EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Curley: Yes, if you can clarify that to me, to have the program that was, in my view, available to individuals who have entrepreneurial ideas and so on to kick start an economic venture or program with any other possible independent private sector partnership, or whatever.
Now, it’s sort of, if I might term it, a socialist type of program. Now, we give it to the local government and they will decide how it is going to be.
Is that the route we should be going that we just give all these organizations more funding rather than allowing individuals to have a free expression of ideas and proposals directly to analysts and whatnot.
Do you have any reports on exactly how the program is shaping up and so on? If they got transferred to the community in the same amount, it would be imperative to compare or do you get reports from the community, is that part of the condition of the transfer of that program to municipalities?
For example, the breakdown by region of this new program would be $2.394 million for the Baffin, $1.289 million for the Kivalliq, $921,000 for the Kitikmeot region.
Some of these changes were implemented to make the programs under the policy more user-friendly while holding the recipients accountable.
This program is monitored by our regional offices that are very closely connected to their municipalities.
Mr. Curley: Yes, my next question has to do with the fact there were a number of programs, I believe, that were incorporated with the similar amount and so on. They included small business support programs, with about $750,000 Strategic Investment Program and all the other contribution programs that you had.
So now these programs the minister tabled, I believe in 2005-06 into the House at one point, but previous grants, I believe, were tabled. When will the list of grants and contributions to 2005-06 be tabled in this House?
Yes, we can do that at the next sitting, this spring sitting.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. K-7.
Economic Development and Transportation. Branch Summary. Economic Development.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $25,064,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) We are on Page K-17. Yes, K-17.
Last summer, the navy ships were in our community in Pond Inlet and they had meetings with the hamlet council to see if they should get a harbour. The Canadian Rangers also participated during the exercise.
Can the minister tell me what the status is of the discussions that took place, whether they will get a harbour or not.
If this was discussed I have no idea and I didn’t even hear anything about it from the Navy.
Can the minister check into this through his federal counterparts and to be able to report back to us on the status?
Yes, we will check with those people.
I wonder if I could ask the minister about the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project, if I can find the correct page on the business plan. On page K-24 of the business plan under the 2006-07 priorities, the status of that project to date is no proponents for the project have been identified but the new priorities for 2007-08, it goes on to state, “… determine the best option for the Bathurst Road and Port or an alternative.”
I wonder if the minister could clarify me for the record and to my colleagues back in the Kitikmeot what is the department’s priority is or what they are working on to “determine to proceed with the Bathurst Port and Road or an alternative.”
Does the committee mind if our staff member from Transportation, John Hawkins, can come down to the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Is the committee agreed John Hawkins comes to the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, can you escort the witness.
Welcome Mr. Hawkins.
John Hawkins will be able to respond to this.
As you know there were some developments, changes of ownership in some of the mining properties up in the Kitikmeot and there was a possibility that there should have been another site considered.
We did take a step back from it for a little bit to see what the mining companies up there thought and as it has come together over the last year, I suppose, it appears that the Bathurst Port and Road is the preferred solution up there by most of the companies working in the area.
So we have recently contributed $326,000 towards the draft Environmental Impact Statement. To carry that project forward the mining companies are also participating in that. That should be ongoing.
That statement should be completed by the end of year. There will be permitting following that, if it’s required and if the companies are still willing to move that project forward.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister and Mr. Hawkins for that answer.
That is a relief because although I am not on the committee, I know that the Bathurst Inlet Road and Port Committee has done a tremendous amount of work over the last ten years. They’ve spent $6 million and $1.5 million of this from the Government of Nunavut, in fact. They have to spend another $3 million to complete the work to move it forward through the NIRB process.
I know it has been confusing over the last couple of years because of another company that moved into the area. They developed their own idea about how to develop infrastructure.
The Bathurst Inlet Road and Port group has not diverged from their stated goal to complete that project in the Kitikmeot.
Just for the record, I’d like to mention that it’s not a project that is going to be owned by the mining companies, it’s a project that is going to be owned by the Kitikmeot Corporation and their affiliates, which are Inuit owned companies.
It’s a little bit different from the other project that was proposed last year, which was going to be owned by a mining company.
I would think that because it’s owned by an Inuit owned company in the Kitikmeot, that’s going to benefit the Kitikmeot and all of Nunavut, in the long term and short term that should make it easier for the Government of Nunavut and Government of Canada to support that infrastructure development.
I am hoping that next month, here in Iqaluit during the Nunavut Mining Symposium, that the minister mentioned earlier, that some of the mining companies would be able to lobby the minister and other organizations to help advance that project in Ottawa.
With that in mind I wanted to ask the minister, since Mr. Hawkins is here as well, he might be able to help; there is a reference on page K-25 of the business plan. Page K-25, through the National Transportation Strategy, it’s one of the priorities - participating in the National Transportation Strategy with the Council of the Federation to the federal government.
A couple of years ago there were a mention that there were two Nunavut projects in that strategy and it was supported by the provinces.
I’m wondering if the minister could update us on the status of the strategy and which Nunavut projects are included in that strategy at the national level.
Yes, we continue to support the Council of the Federation’s efforts to try and get the federal government to buy into their National Transportation Strategy by becoming a strategic partner in the implementation of that.
The strategy is proposing a new transportation funding partnership: the strategic transportation network.
That’s got preliminary provincial and territorial priorities and recommends changes to the policy network. For Nunavut, in terms of highway transportation; this includes the Nunavut-Manitoba road and the Bathurst Inlet Road.
That’s good to know, it’s going to be in the document and it’ll get reviewed at the federal level.  On the same page, K-25 of the business plan, there is a reference to working with Transport Canada on the implementation of a policy, a funding mechanism to recoup costs incurred in meeting obligations for long range aircraft operations in Nunavut airspace.
I’m a bit curious: what does that statement mean? If the minister could clarify.
We are continuing to work with Transport Canada on the implementation of a mechanism to recoup the cost incurred in meeting the obligations of long-range aircraft operations in Nunavut air space.
Transport Canada’s position is that the level of airport services provided in support of long-range operations is not a federal responsibility and that the provision of services and cost recovery is an issue between the international air carriers and the airports.
So this is regarding the obligations that our airports, with Iqaluit especially, for long-range aircraft operations flying through our Nunavut air space.
I had heard some time ago, I pick up information in my travels, but when the aircraft fly overhead, European aircraft flying overhead, or North American aircraft flying over to Europe, they get passed off from one airport to another to help, but there’s a fee for flying over airspace.
In provincial airspace, or territorial, or countries like Greenland there’s a charge, is that correct; is there a fee that provinces and territories or countries can charge to airlines for flying overhead, and if so, what kind of charge would be sent to an airline?
Mr. Hawkins, it’s not Hawkins, its Hawkins, has the details on that.
The airspace is a federal responsibility so the different federal governments do control their space.
In Canada’s instance, NavCanada, who provide the navigational services, collects the fees.
That’s actually the case in most countries that whoever provides the navigational services collects the fees.
We are not able to collect fees from the carriers.
Canada, as a signatory to the convention that allows this, that divides the airspace up and allows this activity, is able to collect those fees. As I said, NavCanada is able to collect those fees. The carriers are not willing to deal with us on a one-to-one basis or on an individual airport basis or on a territorial basis.
They would be willing to deal with us through the federal government or through NavCanada on a single billing system. It is more the billing system that they are resisting than the actual charges.
Is there an opportunity for the territorial government to receive additional revenues from the airlines as this probably has to be worked out with NavCanada?
And if so, those additional revenues, could they be used for the CARS operations and upgrading the airports in Nunavut?
Yes, there would be an opportunity for Nunavut to get extra revenues through this charge, but if we were to collect any money some of them would go into the centrally administered funds.
I think the Minister of Finance put on his other hat there temporarily. We would certainly like to see those funds.
If they came to be, we certainly would like to see more of those funds go to our airport operations because they’re desperate for funds to pay their employees and provide other services.
I thank the minister for that and I look forward to … our standing committee looks forward to getting additional information on that when more information is available.
I noted on page K-18 of the main estimates that the Community Aerodrome Radio Stations contract with NavCanada expires on March 31, 2009.
Could I ask the minister to give us an update on how many communities in Nunavut are currently under Community Aerodrome Radio Stations agreement with Government of Nunavut?
Bear with me I am looking for that number.
They are all with the hamlets except for six in the Baffin and one in Kivalliq.
Could the minister explain why seven communities that are not operating with Community Aerodrome Radio Stations agreement with Government of Nunavut?
Yes, the hamlets would have had those contracts but have given them up over the years for various reasons.
When a hamlet gives up the airport operations, who provides the airport operations; would that be the Government of Nunavut, or does the Government of Nunavut hire a contractor to provide that service?
If and when any hamlet gives up their contract we issue a request for proposals and hire an outside contractor through that process.
Does the outside contractor in the seven communities, are they all contractors located in each of the communities affected.
Some of the contractors are people who live in the communities itself and some are from outside that community. It varies from community to community.
I am wondering why, if the hamlet couldn’t operate the Community Aerodrome Radio Stations contract in the community and not lose money, then how is it that the contractors in the communities or outside the communities can operate the Community Aerodrome Radio Stations contract and make money?
Hon. David Simailak: Again, it is for various reasons.
Anything from the money that we budgeted being not enough for the hamlet itself and yet it is satisfactory for the private contractor be it a local a person or from outside. Again, it varies from community to community.
Transportation Branch.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) While we’re on transportation, it doesn’t really have any programs but it’s to do with policy.
It’s in regard to small craft harbours and I just wondered are you still in funding negotiations?
The information that you tabled was very interesting. Perhaps you, I’m not sure whether this has been reported on or not, I’m looking at the tabled document that you tabled recently.
I just wondered if the staff or you Minister could give us some information on which communities will receive something first. Do you have any knowledge?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Fisheries and Oceans and our department agreed with each other that it would cost about $40 million for those communities that would get small craft harbours.
I’m not really sure exactly which communities would benefit first, but we kind of know from the document that we tabled which community would be first to get the infrastructure.
But I think it would be the community that would need that infrastructure for the purpose of … Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think if you’re employees were involved that I appreciate that because I know which communities would benefit first.
Like Rankin Inlet would be one of the first communities to receive the infrastructure but if you don’t know whether that is the case or not, you could put it on top.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m sorry but Rankin Inlet is not in that list.
Yes, those tabled documents are very interesting and should be read by the Members of the Legislative Assembly because it’s very good information and they have the designs as well.
But I think, I don’t think Mr. Chairman needs one in his community.
I’d like to ask another question Mr. Chairman. I said last week that we are very quiet as a government, from Nunavut and that if we were more aggressive.
It’s going to seem like that we’re not interested.
Like the federal government already did a study about small craft harbours and other facilities in the communities.
It seems like the members of the Legislative Assembly in Iqaluit aren’t aggressive enough.
Since the Progressive Conservative became a government have they not communicated with your department as to what they are going to be doing for Nunavut like what was in their campaign promises.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister Simailak.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whenever I have a chance to talk to any of the ministers in Ottawa I mention the needs for Nunavut.
I wanted the Territorial Financing Formula agreement to be new.
I also speak with the federal Minister of Transportation about the needs of the communities of Nunavut.
We’re not quiet about it.
We’re being aggressive about it, and the Minister of Transportation has not relayed any information to me in regard to small craft harbours and docking facilities.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister. I feel that the federal government should be urged, and to be aggressive about wanting funding for those.
I think the minister deals with the strategies.
What I would like to say is that Arctic sovereignty will not go away; they’re not going to forget about it. So it has to continue.
I don’t want your department to stop being aggressive to the federal government in regard to those facilities that we need in Nunavut communities because of Arctic sovereignty.
So if you could keep on urging or being aggressive with the federal government in trying to get some funding, especially for the High Arctic. We’re not really worried here in the Hudson Bay area, it’s mostly the High Arctic areas. Can you continue with this, Mr. Minister?
Whenever we talk about economic development and transportation in Ottawa I always talk about that with the federal departments. I know about the Arctic sovereignty and our Government Leader is also very aggressive about Arctic sovereignty.
We will continue to voice our needs.
K-17.
Chairman: Back to K-4.
Economic Development and Transportation. Department Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $50,296,000.
Chairman: Are we agreed that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation is concluded?
Chairman: Thank you. Thank you, Minister Simailak, Mr. Suvega, Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Hawkins.
(interpretation) If you have any closing remarks, Mr. Minister?
I will make sure that all the information requested by the members is worked on by our staff.
I would like to introduce Ms. Cheryl Ross, although she wasn’t at the witness table.
Chairman (interpretation): Just before we continue on to a different department we will take a break for 20 minutes. Thank you.
>>Committee recessed at 17:14 and resumed at 17:39
Chairman: I will call the committee to order.
I would like to ask Minister Simailak of the Department of Finance to make his opening remarks.
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2007-08 –Consideration in Committee –Finance
I am pleased to appear before the Committee of the Whole to discuss the 2007-08 Main Estimates and the Business Plan for the Department of Finance.
During 2007-08 the Department of Finance will concentrate on continuing to build and improve financial management across the government, including the public agencies, improving on the reporting on the government’s public accounts within legislative deadlines, and continuing to pursue additional revenues for Nunavut.
Through the Strengthening Financial Management initiative, we have dramatically increased the capacity of the department to fulfill its responsibilities and to meet its mandated deadlines.
During 2007-08 we will continue to build on this strength and we will also turn our sights outwards.
We will offer hands-on assistance to departments to assist them in refocusing and building their internal financial controls and reporting capability.
Interim variance reporting will be strengthened, along with tight, refocused third quarter and year-end reporting schedules with respect to crucial input into the production of the Interim Financial Report and the public accounts.
Through the Crown Agency Council, we will continue our spirit of cooperation and collaboration to ensure that our public agencies have the administrative and financial skills and support that they need to succeed.
The Crown Agency Council will also work with the public agencies on improving their reporting of financial information for input into the public accounts.
We will provide an increased internal audit presence to departments and public agencies with a view towards highlighting strength, while suggesting areas for improvement and, of course, ensuring financial and administrative compliance.
We also look forward to increased liaison with the staff of the Auditor General of Canada outside of the annual audit process. Our Internal Audit Services Division, in particular, will assist and complement the Auditor General’s work, providing value-added audits, while reducing the year-end audit burden.
These initiatives, along with the other priorities listed in our business plan will translate into increased transparency, accountability, and efficiencies throughout our departments and public agencies.
We are also pleased to be able to introduce accrual based budgeting into our financial framework as well as presenting additional information regarding our public agencies as part of our main estimates process.
During 2007-08 we will continue our work to fully integrate the accrual based budgeting method. Initial work will also begin on evolving the current business planning process into a performance measurement based model.
I look forward to updating members on this model once we get a bit further along the road with our research as to how we can properly introduce this major, positive shift in business planning.
We were all pleased, that some of Nunavut’s unique needs were recognized in the federal budget released last Monday.
These measures include a new Territorial Formula Financing Agreement, which has been increased by about $38 million and special projects like $23 million over seven years to assist us in strengthening financial management, and funding for incremental infrastructure projects of $25 million per year for another seven years.
Further, we continue to pursue an advocacy approach to Canada with respect to our unmet needs.
This new TFF is an excellent start, but we are not there yet. This government must continue with its commitment to fiscal responsibility, fiscal discipline, and accountability.
As I committed in my Member’s Statement on March 20, I invite all members to work with us in charting a correct and prudent course for the future.
I will now turn, to a brief overview of the department’s budget. Finance has six branches: Directorate, Policy and Planning, Financial Management, Internal Audit Services, Comptrollership, and the Centrally Administered Funds.
For 2007-08 the Department of Finance has allocated $52.2 million in operations and maintenance expenditures as compared to $50.2 million for the previous year.
The major components of the department’s budget are $21.2 million for compensation and benefits, $29.8 million for centrally administered programs and costs including $9.7 million for government wide employee benefits such as dental premiums, workers compensation premiums and employee medical travel, $10.5 million for the lease costs of the Legislative Assembly building and other office buildings constructed by the Nunavut Construction Corporation prior to April 1, 1999, $6.1 million for the regular Nunavut Electricity Subsidy Program, $3.5 million for government of Nunavut’s insurance premiums.
There’s also $4.5 million for other operations and maintenance costs in the department.
Compared to the 2006-07 main estimates, the significant changes are $1.4 million increase to fund the recommendations, which arose from the last Auditor General’s report and the review of GN financial structures, $356,000 increase in the Nunavut Electricity Subsidy program, and $460,000 increase in insurance premiums.
In summary the department’s focus for 2007-08 will be to continue to provide central agency services in areas that includes support for the Financial Management Board, managing the governments overall fiscal position and overseeing the financial framework and accounting processes.
Do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table Minister Simailak?
Hon. David Simailak: Yes, I do. Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, if you can escort the officials to the witness table please.
With me, directly to my left is Peter Ma, Deputy Minister. To my right, Mr. Scott Marriott, Director of Corporate Services. And also in attendance in the gallery is Jay O’Donnell, Comptroller General, Rosemary Keenainak, Assistant Deputy Minister, Financial Management and Chris D’Arcy, Director of Policy. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you and welcome to the Gallery. (interpretations ends)
Chairman: Does the chair of the standing committee on government operations have opening comments?
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I welcome the minister and his officials to the Gallery.
I am pleased to provide you with opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Accountability on the 2007-08 main estimates and business plan of the Department of Finance.