EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s Community Transportation Initiatives Program Policy governs funding for the development of local community access roads.
The department’s 2013-14 main estimates included $500,000 in funding for community access roads.
Mr. Speaker, the communities of Repulse Bay and Coral Harbour both have plans to develop access roads to sites which have great potential for strengthening tourism and economic development.
Can the minister confirm if his department’s policy provides for a minimum or maximum funding level for community access road projects?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank my colleague from Repulse Bay.
Regarding community access roads, and again, we use different terms in Inuktitut, they are very beneficial to the communities.
Usually the projects are carried out by the hamlets, some of which are tendered out to contractors.
It is very beneficial for the hunters and different tourism and economic development purposes.
It makes it more accessible to everybody in general in the community.
In our department, we are going to go ahead with the funding.
It is up to the communities to make requests for funding if they would like to access the community access road monies.
The funding level for community access road projects is set at $500,000 for communities.
We all know that $500,000 is set aside for community access roads.
My question to the minister, however, was if his department’s policy provides a minimum or maximum funding level for community access roads.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would also like to thank my colleague. This is for all Nunavut communities and there is no set minimum or maximum ceiling.
That amount is never enough. Access roads are very important to non-decentralized communities.
The communities I represent have already prepared their rationale. I know that their respective hamlets are each allocated $35,000 and rarely beyond that amount.
Mr. Speaker, with the recent increase in fuel prices, along with inflation, those funds are just a bare minimum and insufficient for doing more when you access just small amounts of money.
I would like to ask the minister if the $500,000 could be increased prior to the summer construction season.
I will have it reviewed and see where we can put additional funds. We have to look at all the allocations in general. I will ask my department to look at the level of this funding.
That is the only way that I can respond at this point.
Question 045 – 4(1): Medical Travel for Unilingual Clients (Enook)
For those less fortunate and less physically capable for whatever reason, those with handicaps of any kind, I had promised to represent them as their MLA and I will continue to advocate on their behalf during my entire term of office.
At this time, I wish to return to the issue of unilingual Inuit who go out on medical travel. I wish to ensure we’re on the same page on this matter.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to one of our previous Hansard Blues. I know that these haven’t been edited.
I directed a series of questions about medical patients travelling to hospitals about the kind of assistance they receive.
In this copy of the Hansard, it shows the questions I asked, and further, I can say that a response wasn’t provided.
Due to that reason, I wish to further query the Minister of Health to provide a clear response in words that our unilingual Inuit elders can understand.
(interpretation ends) The hon. minister (interpretation) responded that people on medical travel are looked after from the time they board the plane, throughout their flight until they reach their destination.
My previous question which I want to ask again today, Mr. Speaker, is that sometimes a plane doesn’t always land at their destination due to poor weather conditions.
This scenario is what I want to ask about: if an elder who is unilingual is on medical travel alone without an escort and their flight doesn’t land at their destination, it usually means that they overnight somewhere else. Who will look after these passengers?
Speaker: The minister has taken the question as notice, and I will move on to the next member on my list. (interpretation) Oral Questions.
Question 046 – 4(1): Species-at-Risk Act and Polar Bear Management (Savikataaq)
I would like to ask the Minister of Environment with respect to his Minister’s Statement.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Environment on his speech today on the polar bear management plan. It says, “linking our Nunavut plan with a future national management plan for polar bears under the Species at Risk Act.”
I would like to ask the minister what implications will this have as the Species at Risk Act is a federal Act and we, as Nunavummiut, have no control of that Act.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of Environment, Mr. Mike.
I thank my colleague for asking a question about that matter.
Yes, it is clear that our polar bear management system is heavily influenced by global interests, and it is within that context we have to speak about the plans we have put in place.
The polar bear management system in the Arctic is part of the mandate of the Government of Nunavut, and with that system, we manage polar bears within Nunavut.
We also have a duty to keep our co-management partners that are keeping an eye on our management system regularly informed. This is a matter of good relations.
We aren’t saying that polar bears will be placed as a species at risk. Once the GN polar bear management plan has been reviewed, it will be easier to bridge the old plan with the new plan.
The reason is that polar bears are an iconic species and are heavily scrutinized by animal rights groups in southern locales. This has largely been driven by outside forces, not by us.
However, the reason why the new PBMP is in place is to clearly demonstrate our ability to manage those species.
Mr. Savikataaq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) The minister and his staff are doing polar bear management plans and I commend them on that. We do need a made-in-Nunavut management plan for Nunavummiut by Nunavummiut.
It has to be acceptable by other parties outside of Nunavut. I understand that. It should be our plan and it should be a plan that the people of Nunavut want and need.
We have seen that polar bears are a big issue, yes, and the people outside of Nunavut want to control it. They want to control the direction of our harvest or the quantity of our harvest. They have means to influence our decisions.
The minister is on the right track with a made-in-Nunavut wildlife management plan.
I would just encourage the minister that it has to be a polar bear plan for the people of Nunavut. The bears may have been in Nunavut first, but we’re here too and we have to live with them. The plan has to respect the wishes of Nunavummiut that have an abundance of polar bears knocking at their doorsteps.
Yes, the goal of this plan is to have a Nunavut-made plan and the government has the discretion to incorporate changes to the polar bear management system in Nunavut.
Furthermore, we are aware of the importance of polar bear management to the outside world and that is why our polar bear management system has been taken as acceptable.
At this time, the PBMP is generally accepted.
I, too, personally wish that we weren’t the only ones subject to legal dictates. Other governments also are obliged to undertake these types of management systems on the polar bear population.
However, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is currently conducting a review of this polar bear management plan I alluded to. Once their review is complete, we will have a better idea on what else needs to be improved. Once the NWMB arrives at their decision, we can then consider what other actions to take.
I would like to make a request of unanimous consent to return to Item 5 on the paper.
Speaker: The member has requested unanimous consent to go back to number 5.
I have none. Proceed, Mr. Hickes.
Although I have publicly recognized in this House, I haven’t had the opportunity to formerly recognize in the House my constituency assistant, Jessica Patterson.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you and welcome. (interpretation ends) Written Questions.
Hon. Minister, Mr. Sammurtok.
Tabled Document 015 – 4(1): Government of Nunavut’s Nunavut Lottery Financial Statements, March 31, 2013 (Sammurtok)
I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s Nunavut Lottery Financial Statements, March 31, 2013. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Consideration in] Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters.
Bill 2 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:14 and Committee resumed at 15:41
Good afternoon to the people of Nunavut, to the people who are listening to the proceedings on the radio, and to the people who are watching the proceedings on TV. Welcome.
Before we proceed, I would like to ask: what is the wish of the committee?
We wish to continue with the review of the capital main estimates and today, we will consider the Department of Community and Government Services.
Do we agree that we will first deal with capital estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services?
Bill 02 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2014-2015 – Community and Government Services – Consideration in Committee
I would like to ask Hon. Minister Sammurtok, Minister of Community and Government Services, if he has any opening comments.
You now have the floor to make your opening comments.
Mr. Sammurtok
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have this opportunity today to update all the members on the 2015-19 Five-Year Capital Plan and, in particular, the 2014-15 Capital Estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services.
My staff provides a wide rage of services to all departments to assist them in the development of the capital plan. These services range from project development to technical reviews and project management.
In addition to assisting other government departments, CGS is responsible for assessing and securing funding for the long-term needs for our communities.
Our efforts have created a strong collaboration between the GN and our communities.
Mr. Chairman, the department continues to use the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory [Committee], or NCIAC, to ensure communities have a role in the development of the departmental capital plan.
The committee consists of three mayors from each region elected amongst the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and three senior GN officials.
This process ensures that the municipal concerns regarding infrastructure needs and challenges are brought to the forefront of the capital planning process. This collaboration has been effective in providing our communities with the ability to determine their capital priorities.
In addition to the NCIAC process, the recent launch of www.buildingnunavut.com allows communities to provide an annual update of their integrated community sustainability plans.
It is from these community-driven plans that CGS is able to assess the infrastructure needs and priorities across the territory.
These community-developed plans ensure the planning process takes into account all environmental, cultural, social, and economic goals.
In addition, the ICSP will provide both government departments/agencies and the community itself with a long-term vision for infrastructure development.
When communities submit their short-, medium-, and long-term priorities via the website, NCIAC is then able to rank all submitted projects.
To ensure projects are appropriately identified and prioritized for the capital plan, NCIAC utilizes standard ranking criteria. The criteria used to rank high-priority short-term projects include health and safety, mandated program and services, and economic and social benefits.
All new priority projects before you today will undergo a pre-planning phase prior to their introduction onto the GN capital plan.
This change to the capital planning process will ensure that the project scope and budget are better defined. This will provide better assurances that projects can be completed on time and on budget.
Mr. Chairman, with respect to my department’s five-year capital plan, we are keenly aware that we will be facing many challenges over the next five years to address our aging community infrastructure.
We do our best to administer the limited capital funds to address the needs of our communities. With new funding from federal infrastructure programs, such as the recently announced Building Canada Fund, which will provide $256 million over the next 10 years, and the extension of the Gas Tax Program, which will provide $78 million over the next five years, we are confident that we can begin to more effectively meet the needs of our communities.
We recognize that the timeframe for renovations, retrofits, and replacements requested by the communities sometimes exceeds what can be accomplished in our yearly budgets.
It is always a difficult balancing act to meet all the urgent needs for each and every community.
The department strives to provide the best possible service to the communities with our limited financial resources.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that these brief comments give an understanding of the demands upon my department for capital funding and the challenges associated with prioritizing projects.
Our awareness of the need and challenges facing communities continue to direct our path forward in capital planning.
The vision of our department’s future is one that continues to support the needs of all Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, I have with me today Mr. Roy Green, Deputy Minister, and Bu Lam, Director of Community Infrastructure.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Sammurtok.
As we proceed and before we ask questions, I would first like to ask if you have any witnesses that you would like to bring to the table.
Mr. Sammurtok, do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok: Mr. Chairman, yes.
(interpretation ends) Hon. Minister, (interpretation) for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
To my right is Mr. Roy Green, (interpretation ends) Deputy Minister for CGS, and Bu Lam, Director of Community Infrastructure for CGS. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Sammurtok. (interpretation ends) Mr. Green and Mr. Lam, welcome to the House. (interpretation) As we proceed, does any member of the Regular Members’ Caucus have comments?
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Regular Members’ Caucus as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the proposed 2014-15 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
Members note that the department is proposing to spend $32,688,000 for the 2014-15 fiscal year.
The department’s capital budget was $40,873,000 for the 2013-14 fiscal year and $31,270,000 for the 2012-13 fiscal year.
On May 8, 2013, the Minister of Finance appeared before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2, 2013-2014.
In his opening comments, the minister indicated that approximately 145 capital projects and $130,879,000 in funding were being carried over from 2013-14 to 2014-15.
Mr. Chairman, during the Minister of Community and Government Service’s recent appearance before the Regular Members’ Caucus, he indicated that his department has “successfully rolled out a web tool for Hamlets to update and maintain their Integrated Community Sustainability Plans” and “that Hamlets will have the ability to provide current information to update and prioritize their infrastructure plans regularly.”
Members were also informed that the department has “taken initiative in implementing the pre-planning phase of the capital planning process, which will establish crucial project information to produce a well-defined scope of work.
This will ensure that during the project implementation phase, projects are positioned to be completed on-time and on-budget.”
Members look forward to ongoing updates on the department’s efforts concerning these important initiatives regarding capital planning for communities throughout the territory.
Mr. Chairman, members note that the department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include $2.5 million for a Kitikmeot granular project.
This project is a continuation of the previously funded Kitikmeot quarry development project.
The information provided by the department indicates that this pilot project will be moved to the other regions after its completion.
Members look forward to receiving an update on the success of this project and information when it is expanded to other regions.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include $288,000 in funding for the Cambridge Bay Water Treatment System.
The department’s five-year capital plan also indicates that approximately $302,000 will be allocated in the 2015-16 fiscal year for the Resolute Bay Water System.
The Regular Members’ Caucus notes that the Canada-Wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent was endorsed by a number of jurisdictions in 2009.
Members note that the department “hired Dalhousie University to conduct long-term studies to better understand the capability of Nunavut’s wastewater facilities and how these systems can be better designed or managed to enhance their treatment effectiveness.
Mr. Chairman, the department previously indicated that it was “working closely with Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, Nunavut Association of Municipal Administrators and municipalities to establish daily procedures to assist communities in complying with their water licence requirements.
A water monitoring working group has been established to ensure water samples are being taken regularly and water logs are being filed daily.”
Members urge stakeholders to work together to ensure municipalities are in compliance with their water licences and look forward to receiving updates on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, members note that the department completed a solid waste management study last year which “explored best practices for managing solid waste in the territory. Based on recommendations from the study, modified landfills have been identified as the best practice for the majority of Nunavut communities.
In addition, the department is “working on management and training plans for communities, which will provide training to encourage segregation of waste streams, controlled access and better management of solid waste facilities.”
Members also note that the department recently issued a request for information titled “Potential Planning for Solid Waste Management Methods for Nunavut Territory.”
It indicates that the department is “seeking information regarding potential solid waste management solutions for the Territory of Nunavut.
The GN and the municipalities are seeking to deliver a sustainable waste management program for Nunavut’s 24 non-tax based communities.
The Territory is currently struggling to provide environmental and socially conscientious waste management solutions given that state of the infrastructure, operational issues, and the significant logistical challenges facing northern communities.”
Members look forward to ongoing updates on this important issue.
This is an issue that members have also noted in our opening comments on the 2014-15 Capital Estimates for the Department of Environment.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include $3.4 million in annual funding for the City of Iqaluit Contribution Agreement.
Information provided to members indicates that the current Government of Nunavut’s block funding contribution agreement with the City of Iqaluit formally expired on March 31, 2012 and that the city requested approximately $17 million to complete core infrastructure projects, such as water, sewer, sanitation, quarries, paving, and general operations.
The department’s five-year capital plan indicates that approximately $3.4 million will be allocated annually, which started in 2013 and ends in 2018.
Information also indicates that the City of Iqaluit has approached the GN for a new capital infrastructure block funding agreement.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include $5 million in funding for small capital projects, which includes such items as mobile equipment repairs, community planning studies, block funding, building and equipment upgrades and replacement.
The department’s proposed 2014-15 capital estimates include approximately $12 million in funding for several bulk fuel storage capacity increase projects.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2014-15 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
Chairman: Thank you, Ms. Angnakak.
I couldn’t have done that better. (interpretation) Thank you.
We will proceed. Since many of us are new MLAs, let me remind members that we only have two pages to go through. It should be quick.
Before we proceed, I want to remind all members of the following: according to 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 under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
As we proceed, do members have any general comments?
I just have a couple of questions on the minister’s opening comments.
On page 2 of your opening comments, you stated that the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee “consists of three mayors from each region elected amongst the Nunavut Association of Municipalities and three senior GN officials.”
Can the minister let us know who is on this committee?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) I will allow that question to be answered. Mr. Sammurtok.
The committee members for that group are Jeannie Ehaloak from Cambridge Bay, Joseph (Joe) Aupaluktuq from Baker Lake, and Mary Killiktee from Qikiqtarjuaq; from the Government of Nunavut, Bu Lam, Darren Flynn, and Jamie Matthews.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Sammurtok.
Mr. Rumbolt, do you have any other general questions?
The reason why I am asking questions on the opening comments is because this will not appear anywhere in the budget, so I am taking the opportunity to ask at this time.
On the same topic with the community infrastructure advisory committee, do they have a term of office or once they are elected to this committee, they are on this until they want to remove themselves, and how often do they meet?
The group meets once a year.
The NAM executive reviews the committee every year as to who should be on the advisory committee.
NAM decides that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Sammurtok. (interpretation ends) May I remind the people at the witness table, if you are going to be whispering in each other’s ears, please mute because I can hear everything you say if you don’t. (interpretation) Thank you.
Are there any more general questions or comments?
Also on page 2 of your opening comments, Mr. Minister, in the second to last paragraph, you have, “In addition to assisting other governments, CGS is responsible for assessing and securing funding for the long-term needs of our communities.”
In the ministerial report to the Assembly tabled yesterday by you on the provincial/territorial meeting of ministers responsible for local government, there was a quote in there from the federal government, “as ministers responsible for local government in Canada, we recognize recent federal budget announcements regarding long-term infrastructure funding. The key now is to ensure that funding flows to our provinces and territories in a timely, efficient, and flexible manner to support the needs of our citizens.”
What changes are being suggested to achieve these goals?
Minister Sammurtok.
If it is okay with you, (interpretation ends) I would like to defer to my deputy minister.