out if they’re trying to renovate that old building they’re using now.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for clarifying that.
We’re talking about two buildings?
I believe that the hamlet has identified the reuse option rather than a new building.
The original scope of work had to be revisited, so that’s why the delay.
Rather than construct a new building, they want to just rehab the old building.
Obviously if you’re rehabbing an old building, it’s probably a project that will be completed faster for the community.
We’re on page 12. Community and Government Services. Capital.
Not Previously Authorized. Turn to page 13. Community and Government Services.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Total Local Government Services. $49,898,000.
Turn the page. It continues on page 14. It reads, Community and Government Services.
Capital. Not Previously Authorized. Total Petroleum Products Division. $11,724,000.
Total Department. $61,622,000.
Turn to page 15. It reads, Economic Development and Transportation. Capital.
My first question is regarding the Iqaluit marine infrastructure, although I don’t see it there, but the Pond Inlet one as well. I would just like to know the percentage. Can you confirm what the federal share is of the funding for the Pond Inlet and Iqaluit marine facilities for the 2018-19 fiscal year?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Angnakak, (interpretation ends) for the excellent question.
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t have the actual dollar amounts, but typically the feds… . Just these two projects, I believe they fund 75 percent of the projects.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you (interpretation ends) for the excellent addition of the “s.” Ms. Angnakak.
I would like to ask about the… .
It says here under Item 2 on page 15, relocate the airport in Pangnirtung, $529,000. This is being transferred again from a prior year. I think this project seems to have been on the books forever.
Where are we at with that project now? What’s the next step?
Hon. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With your permission, I would like to bring in a new witness.
Chairman (interpretation): Members, Minister Peterson would like to bring in a different witness. Do you agree?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort one of the witnesses out and the other one in.
Minister Peterson, for the record, please introduce your new witness.
My new witness is Sherri Rowe, Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Ms. Rowe, welcome to the House.
Ms. Angnakak, I would like you to repeat your question for Ms. Rowe, please.
Welcome, Ms. Rowe, to the House.
I’m on page 15 of this document that we’re currently reviewing. Under Item 2 it says, “Relocate Airport Pangnirtung, $529,000.” As far as I can remember, this project has been on the books.
I would like to know if you could provide the House today with an update of what’s happening with this project and what are the next steps. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll ask Ms. Rowe to answer the question.
What I can tell you today is to date the geophysical and geotechnical work has been completed, as well as a road and safety study and an airport power supply strategy.
What we need now is additional weather data is required before the design and the estimates can be finalized.
If I can get perhaps a bit more clarification. I remember from this project that I think it was a period of like three or four years that weather data was being collected beyond the community towards where the potential site of the airport was going to be.
What has happened to that data and why are you requiring more years now?
I’ll ask Ms. Rowe to answer that question.
My understanding of it is there are still more weather studies needed.
To actually provide you with more technical information, I can get back to you.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for that response.
Is there a potential site that has been identified then? Have you narrowed it down?
I know there were some different options that have been presented. I’m wondering if the department, along with your consultants who are working on this project, has actually narrowed down exactly where the new airport is going to be located and, if so, where would that be.
If there’s anybody from Pangnirtung that’s watching, maybe they would like to know.
Ms. Rowe indicates that the site hasn’t been narrowed down yet.
Can Ms. Rowe tell us how many sites are being considered?
Several sites are being considered.
Did he respond to your question?
Ms. Angnakak: Oh my. I guess we will have to get back to this one, I’m sure.
What else was I going to ask under this? Let me get to the Grays Bay Road and Port Project. Can the minister confirm: is the $2 million for this project new funding or is it a capital carryover?
I can confirm it is new funding.
Can the minister clarify how much money or funding to date the GN has provided towards this project through either capital spending, grants or contribution funding to the Kitikmeot Inuit Association to date?
For Grays Bay there’s $175,000 that was for capital funding and also in the last fiscal year some of our Strategic Investments Program dollars have been applied for by the KIA for Grays Bay.
In looking at the $2 million of new money, will the Government of Nunavut own any of the physical assets or infrastructure associated with the Grays Bay Road and Port Project?
Well, there’s an MOU that was signed last summer with the Inuit organization. The Government of Nunavut signed it to look at this project. It’s one of the projects that are identified in the four pillars document from 2014.
There have been a lot of high-level discussions with the federal government and also with the Government of the Northwest Territories.
There’s a possibility of accessing some significant funding to build a road and port in the Kitikmeot.
I’m not sure what’s happening on the Northwest Territories’ side.
To be in a position to access or be considered for that funding, when the Government of Canada finalizes their program and their treasury board finalizes it… . There was some funding announced in the federal budget.
The partners believe that to be positioned, they have to continue to move with the momentum and undertake these studies.
There’s $2 million. It’s for studies related to… .
If you have to submit Nunavut impact review applications or Nunavut Water Board applications, you have to have all of this information available. A mining company by the name of MMG has contributed several tens of millions of dollars of studies as well.
It’s early stages yet. There’s no guarantee of anything. It’s envisioned that the Government of Nunavut would own some of the assets.
It’s a long ways off before that is even something that’s on the table to discuss and finalize.
I believe that it’s this document that I have been looking at. Don’t get me wrong.
I think this is a great thing and in any way that we can stimulate our economy is always good.
We want to keep jobs in Nunavut and we want to have opportunities provided to Nunavummiut to benefit.
We also have other mines in Nunavut. Has the Government of Nunavut provided funds like this, perhaps, to Agnico Eagle or Baffinland?
Have they been asked? Maybe they haven’t even asked. I don’t know.
I’m just curious.
Ms. Rowe indicates that they haven’t asked.
That’s interesting. Maybe in the future now you’re going to get a couple requests. That’s all from me.
I probably only have one or two questions on this item depending on the answers I get.
Going back to the same item that my colleague just brought up about the $2 million funding, has the federal government committed any money at this point to this project as well?
They haven’t that I’m aware of, but I believe that the other partners in this MOU have submitted applications for funding to CanNor for funding.
Depending on the outcome of those applications, we would be able to give you a clearer answer.
Obviously this project is being pushed through at lightning speed as compared to other capital projects that have been requested by other regions and other capital projects that are really needed in our communities.
My understanding is that eventually this road is going to connect the port to Yellowknife.
Has the NWT been approached to provide funding for this project as well?
It is my understating, as I indicated earlier, there have been some high-level discussions with the Northwest Territories and federal ministers.
The road will have to go through the Slave Geological Province from Yellowknife through to the area where the diamond mines are on the Northwest Territories’ side, connect up to near Contwoyto Lake and then across the Slave Geological Province to the Coronation Gulf. They would be doing their work on their side of the border.
This MOU covers and partnership is with the people in Nunavut.
Mr. T. Sammurtok, do you have any other questions?
I’m just looking at the way this thing is coming down and it seems to be a case of, “If we build the road, they will come.”
At this point in the NWT in that particular area, I don’t see any operating mines whatsoever.
I know there are some intentions to resume explorations in that area.
As much as I disagree with this particular item, maybe because of the fact that this $2 million is new money that you’re looking for to proceed with this thing, it makes me kind of wonder why couldn’t that $2 million wait for the next capital project process that will be happening after the elections.
Actually I would like an answer to that one.
It’s fairly straightforward.
As I mentioned earlier, the federal government, in their federal budget, announced a large federal… . I just forget the name of the program, but a program that provinces and territories will be able to access for major infrastructure projects.
In the federal budget, when they make these announcements, they don’t give you all the details because they don’t have all the details. They work on the details and then they have to get those details finalized by the Treasury Board of Canada, and then they can do a re-announcement of the announcement.
Once that happens, there is a very good chance, because we all know this is how it works, they’re going to ask for shovel-ready projects from provinces and territories, “Do you have any projects that are ready to go that we can consider?”
Now, the summer season is here in Nunavut. A lot of the key work that is required for these types of major infrastructure projects is environmental work and studies on wildlife. Those such things can only be done in the summer season.
Some of the data has to be updated so that they can submit applications to the appropriate regulatory bodies, as I mentioned: the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
We know the process can take quite a long time, so we have to be prepared for those.
The idea is to keep the momentum going, is my understanding of it, and be positioned to respond to the federal government when they ask if the provinces and territories have shovel-ready projects or projects that would be nearing shovel-ready application.
If you miss an entire summer season, as we all know in Nunavut, you’re set back a year.
I think that is the intent of this, to keep the momentum going, do the necessary urgent and vital studies and updates this summer to incorporate into the work they have already done and that MMG has done over the last five or six years, and then be ready to get the applications ready to submit and also be ready for the federal government to clarify some details of their federal program.
On page 15, Item 3, Grays Bay Road and Port Project, there’s a $26,000 figure there.
Can the minister explain to me what that entails?
That’s carryover of funding. There’s $175,000 that was budgeted in the last fiscal year and they’re carrying over $26,000 to complete the work that was underway.
Is the $175,000 that the minister just mentioned in addition to the $175,000 that was taken from the Kivalliq Regional Visitor Centre recently?
That $175,000 was transferred from the Kivalliq Regional Visitor Centre project. It was a base transferred on analysis that the visitor centre project had an original budget in place.
The tender went out and the bids came in lower than expected.
That freed up some budget money for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to use in three other projects throughout Nunavut without impacting the delivery of the original project.
If I may, I would like to go back to the minister’s opening comments on page 3, the second-last bullet, “$29,824,000 in 14 projects for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation covering a number of” items.
In there, it also includes the Kivalliq Regional Visitor Centre. You’re pulling money out of that project because it has a surplus.
However, looking at this document, it looks like you’re requesting more money for that particular project.
Can I get clarification on that?
That’s $29,824,000; there are 14 projects.
The Kivalliq Regional Visitor Centre, that’s $906,000 that we’re carrying over to finish that project.
Thank you for putting up with my questions up to this point.
I would encourage this government to also take the same approach with the Manitoba-Nunavut hydro and road from Manitoba to the Kivalliq because by 2019 we will have two operating mines in Nunavut.
These two mines are going to make a huge impact on the [GDP] for Nunavut.
I would strongly encourage this government to do the same thing that they’re doing for the Kitikmeot for the Kivalliq as well.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Sammurtok. (interpretation ends) That was just a comment, but do you care to make a reply or statement, Minister Peterson?
Yes, the Government of Nunavut recognizes that’s a key infrastructure project.
I believe it’s one of the four-pillar projects that we identified in 2014.
There were a couple of marine port facilities. There was the Grays Bay and the Kivalliq-Manitoba transportation corridor.
The Premier appointed Minister Savikataaq as one of the co-chairs of the Hudson Bay Regional Roundtable. There are regular meetings.
There’s a lot of effort going into advancing that project with meetings and bringing federal ministers and explaining stuff to them.
It’s still a high priority project.
Some of these projects proceed at different paces and not everything is going to come together at the same time.
Some are faster and opportunities there for that project versus getting things in place for another project.
It’s certainly still a high priority project for the Government of Nunavut.
Your committee has been considering Bill 45 and would like to report progress.
Just a reminder of various meetings, first of all there’s a meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Independent Officers and Other Entities at half past one this afternoon in the Nanuq Boardroom. A four o’clock meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation is cancelled.
On Saturday there’s a meeting of the Management and Services Board at nine o’clock in Tuktu Boardroom. At half past one Saturday afternoon a meeting of the Full Caucus and there is a meeting of the Full Caucus on Monday at nine o’clock also in the Nanuq Boardroom.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Monday, June 5, at 1:30 p.m.
Monday, June 5, 2017
Pages 4356 – 4417
Opening Prayer 4356
Ministers’ Statements 4356
Members’ Statements 4360
Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4368
Oral Questions 4369
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters 4384
Tabling of Documents 4389
Notices of Motions for First Reading of Bills 4389
First Reading of Bills 4390
Second Reading of Bills 4390
Revert to Item 5: Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery 4391
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 4392
Report of the Committee of the Whole 4415
Third Reading of Bills 4415
Orders of the Day 4416
Monday, June 5, 2017 4356
314 – 4(3): Overhaul Nutrition North (Taptuna) 4356
315 – 4(3): Environment Week 2017 (Savikataaq) 4357
316 – 4(3): New Power Plant for Pangnirtung (Mike) 4358
317 – 4(3): 15th Anniversary of Trois-Soleils School (Quassa) 4359
318 – 4(3): Ningeokuluk Teevee Exhibition Opening at the Canadian Embassy in Washington, DC (Kuksuk) 4359
569 – 4(3): In Support of Cancer Survivors (Sammurtok, T) 4360
570 – 4(3): Ministerial Visit to Sanikiluaq (Rumbolt) 4361
571 – 4(3): Congratulations to Recent Graduates in Kugaaruk and Taloyoak (Qirngnuq) 4361
572 – 4(3): Implementing Inuit Societal Values (Shooyook) 4362
573 – 4(3): Cape Dorset’s 2017 Grade 12 Graduates (Joanasie) 4363