EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
When a project goes out and is done, we want to make sure that it is what we had planned for and what we had hoped for. We do these kinds of studies.
If the member has any certain project that he would like the information on, I don’t see value in tabling that document. There are tabling requirements that we have and then there’s other stuff that we table just because it might be nice to do.
If the member has a certain project or certain building that he wants more information on, I’ll gladly provide that information to him and I’m free to meet with him at any time at his convenience.
The Hon. Minister responsible for the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation, Ms. Monica Ell-Kanayuk.
Tabled Document 188 – 4(3): NBCC Contracting, Procurement and Leasing Activity Report 2014-2015 (Ell-Kanayuk)
Tabled Document 189 – 4(3): NBCC Contracting, Procurement and Leasing Activity Report 2015-2016 (Ell-Kanayuk)
I am pleased to table the following reports from the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation:
Contracting, Procurement and Leasing Activity Report, 2014-15; and
Contracting, Procurement and Leasing Activity Report for 2015-16.
The Hon. Minister of the Nunavut Development Corporation, Ms. Ell-Kanayuk.
Tabled Document 190 – 4(3): NDC Procurement, Contracting and Leasing Report 2013-2014 (Ell-Kanayuk)
Tabled Document 191 – 4(3): NDC Procurement, Contracting and Leasing Report 2014-2015 (Ell-Kanayuk)
I am pleased to table the following reports from the Nunavut Development Corporation:
Procurement, Contracting and Leasing Report, 2013-14; and
Procurement, Contracting and Leasing Report, 2014-15.
Bill 20 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2015-2016 – Notice
Bill 21 – Write-off of Assets Act, 2015-2016 – Notice
Bill 22 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2016-2017 – Notice
Bill 23 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017 – Notice
Hon. Keith Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Monday, October 24, 2016, that Bill 20, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2015-2016, Bill 21, Write-off of Assets Act, 2015-2016, Bill 22, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2016-2017, and finally, Bill 23, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2016-2017, be read for the first time.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister of Finance, Mr. Peterson, Bills 20, 21, 22, and 23.
Bill 25 – An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, October 24, 2016, that Bill 25, An Act to Amend the Consumer Protection Act, will be read for the first time.
The Hon. Minister of Family Services, Mr. Johnny Mike.
Bill 26 – An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, October 24, 2016, that Bill 26, An Act to Amend the Social Assistance Act, will be read for the first time.
The Hon. Minister of Environment, Mr. Joe Savikataaq.
Bill 27 – Waste Reduction and Diversion Act – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, October 24, 2016, that Bill 27, Waste Reduction and Diversion Act, will be read for the first time.
The Hon. Minister of Community and Government Services, Mr. Joe Savikataaq.
Bill 28 – An Act to Amend Certain Acts Respecting Codes and Standards – Notice
I give notice that on Monday, October 24, 2016, that Bill 28, An Act to Amend Certain Acts Respecting Codes and Standards, will be read for the first time.
>>House recessed at 10:44 and Committee commenced at 11:05
Chairman (Mr. Akoak): Good morning, Inuit and MLAs/colleagues.
Being Friday, I say “welcome” to the people listening to the TV and watching the radio.
I would like call the committee meeting to order.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again good morning.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Good morning, Mr. Chairman and my colleagues.
With me to my left is my Deputy Minister, Sherri Rowe, and to my right is John Hawkins, Manager of Iqaluit Airport.
We are still on page K-3. Economic Development and Transportation. Transportation.
I know we’re going on day three, my third opportunity to ask a question, and basically what I really want to talk about this morning is one area. I would like get some commitment from the department and minister, and that is in the area of … .
What my colleague brought up a couple of days ago is about the jet bridge where, if you can’t walk up the stairs into the jet, there is that other option like what you have in the south. When the jet pulls up, you can walk right off and right into the airport without having to go down through the stairs and that.
We have talked about this for quite a while, I think, over the last few years since the project began.
I think the concern is that there is a lot of money being spent on this project, yet we don’t have something that you would think would automatically have been included into the overall plan of the airport.
When we look at people that are elderly and those who have physical disabilities and so on, everybody wants to be treated with respect and we don’t want to be hauling people on the outside through cranes or lifts or something.
My question is: is this something that you can seriously look at implementing?
What would be the reason for not doing something like this? Why not?
We can spend half a billion on this.
I think the cost that was stated last year was like a million dollars to build this.
If the minister can tell us why not or perhaps she will tell us, “Yes, this is a good thing.” That’s what I’m hoping to hear anyway. I’ll give it over to the Chairman.
I guess the member may not have been here when I answered a similar question the other day from another member.
I was very pleased to announce that the airport will be making boarding ramps available to ensure that all passengers can be boarded safely in a dignified manner and without undue hardship.
Our department has spent $160,000 for the purchase of these two ramps, one for a jet operation and one for a turboprop operation.
I mentioned yesterday that they will be on the first sealift for next year.
At this time the current airport is being built so that in the future, a full boarding bridge can be attached, but at this time that full boarding bridge is not a feasible option.
It would cost around $1 million or $2 million for one jet that comes in possibly once a day.
At this time what we have purchased will be for all the jets and other planes that come in.
Can the minister describe to me, then, what’s the difference between the boarding jet and ramp that you were talking about?
The ramp is a mechanism that is attached to the jet or plane whereby you could have wheelchair accessibility and/or walk up with a cane or what have you. In my case, I would be able to hold onto both ramps while I carry my carry-on with my one hand, rolling it up to the airplane.
The passenger boarding bridge is one where you travel down south and you see them attached and then you walk completely to the plane without going outside.
The ramp that we are getting is one that is rolled out to the plane.
I can table the picture of the ramp in the House so that everyone can see what we acquired.
You said that it’s not doable at this time to get the jet bridge. Is that because of the way that the current airport is being built and it’s something that you have to change structurally or is it just about $1 million? Why did we go to the other version and not go straight to the jet bridge?
The other concern I have about postponing projects like this is that they never happen. It depends on who is the minister of the day and what the priorities are.
That’s always a concern too. It costs $1 million today. In 30 years or less it can cost a lot more.
So if you can comment on that.
If we were to include the passenger boarding bridge at this time, it would only be for those jets that open and allow passengers to get out from the front.
It would only be for maybe one jet per day, so it’s not feasible with the traffic at this time.
We decided to go with something that would be for all planes and all jets that come in and board in and out from the back.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that response.
I think that it helps me understand the situation a lot better.
Welcome, Madam Minister.
Mr. Chairman, just for clarification, it has been brought up at some point during this meeting, but it’s in regard to the air terminal being built here in Iqaluit.
You indicated that you have paid many millions of dollars to Inuit for working at the airport.
Is it possible for you to say exactly how many Inuit you have working at the air terminal, if there are indeed Inuit working there?
Right now there are 140 employees at the air terminal.
In August there were 81. In July there were 140.
Now they’re going to be taking a winter break.
Since the project was initiated, it has become clear that the number of Inuit working at the airport fluctuates.
I do know that they stop work in the winter, but approximately what percentage of Inuit work there?
In total approximately 40 percent are Inuit. If you look at it monthly, I think it went over that.
In August there were 17.3 percent Inuit working and in July there were approximately 17.5 percent Inuit working at the airport.
What do the Inuit workers do on that project?
I will refer this question to the airport manager, Mr. Hawkins.
There are two aspects to the project.
One is the operations that happen day and night, 12 months a year, and the other is the construction.
In the operations aspect of it, there are Inuit beneficiaries that are firefighting, the operations manager, mechanics, equipment operators, and just about every aspect of the airport operation.
I don’t have that number right in front of me, but it’s approximately 40 percent. I think it’s 36 percent or something like that.
There is also the construction and some of the Inuit labourers are involved in trades. There are carpenters, electricians, welders, and plumbers.
A great number of them are involved in the civil works, so they would be equipment operators and labourers.
There are also ancillary services like hotels, catering, and other contract services.
I was just asking questions in regard to construction and (interpretation ends) just based on that, (interpretation) so I’ll expect to get a response based on construction.
I’ll ask further questions for other topics.
During the construction of the airport terminal building, do you have any information as to how long the Inuit work there? Do they work there for a day? Do they work there for two weeks?
How long of a period do they remain in their job position?
I know some Inuit who have been working there since the beginning of the project.
Mr. Hawkins can go into detail.
Among the reports that we get, there is a turnover of a number that is provided.
It’s provided on a monthly basis. In the last two months that were reported, July and August of this year, they were respective 4.3 percent and 3.7 percent.
As I said, they’re in all sorts of activities and some of them are subcontractors, so it takes a lot of analysis to get the actual numbers.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Did I just hear that it takes a lot of analysis to get to those numbers and as such, we can’t get those numbers?
We don’t have the information as to how long employees stay or remain within their position.
The airport terminal building project has been under construction for approximately two years now.
Looking at the whole project, are you on target for the Inuit employment numbers?
Are you in line with that?
Yes, we had agreed to 10 percent of Inuit employment.
As I stated, they surpassed that in July and August with a little over 17 percent of Inuit employees.
Let me move to another topic, primarily just a request for clarification on airport-related infrastructure.
The Airports Division has quite a variety of airport equipment in different communities. Further, the hamlets have employees that work with heavy equipment and work orders.
How does the department work with municipal airport maintainers on determining the condition of their airport equipment or if the equipment is no longer capable of maintaining the runway or if the equipment breaks down?
How does the department work with the municipalities on these types of challenges?
I’ll have the airport manager, Mr. Hawkins, respond.
Most of the airport equipment is actually owned by the Nunavut Airports Division or by the Government of Nunavut.
There are other pieces of equipment that are used less often that would be owned by the hamlets.
There are maintenance provisions in the contracts that the hamlets or other service providers have with the government.
If there are large unexpected equipment breakdowns, there are provisions in the contract that the government will provide for the cost of the repairs of those.
If the heavy equipment at the airport no longer became available unexpectedly, is the hamlet’s heavy equipment immediately available?
Yes, that’s what usually happens.
Prior to asking my next question, I want to refer to my colleague Mr. Tom Sammurtok, who was ecstatic about the approval and that he had expectations after the passage of the requests. I also share in that expectation that these requests will be approved forthwith for these capital expenditures.
Mr. Chairman, another issue requiring further clarification relates to your [2016-17] requests, albeit I am aware this is from the previous fiscal year I am referencing.
In your substantiation sheets, it is written that for the Hamlet of Pond Inlet, the department expended $244,665 on the small craft harbour project.
This is the reason why I am trying to clarify this situation here, so my questions will be as straightforward as I can voice them.
The funding expended was received through a contribution agreement related to the Small Craft Harbours Program.
In your written report here, as per my earlier reference, the department expended $244,665 on the project over the summer for the construction of the mooring bollards in Pond Inlet.
Is this figure the (interpretation ends) final figure (interpretation) for that line item, yes or no?
Yes, this $244,000 has been spent and this mooring bollard is now in Pond Inlet, but its construction has not started.
Good morning, Madam Minister and your officials.
Firstly I will be basing my questions on yesterday’s questions.
Some of the responses I received during my questions regarding MVIS, the way I saw it, it seemed like they did not want to provide the services.
Perhaps you can ensure that the department is more open with the capital estimates.
I know that when I’m talking about passport photos, each community will be receiving a camera for driver’s licences. I know these cameras are not intended to be used for passport photos, but the communities will be receiving these cameras.
The way I understood it is that you cannot provide any other service with that camera, except to provide a driver’s licence and it cannot be used for passports.
I was wondering if your department can commit to being more open to other ideas.
Perhaps you can work with Passport Canada so that these new cameras that are going to be installed could be used for passport photos some time in the future.
The Department of Transportation is not responsible for providing passport pictures, but we work with the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs. Perhaps the member could direct his question to the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Since you are the Minister of Transportation, can you commit to being open to the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs and work with the GLOs? They also provide services for the federal government.
As the minister, can you commit to being open to at least considering having the cameras to provide the service for passport photos?
I am familiar with the passport issue and I know that the member already knows that the federal government is responsible for issuing passports.
There are private photographers in the communities and in Iqaluit.
I know that there are private photographers in the communities that could take passport photos.
We wouldn’t mind consulting with Intergovernmental Affairs, but at this time, we have no role with respect to that question.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Ell-Kanayuk.
Yes, I completely understand that the federal government is responsible for passports. However, there are other governments that we work with. Even if it’s in the communities, when it involves the federal government, we help them so that the people of Nunavut are served properly.
I’m sure we can make an agreement with the federal government to do that work.
How are the communities going to do this?
Sometimes we have nowhere to turn to and that’s why I’m asking this question.
We can imagine that if those cameras can be used for passport purposes, it would be good. Maybe the Nunavut government can receive a small amount to help pay for the cameras and even make some savings for taking passport photos.
Let me just leave this issue for now.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, I want to go back to the 20-year needs assessment, just one quick clarification under page 7-1 and it’s regarding overlay requirements.
It says it’s for Cape Dorset. Right at the end it says, “It is recommended that the overlay and repairs to this runway take place as soon as possible.”
Can the minister indicate how soon as possible it will take?
I would like Mr. Hawkins to respond to that question.
Overlays are one of the highest priorities that we have and this will be identified to both the Government of Nunavut capital plan and to the ACAP program, which is available from the federal government to undertake safety improvements to runways.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Is there a timeline that the department can share?
At this time we don’t have that information.
Mr. Joanasie (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) “As soon as possible” seems pretty immediate, so I look forward to getting an update in the near future about it.
(interpretation) I would like to move on to a different issue as well. There was a question about it from Mr. Enook just a few minutes regarding the Inuit workers at the Iqaluit airport.
It’s supposed to be 10 percent Inuit employment for the whole construction project.
Did you indicate, for example, if they have 100 employees, then 10 have to be Inuit? That’s the absolute minimum.
Did you explain to them that if they have 100 employees, then 30 positions could be given to Inuit?
I will have Mr. Hawkins respond.
I would like to clarify off the top that 10 percent is a minimum in any given year, but overall the project is 15 percent and that is based on the amount of money disbursed to individuals.
Let me expand on my question.
Was the construction carried out based on numbers?
I was using 100 jobs as an example. I know that they would not get 100 percent Inuit employment, but if we looked at the work skills of Inuit, were you able to tell the contractors that there are 30 jobs, or whatever the number is, that could have been done by Inuit just on qualifications alone?
We did not stipulate the number of employees. The responsibility is on the contractor or private partner to meet the obligations that were set out in the project agreement, which included a percentage of payrolls that would be to Inuit beneficiaries.
The next name on the list, Mr. Okalik.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing me to ask further questions.
The minister indicated to us that the airport terminal construction is reported on the website and that the contents of it can be looked at.
What is the total project cost going to be for the airport terminal project in Iqaluit?
I would like that clarified first as it has become confusing.
The member was saying that it would cost half a billion dollars. It’s nowhere near that amount.
The project cost is $305,193,000.
Looking at what was posted on the website before construction started, it says that the government would pay $298.5 million.
Now it’s over $300 million.
Which is the actual cost?
I will have Mr. Hawkins respond to that.
The total cost is $305 million.
That includes the government’s retained risks. That is for environmental issues that we knew were at the airport, although we couldn’t quantify them before we started the project.
It’s for all the project delivery, all the consultants, and all the costs that we bear as we’re delivering the project. The contract itself is less than $300 million.
The projected costs or estimates are quite different and I’m sure they will have to be looked at again because it will be revisited in the future.
It’s like I heard it for the first time where we had very few Inuit working on that big construction project.
I would like to know why there were so few Inuit working on this big, expensive project.
It is written in the contract that is carried out.
You heard how many Inuit have to work there, which has been achieving a rate of 15 percent. I said there were up to 140 Inuit that worked in July.
Right now they are dwindling in number because the project is winding down.
The obligations provided in the contract for the number of jobs for Inuit have been fulfilled.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): No, I am done.
Chairman: The next name on the list, Mr. Keyootak.
I just have a short question.
I asked the same question yesterday. I was not satisfied with the answer I got yesterday, so I would like to ask again about the port requested for Qikiqtarjuaq.
Smaller communities seem to be put at the end of the line to a degree and it makes us envy the larger communities when they are given reason to smile, even when it really isn’t like that.
It seems like we get left behind and are made second, and then we get envious of the larger communities that get more stuff.
Though that may not be the case, that’s the way it seems.
I would like to ask why the federal government did not approve funding under the Building Canada Fund for a new port in Qikiqtarjuaq.
I have Ms. Rowe respond to the question.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): I said Ms. Rowe.
We can’t speak for the federal government on why they picked one particular project over another. They obviously have their own list of criteria that they go through.
Again, we’re at the same situation; there is only so much money to go around.
We will continue to push the priorities of Economic Development and Transportation, and we will continue to try to get things on our capital plan and then apply for federal money. That’s really all we can do.
Will the Government of Nunavut make another submission to the federal government for this same request?
I will have Ms. Rowe respond to that.
We will continue to apply for federal dollars for projects.
How much money can the Nunavut government commit to the new port project?
I’ll have Ms. Rowe answer the question.
Currently we are here to discuss our capital plan and what’s in it.
It needs to be in our capital plan, which needs to go through our own process.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I move to report progress.
We will come back Monday with the minister and her officials.
Your committee has been considering Bill 24 and the capital estimates, and would like to report progress. Also, Mr. Speaker, I move that the Report of the Committee of the Whole be agreed to.
Just a reminder of various meetings, today at half past one in the Nanuq Room, Standing Committee on Public Accounts, Independent Officers and Other Entities meets; tomorrow, Saturday, there’s a meeting of the Management and Services Board at ten o’clock in the Tuktu Room; and on Monday at 9:00 a.m. in the Nanuq Room, a meeting of the Standing Committee on Legislation.
Bill 21  Bill 22
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Monday, October 24, at 1:30 p.m.
>>House adjourned at 11:55
Monday, October 24, 2016
Pages 2407 – 2479
Opening Prayer 2407
Ministers’ Statements 2407
Members’ Statements 2409
Oral Questions 2414
Reports of Standing and Special Committees on Bills and Other Matters* 2439
First Reading of Bills 2443