EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, there are no connected grids within our territory. Every single community has a single generating plant.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that happened two years ago in April was a plant burning down in Pangnirtung. We want to ensure that we have modernized equipment that’s going to take care of the community and its people there, and not only that, decrease the use of fossil fuels with modern equipment.
Question 401 – 4(3): Classroom Space in Kugaaruk (Qirngnuq)
I would like to ask my question to the Minister of Education.
In Kugaaruk our students are increasing in number and I know the minister is aware of that fact.
Last year our students were high in number and the department has those figures. To paraphrase it in English, what is the (interpretation ends) percentage (interpretation) of increasing numbers?
With respect to the increasing numbers of students in our school, I believe corrections were made in the 90’s which were student increases at that time, but we were aware the numbers could increase.
What would the minister’s response be in looking at a future scenario in this regard?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank my colleague for asking about that issue and it is a very good question.
With respect to the students, as we all may be aware and as I continue to state, when a new school is to be built or if additions are forthcoming, deliberations begin on the numbers of students related to the capacity of the school.
Currently it is set at 85 percent capacity or higher. That is the threshold.
Mr. Speaker, in looking at the various figures related to the growth of Kugaaruk, it sits at 7.7 percent within 2015-16, so the community has experienced growth at least with respect to the overall population.
We have noted the growth in population and we are aware of that as we conduct studies in all of our schools in the communities to determine the number of students enrolled and in which community. With respect to my colleague’s constituency community of Kugaaruk, we are aware of the growth rate.
We are reviewing all the data from the schools to determine which schools sit at the 85 percentile or higher and that was the initial review.
Now we are looking at those below or if we require more planning to determine when to build new schools or to build additions to existing schools. This type of data is continually being reviewed annually.
Perhaps I have responded properly to the member’s question, as I stated earlier, yes, we are quite aware of the situation in all of our schools.
We have 43 schools in Nunavut and we know the situation for each of them.
If I mistakenly referred to you as the Chairman earlier, I apologize.
Mr. Speaker, in discussing our thoughts about our local school, we want our students to attend school.
As parents, we don’t want them to drop out and we also know our minister is quite vocal in keeping students in school, as that is their prerogative.
With respect to the timing of the announcement, when would the minister be able to report back on the wishes of the community to increase the size of their school to accommodate the students?
Hon. Paul Quassa (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the member for requesting further information.
During this school year the department has reviewed the figures to determine which schools are at capacity and we have reviewed the figures fully.
Some communities also have dilapidated and antiquated schools.
Perhaps to use an analogy, let’s say that the school capacity in Arctic Bay or Coral Harbour is sitting at 95 percent. In looking at other communities, such as Taloyoak, the school is close to that percentage and getting higher.
We are aware of these schools.
With respect to Kugaaruk, it is obvious that those figures were included in our departmental review. They are still slightly below 85 percent.
To reiterate, we conduct annual reviews of our schools.
Perhaps my colleague’s constituency community school requires further review. However, it is still sitting below 85 percent capacity.
Yes, the minister was clear in his response on the criteria required for additions or new schools.
What about the time frame for the work required or regarding the time period when the school would be eligible for an addition, if they reached the threshold?
Indeed, as per my earlier statement, once the school in Kugaaruk has hit the threshold, as they are currently sitting slightly below 85 percent, in our estimation perhaps next school year, if the numbers continue to increase as it seems obvious in our reviews, an additional review would commence.
As an example, next year with the expectations of an increase in their student numbers and the capacity, if it hits the threshold and we need to really revisit the issue, we feel that the next school year would suffice.
To date, as per my earlier statements, the school is slightly below 85 percent.
We try to really keep an eye on that threshold as new infrastructure, such as schools, is quite expensive and requires additional planning work.
We generally try to follow those criteria.
Yes, we can always revisit that issue in relation to the school being referred to.
*See Appendix for full text of Returns to Written Questions 12 – 4(3), 13 – 4(3), 14 – 4(3), and 15 – 4(3).
The time for question period has expired for the information of the members.
Return to Written Question 012 – 4(3): Medical and Duty Travel on Scheduled Airlines (Clerk)
Return to Written Question 013 – 4(3): Community Transportation Initiatives and Small Craft Harbours Programs (Clerk)
Return to Written Question 014 – 4(3): Enforcement of the Liquor Act (Clerk)
Return to Written Question 015 – 4(3): Government of Nunavut Expenditures on Overtime Pay (Clerk)
I wish to table Returns to Written Questions No. 12 – 4(3), 13 – 4(3), 14 – 4(3), and 15 – 4(3), all of which were asked during the spring 2016 sitting of the House.
Mr. George Kuksuk.
Tabled Document 176 – 4(3): Response to the Standing Committee on the Review of the 2013-14 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut and the 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 Annual Reports of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit (Kuksuk)
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to table the Response to the Standing Committee on the Review of the 2013-14 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut and the 2012-13, 2013-14, and 2014-15 Annual Reports of the Inuit Uqausinginnik Taiguusiliuqtiit.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) Member for Iqaluit-Niaqunnguu, Pat Angnakak.
Tabled Document 177 – 4(3): Adopted Resolutions from the 2016 Annual General Meeting of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities (Angnakak)
I wish table copies of the resolutions that were adopted at the 2016 annual general meeting of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities. I am also pleased to take this opportunity to pay tribute to all of the hard-working mayors, councils, and senior administrative officers in our communities.
I encourage all members to review these documents with care.
Member for Uqqummiut, Pauloosie Keyootak.
Tabled Document 178 – 4(3): Qikiqtarjuaq Port Design Concept (Keyootak)
I wish to table the design concept for a new port facility for the community of Qikiqtarjuaq.
I pay tribute to the Municipality of Qikiqtarjuaq for taking the initiative on this work, and I urge all members to review it with care.
Tabled Document 179 – 4(3): Photographs of Waste Oil Containers and Empty Drums in Sanikiluaq (Rumbolt)
Mr. Speaker, I wish to table a set of photographs of the waste oil containers and empty drums in Sanikiluaq. These photographs illustrate how waste oil and empty drums are currently being stored in my community.
Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the appropriate minister at a later date on this issue.
Tabled Document 180 – 4(3): Photographs of Location for the Installation of Mooring Bollards at Pond Inlet Harbour (Enook)
I wish to table a set of photographs of the location for the installation of mooring bollards at Pond Inlet’s harbour. I encourage all members to review these items with care.
I also have documents to table.
Tabled Document 181 – 4(3): 2015-16 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut (Speaker)
Tabled Document 182 – 4(3): 2016 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut (Speaker)
The first document is the 2015-16 Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut.
The second document is the 2016 Annual Report of the Integrity Commissioner of Nunavut. (interpretation) Thank you.
Motion 030 – 4(3): Extended Sitting Hours and Days – Notice (Mikkungwak)
I give notice that on Thursday, October 20, 2016, I will move the following motion:
I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Aggu, that the Speaker be authorized to set such sitting hours and days as the Speaker deems fit to assist with the business before the House during the fall 2016 sitting of the Legislative Assembly.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Notices of Motions, Member for Iqaluit-Niaqunnguu, Ms. Pat Angnakak.
Motion 031 – 4(3): Appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer – Notice (Angnakak)
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Hon. Member for Cambridge Bay, that the Legislative Assembly recommends to the Commissioner of Nunavut that Mr. Dustin Fredlund of Rankin Inlet be appointed as chief electoral officer, effective this day.
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2017-2018 – Notice
I give notice that on Wednesday, October 19, 2016, that Bill 24, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2017-2018, be read for the first time.
Motions. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Member for Baker Lake, Mr. Mikkungwak.
Motion 030 – 4(3): Extended Sitting Hours and Days (Mikkungwak)
Motion 031 – 4(3): Appointment of the Chief Electoral Officer (Angnakak)
WHEREAS subsection 188(1) of the Nunavut Elections Act provides that the chief electoral officer is appointed by the Commissioner of Nunavut on the recommendation of the Legislative Assembly to hold office during good behaviour for a term of seven years;
I am very pleased to speak to the motion before us today.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by first taking this opportunity to pay public tribute to Ms. Sandy Kusugak, who recently retired after 15 years of dedicated service as Nunavut’s chief electoral officer.
Mr. Speaker, as you will recall, I had the responsibility of working with you and our colleagues on the Management and Services Board in the selection process for our new chief electoral officer.
Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of Nunavummiut who are following our proceedings today, I wish to take a few moments to introduce Mr. Fredlund, who has joined us today in the visitors’ gallery.
Mr. Fredlund is a third-generation resident of Nunavut who was raised in Rankin Inlet.
He is a graduate of both Aurora College and Lethbridge Community College.
He is a past participant in the Jane Glassco Arctic Fellowship Program and was a recipient of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade’s Circumpolar World Fellowship.
Mr. Fredlund has previously held a number of senior positions in the Government of Nunavut, including the position of director of economic development for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s Kitikmeot regional office in Kugluktuk.
He was appointed as assistant chief electoral officer last year.
Mr. Fredlund has extensive community experience and involvement, having served as a deputy chief coroner for Nunavut, the chairperson of the Social Assistance Appeal Board, an elected member of the Kugluktuk hamlet council, and a firearms safety instructor.
He is very well qualified.
Mr. Fredlund is a proud husband and father whose family recently welcomed a new baby.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in welcoming Mr. Fredlund to the gallery and I will conclude by noting that I look forward to unanimous support for the motion before us today.
Motion 032 – 4(3): Adjournment for the Day (Rumbolt)
Sorry for the confusion.
Speaker: The motion is in order and is not subject to debate.
A reminder for meetings for tomorrow, at nine o’clock in the morning, there’s a meeting of the Standing Committee on Government Estimates and Operations in the Nanuq Boardroom, followed at ten o’clock, a meeting of the Management and Services Board in the Tuktu Boardroom.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Wednesday, October 19, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 15:46 Appendix – October 18, 2016
Asked by: MLA Shooyook
Number: 377-4 (3) Date: June 8, 2016  Subject: Grise Fiord Airport
I have asked the minister previously about Grise Fiord and the airplane schedules and whether improvements could be considered.
Past responses from the minister indicate that your officials and the airline companies would conduct a review.
The scheduling of flights to and from Grise Fiord is determined by the air carrier, Kenn Borek and not the GN.
The issue at Grise Fiord is that the pilots are encountering unknown wind shear.
Kenn Borek Air has a policy that they won’t land at the  airport unless the winds are 10 knots or less.
However, even when the winds at surface level are 10 knots or less, the winds aloft may be much stronger and when an aircraft descending encounters a sudden change in wind speed (called a wind shear), a sudden dangerous
loss in altitude can result.  Our officials raised the concerns of unpredictable winds and the possibility of wind shear incidents at the Grise Fiord airport to NavCanada at the most recent Northern Air Transport Association (NATA) meetings held in Whitehorse in May, 2016.
NavCanada is responsible for providing the necessary weather and navigational aids at all Canadian airports.
A letter is being prepared for furtherance to NavCanada formally requesting: 1) NavCanada look into the addition of another anemometer at a high elevation near the airport.
This device monitors wind speed and would help pilots to determine if conditions were  safe for landing; 2) NavCanada to provide a wind shear detection device that would alert pilots to severe wind conditions which could result in a wind shear incident.
Asked by: Simeon Mikkungwak, MLA Baker Lake Asked of: Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk, Minister of Health Number: 12-4(3)
Date: June 8, 2016
Subject: Medical and Duty Travel on Scheduled Airlines
Broken down by airline, how much did the Government of Nunavut spend on medical travel on scheduled airlines during the 2015-2016 fiscal year under its standing offer agreements entered into pursuant to Request for Proposals 2011-22?
CALM AIR
$18,208,542.65
CANADIAN NORTH
$14,002,140.75
FIRST AIR
$18,348,906.96
KENN BOREK UNAALIK AVIATIO
$100,759.10
STANTON TERRITORIAL HEALTH
$8,989.73
$50,669,339.19
Broken down by airline, how much did the Government of Nunavut spend on duty travel on scheduled airlines during the 2015-2016 fiscal year under its standing offer agreements entered into pursuant to Request for Proposals 2011-22?
The Government of Nunavut utilizes corporate credit cards to book travel which is coded back to individual divisions for budgeting purposes.
Due to this, we are unable to provide airline breakdowns for travel spending. The
2015-2016 airline-related duty travel spending total was $58,808,351.07.
What specific amendments, changes or modifications have been made
to the Government of Nunavut’s standing offer agreements and/or  contracts for medical and duty travel on scheduled airlines as a consequence of any and all codeshare agreements entered into by Calm Air, Canadian North, First Air and Keewatin Air Limited?
There have been no amendments, changes or modifications made due to codeshare agreements.
We continue to work with the airlines through regular meetings to ensure medical and duty travel needs are met.
All Standing Offer of Agreements with Keewatin Air, Canadian North and First  Air will be expiring on August 31, 2017.
What is the timeline for the Government of Nunavut to issue a new Request for Proposal and/or Requests for Proposals for medical travel, duty travel and cargo shipments on scheduled airlines?
The Department of Health is actively engaged with Procurement under the Department of Community & Government Services to determine next steps for contract renewals.
To what extent will the Government of Nunavut’s new NNI Policy, which comes into effect on April 1, 2017, apply to contracts for medical travel, duty travel and cargo shipments on scheduled airlines?
The new NNI Policy will be applied to any future RFP issued, on or after April  1, 2017, by Procurement on behalf of the Department of Health.
Cc: Clerk of the Legislative Assembly  Colleen Stockley, Deputy Minister
Asked by: Tony Akoak, MLA for Gjoa Haven
Asked of: Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk, MLA
Number: RTWQ -13-4 (3)
Date: June 28, 2016
Subject: Community Transportation Initiatives and Small Craft  Harbours Programs
Expressing the information in a comparable format to that which was provided in Return to Written Question 9-4(2), what were the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s activities and expenditures under its Community Transportation Initiatives Program and Small Craft Harbours Program during the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
Question: 1
Broken down by community and project, what were the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s actual
expenditures under its Community Transportation Initiatives  Program and Small Craft Harbours Program during the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
See Table A (Community Transportation Initiative) And Table B (Small Craft Harbours Program)
Table A- Contribution Agreements (Expenditures) Community Transportation Initiatives Program
Fiscal Year 2015-16
Arctic Bay – Victor Bay to Nuna Access Road
Cambridge Bay – Road to Ovayok Territorial Park
Chesterfield Inlet – Josephine River Project
Clyde River – To Cape Christian Road
Coral Harbour – Kupaaq Hill to York Bay Rd.
Gjoa Haven – Swan Lake River Bridge
$194,000
Igloolik – Maintenance Igloolik Point Road
Kimmirut – Upgrade Road to Reversing Falls
Kugluktuk – Road to Bloody Falls l
Pangnirtung – Continuation of Kuulik Trail
Pond Inlet - Salmon River Access Trail Project
Qikiqtarjuaq – First Mountain Road Upgrade/Dewline
Repulse Bay – Access Road repairs
Sanikiluaq – Pullalik Bridge
Taloyoak – Netsilik Access Road
Whale Cove – Access Road to Wilson River
$1,321,000
Contributions totaling $1,480k were sent to Municipalities for
Two communities returned funds due to problems associated with the acquisition of proper resources to proceed with their projects.
One community spent less than what was requested.
Table B- Contribution Agreements (Expenditures) Small Craft Harbours Program
Arviat – Upgrade to Community Dock
Cambridge Bay – Floating Dock Installation
Gjoa Haven – Repair to Breakwater Facilities
Igloolik – Sealift Landing & Breakwater Maintenance
Kimmirut – Upgrade to Community Dock
Kugaaruk – Dredging and Harbour repairs
Kugluktuk – Docking Area Upgrade
Kugluktuk – Staging Area and Road repairs
Kugluktuk – Repairs to Floating Dock and Area
Pangnirtung – Shoreline Cleanup
Rankin Inlet – Purchase and Install Dock Crane
Repulse Bay – Upgrade Beach Landing Areas
Sanikiluaq – Breakwater Extension
Whale Cove – Boat Launch Sites
Whale Cove – Access Road to Floating Docks
$502,000
Contributions totaling $565k were sent to Municipalities for signature.
Two communities returned funds due to problems associated with the
acquisition of proper resources to proceed with their projects.
Question: 2
How many applications for funding under the Community Transportation Initiative Program and Small Craft Harbours Program were received by the department in the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
Under the Community Transportation Initiative Program, twenty two (22) applications were received from nineteen (19) different communities.
Under the Small Craft Harbours Program, sixteen (16) applications were received from thirteen (13) different communities.
Question: 3
How many applications for funding under the Community Transportation Initiative Program and Small Craft Harbours Program were approved by the department in the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
Twenty(20) applications were approved for funding under the  Community Transportation Initiative Program.
Fourteen(14) applications were approved for funding under the Small  Craft Harbours Program.
Question: 4
How many applications for funding under the Community Transportation Initiative Program and Small Craft Harbours Program were rejected by the department in the 2015-2016 fiscal year?
Two projects were rejected under the Community Transportation  Initiative Program.
Two projects were rejected under the Small Craft Harbours Program.
Question: 5
What application and reporting requirements are in place with respect to funding received by municipal governments and other entities under the department’s Community Transportation Initiative Program and Small Craft Harbours Program?
Each spring before the new fiscal year begins a call letter is sent to all communities outlining the guidelines for application under the Community Transportation Initiative Program and Small Craft  Harbours Program.
The letter provides a date by which all proposals are to be submitted to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation (EDT) and specifies the information that should be included in each proposal.
The requests under this program include both access road and marine/ small craft harbour related projects.
Once determination has been made as to which projects will be approved and the amount of the approval, each community is sent a Contribution Agreement which must be approved by an authorized representative of the Municipality and returned to EDT.
Upon EDT approval of the Contribution Agreement, the Municipality is provided with an initial payment of 80% of the requested amount of  the Contribution Agreement.
The remaining 20% is provided upon completion of the project and upon submission the Municipality’s financial statements and a complete project accounting which shows how the funding was used.
RETURN TO WRITTEN QUESTION
Asked by: Alex Sammurtok, MLA for Rankin Inlet South Asked of: Hon. Keith Peterson, Minister of Justice Number: 014-4(3)
Date: June 15, 2016
Subject: Enforcement of the Liquor Act
There are two general categories of “contraventions” under Nunavut’s Liquor Act:
(1) Offences leading to territorial charges laid by the RCMP, which are then heard by the Nunavut Court of Justice.
The number of charges laid by the RCMP for Liquor Act contraventions – broken down by community and category of offence – for 2014-15 and 2015-16 are attached at Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
(2) Liquor licensing infractions noted by the Government of Nunavut Liquor  Enforcement, which are then heard by the Nunavut Liquor Licensing Board.
For liquor licensing infractions, only the Liquor Licensing Board can impose conditions (e.g. licence suspensions) and issue fines.
Liquor Enforcement does not have this authority.
Three (3) cases went to the Board during the requested time, one (1) in 2014-2015 and two (2) in 2015-2016, all for infractions in Iqaluit.
In many cases where an infraction is identified by Liquor Enforcement, it will work closely with the establishment to resolve the issue collaboratively incorporating  the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit principle of Aajiiqatigiiniq (decision making through discussion and consensus) without requiring a hearing before the Board.
Liquor Enforcement and the establishment will try to find solutions to ensure compliance going forward (e.g. requiring staff to take training on responsible liquor service).
If the matter cannot be resolved in this way then it will be sent to the Board for official consideration and decision.
In 2014-2015 there were nineteen (19) noted infractions that were resolved directly with the licensee without the need for a Board hearing, while in 2015-16 there were fourteen (14) such cases.
For the disposition of offences charged under the Liquor Act in 2014-15 and 2015-16, see attached Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.
The Liquor Licensing Board disposed of the three (3) liquor licensing matters that occurred in 2014-15 and 2015-16 as follows: