EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
This is especially the case in Hall Beach where they don’t even have protection against the rough seas, although they have talked about a floating dock.
Given that, I would like to work with my colleagues who represent communities with no wharfs or breakwaters and get those facilities built.
Mr. Speaker, it’s something that we are not going to forget anytime soon and we will have to urge the federal government to make sure that those facilities are built.
Member’s Statement 521 – 2(4): The Need to Keep “Inuuqatigiittiarniq” (Kattuk)
I have never said this before, but there was a family member in Sanikiluaq who had passed away a long time ago.
He told us that we should all work together to help each other. That’s the model of the Inuit people and that’s the belief of the Inuit people: working together.
He wanted people in Sanikiluaq to be able to help each other, to assist each other, and one of the things that he said before was, “Don’t make other people look small beside you.
Don’t talk down to them.”
I see here in Nunavut that a lot of people are belittled by other people and there are individuals that know people in Nunavut who are doing that.
That’s the kind of thing that that individual in Sanikiluaq said not to do.
People in Nunavut hear of individuals belittling others, and that’s what we do here in this House to our constituents and to our fellow Inuit.
We were told by our elders that it doesn’t matter what kind of a person an individual is, you shouldn’t belittle others.
That’s not our way and we have to remember what the elder was saying, that as long as we live, we shouldn’t belittle anyone.
Whether they have a different ethnic background or not, you have to treat them the same way as you would treat yourself.
If there are no more, (interpretation ends) Item 4.
Return to Oral Question 630 – 2(4): Lobbying Federal Government to Exempt Nunavummiut from Paying GST on Home Heating Fuel (Okalik)
When the Member for Iqaluit Centre asked me a question yesterday, I didn’t provide a proper response in regard to marine service fees.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, as you know, the marine service fees are administered by the Government of Canada and I was not aware at the time that the current government has currently changed their rules on this program.
They have placed a three-year moratorium as of last June.
These fees are not applicable for shipments of goods to Nunavut.
So I want to thank my colleagues and also recognize your efforts in lobbying this current government in changing these fees.
So I want to congratulate this current government for hearing our concerns and that I want to see this program removed indefinitely, not just a three-year moratorium. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker and (interpretation ends) my apologies to my colleague.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a group of Swedish Parliamentarians who are visiting us today.
They are Members of the Committee on the Constitution in Sweden and have the responsibility for ethnic minorities and relations with the Sami Parliament.
They’re missing one future Montreal Canadien called Mats Sundin, so I look forward to seeing him in a Montreal uniform.
I am very pleased to recognize today Ms. Daret Abner, MP and Committee Chair,
Ms. Margareta Cederfeldt,
Ms. Helena Petersson,
Mr. Billy Gustafsson,
Ms. Marianne Berg,
Ms. Phia Andersson,
Ms. Annie Johansson,
Mr. Mikael Johansson,
Ms. Åse Matz, and
Mr. Mikael Eriksson.
Welcome to our House.
Welcome to the Chambers.
I would like to send my regards to my family and to the people of Baker Lake.
Although he has been in the Gallery before, Mr. Speaker, I would like welcome my middle son, Craig Simailak.
He’s the Deputy Mayor and Councillor of the Hamlet of Baker Lake, and he works for the Qulliq Energy Corporation.
Question 631 – 2(4): Use of Foreign Vessels in Nunavut Waters (Curley)
Mr. Speaker, recently this summer and earlier this week, I raised concerns in relation to the use of foreign-flagged vessels delivering sealift services under contract to the Government of Nunavut.
It is a matter of public record that Nunavut Eastern Arctic Shipping, which is a recognized Inuit-owned firm, not only in Nunavut but also in Nunavik, has officially raised concerns with the federal Canadian Transportation Agency regarding the use of foreign vessels by other companies providing sealift services.
My first question to the minister is this: what is the Government of Nunavut’s official policy on the use of foreign vessels with foreign flags by companies providing sealift services under contract to the GN?
Minister of Community and Government Services, Hon. Levinia Brown.
I thank the member for his question in regard to that matter.
I don’t have any information with respect to the particulars, so I can’t speak directly to it, but I imagine this occurs on occasion.
I believe that this information is the right one and I don’t wish to hazard a guess.
However, the community of Pangnirtung was to receive the materials for their new bridge.
The original specification for the bridge was 40 metres, but after further review of the situation, the specification called for a bridge twice that length.
I believe that the materials have been shipped, but since I don’t want to presume that this is the case, Mr. Speaker, I will look into this matter with my staff as they are listening to the proceedings.
I will take this as notice and respond to the member once I have the information.
Mr. Curley, your question has been taken as notice.
Question 632 – 2(4): Timeframe of Devolution Negotiations (Peterson)
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier announced the signing of the Nunavut Negotiation Devolution Protocol and I congratulate the Premier, NTI, and the Government of Canada on signing that. It was a long time coming, so it’s good to know that it’s done.
There was an interesting statement he made in his statement yesterday where he said, “… the Prime Minister said that we need to use it or lose it,” referring to the North.
That statement made me wonder what the Prime Minister meant since we are already using the North.
Then I started pondering that if the Americans start sailing through the Northwest Passage or if the Russians lay claim to it, do we, as Nunavummiut, suddenly become Americans or Russian?
So I was curious about this statement.
I know that the Premier talks to the Prime Minister quite often and has a chance to meet with him, but I’m wondering if the Premier could indicate to the House what exactly the Prime Minister meant by his statement “that we need to use it or lose it.”
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I have made it clear to the Prime Minister that we have used it all the time and will continue to use it for a very long time as it’s our home.
I think the Prime Minister’s main point is that they have a lack of presence in our territory, so that’s where I think he’s alluding to - trying to get more presence in our territory through the military and other measures.
So he’s trying to explain to the broader Canadian public that we need to show more Canadian presence, not just our territory as Inuit but we need at least more investment from the Government of Canada to show that we are open for business. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Your first supplementary, Mr. Peterson.
I thank the Premier for that clarification.
When the Conservative candidate comes to Cambridge Bay, I’m sure I’ll have an opportunity to ask her what the Prime Minister meant as well. I understand she is coming up very soon.
Mr. Speaker, I read through the protocol agreement this morning and there is no indication of a timeframe to conclude devolution negotiations.
We have talked in the House many times about when it would be concluded.
I think the end of 2008 was one of the dates and then I think the end of 2010. I’m wondering if the Premier could give us an indication today of when he expects the devolution negotiations to actually conclude.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) When we first started discussions on devolution, our goal was to have an agreement-in-principle in 2008 and that was four years ago.
Unfortunately, the government has changed and different priorities were set, and the current agreement took quite some time to reach, it’s a framework and it’s a protocol.
So I’m waiting for the new government to be formed so that a mandate could be put in place and initial discussions could then begin, and that will help us in determining how long it might take.
So I can’t answer that right now, but the structure is there now. It’s a matter of filling in the gaps and determining how long that might take.
It’s difficult for me to determine at this time, it’s a three-party process that will take a little bit of time, but hopefully the new government, not just our government but the new federal government, will start the negotiations fairly quickly. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Your second supplementary, Mr. Peterson.
I’m aware, from the NWT and the Yukon experience, that it could take considerable time to conclude negotiations.
I certainly hope we don’t have to wait as long as they had to reach a satisfactory agreement.
Mr. Speaker, in reading through the protocol agreement, it refers to a human resource strategy to be developed and implemented parallel to devolution negotiations.
I have asked this question before, Mr. Speaker, whether the Canadian government will provide training dollars to Nunavut to train people to be ready for the devolution jobs when the agreement is concluded.
I’m wondering if the Premier can indicate to the House if the federal government intends to provide any training funds to Nunavut to train people during the devolution process.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Yes, our goal is to have this matter resolved quicker than the Northwest Territories.
I believe the NWT has taken over 20 years to get to where they are today. That’s far too long in my opinion.
At least we have the precedent in the Yukon and hopefully the NWT in place, so that would make it a little easier to reach an agreement on various areas.
But as you refer to the protocol, it also outlines that the Government of Nunavut and NTI’s position is that there has to be Article 23 provisions honoured and met in the negotiation process.
So we will insist that there be training put in place during our negotiations so that we will have significant Inuit employment when that responsibility is transferred to our government in the future.
So that will be an ongoing discussion for us, but it’s our insistence along with NTI. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I certainly hope the federal government does provide training funds because there’s a great need for training in Nunavut for these important positions.
Mr. Speaker, in the Minister’s Statement yesterday and earlier today in answer to my questions, he mentioned the military exercise that the Canadian government has conducted. They are also planning to build a deep sea port in Nanisivik and they recently announced a new icebreaker.
These are things that send a message or signal to the rest of Canada and around the world that Canada does have a presence in Nunavut.
I wonder if the Premier could indicate if the Canadian government intends to invest in non-military infrastructure, such as deep sea ports and road infrastructure, in areas where we can develop our mineral resources.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I’m not a candidate for any government other than my own, so that’s difficult for me to answer but maybe an appropriate question for candidates that are running for the various parties.
It’s always our position that we need assistance at the national level to build up our infrastructure and provide better services to our citizens and reduce our costs.
So I look forward to commitments being made by all parties running federally on this important file. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 633 – 2(4): Response to Written Question 15 – 2(4) (Tootoo)
There’s no surprise as a result of my Member Statement.
Mr. Speaker, in his response to my written question that was tabled the other day, the question I had asked was: how many occasions since March 2004 has the Secretary to Cabinet recorded a disclosure and withdrawal under subsection 15(1) of the Integrity Act?
In his response, it indicates that all Executive Council documents are strictly confidential.
Mr. Speaker, I wasn’t asking for a document, I was asking for a number.
I’m just wondering if the Premier can indicate, as I pointed out also earlier when I asked how many meetings they had, I got a number, why this time we don’t get a number.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I had this very question and I asked it amongst my officials, and I was advised that the contents and the proceedings of our meetings are confidential for a purpose and that I could not disclose the minutes of our meetings.
Those minutes are protected, so I could not provide the minutes to my colleague. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I’m not asking for minutes, I’m just asking how many times something like that has happened. How many times has withdrawals happened under the Act - once, none, ten?
I’m not looking for any contents of any minutes, any information that’s private.
It seems to me that we have these rules and as the Premier has stated here in the House, he insists that there is no potential or perceived conflict. It’s all nice to have all these rules in place on that, but we can’t tell you if we follow them or not, or if they have been adhered to.
So I don’t understand when you ask him to explain how a number is considered a document or the contents of the minutes of a meeting, I just don’t understand that.
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I do my utmost to be open wherever I can and I will continue to operate that way.
I’m bound by legislation that minutes and proceedings of our Cabinet are protected and so, if I could provide a number, I would. So I’m not pretending to do anything, but unfortunately, we have proceedings in place that prevent me from disclosing certain information to the public. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I understand what the Premier is saying and again, I don’t believe I’m asking for anything that’s confidential.
I’m not asking for what happened, I’m just asking: has this section ever been utilized or recorded, yes or no, and if so, how many times? I don’t see that as a breach.
Maybe if the Premier has been given advice that it is, if he could provide that advice to us so that we can look at it and maybe have a second view of it and question it, and maybe we will be convinced that that argument is correct.
But right now, we have no way of knowing. Again, we have these rules in place, but no one has the right to know if they’re being followed.
So what’s the use of having the rules? So would he provide that information to us to review?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I think the Speaker tabled documents which indicate that I did my role in enforcing some of our laws in conflict of interest.
So I think I can assure the member and Members of this House that we’re doing our utmost to ensure that all the laws in this area are being enforced for the protection of the general public. And I will provide information wherever and whenever I can, so I will continue to have a very active role to assure the confidence of this House and the public. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Your third and final supplementary, Mr. Tootoo.
I thank the Premier for that. I’m not questioning that and the Premier didn’t answer my last question.
I asked: will he provide us with a copy of the advice that made him decide that releasing those documents or that number would be a breach of Executive Council privilege so that the members could look at it and be convinced that, in fact, by providing that information, it would be a breach of Executive Council privilege?
So will he provide that advice, or decision, or whatever he got to make up his mind to put that response in his question for us to look at?
Hon. Paul Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) Legal advice is considered solicitor/client privilege and it’s confidential. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 634 – 2(4): Moving the Medical Travel Office from Pangnirtung to Iqaluit (Arvaluk)
I think he’s had that portfolio for a long time, possibly two days.
The minister indicated during the winter of last year, and I have been asking questions about this issue, that the transportation office would be moved to Iqaluit in July.
I’m only saying this because that’s what we were told.
The office still hasn’t been moved to Iqaluit, so I would like to know why that’s the case.
Minister of Health and Social Services, (interpretation ends) Honourable Olayuk Akesuk.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) To date, the matter is still being worked on.
I had a meeting this morning with my staff and I asked about the status of the transportation office.
They are currently working on it and we will be setting up a position so that everything will be coordinated in relation to the office.
We will have a manager of medical travel to oversee the whole thing in order to improve the transportation services provided to medical patients.
Could the minister inform us of the status and give us an update before the end of this session?
I’m sure my staff is listening and I’ll make sure I get the information and see how long it’s going to take to complete the process, but I can’t commit to giving a response before the end of this session.
Question 635 – 2(4): Status of Remediation of Old Power Plant Site in Baker Lake (Simailak)
Mr. Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) My questions are for the Minister of Energy.
On February 26 of this year, I asked a number of questions to the minister concerning the clean-up of the site where Baker Lake’s old power plant is located.
In his responses to me at that time, the minister indicated that remediation work would take place in the summer of 2008.
Now that summer is over, can the minister update the House and the people of Baker Lake today on the status of this important work?
Over the past few years, with the history of the project, we have built a new plant in Baker Lake and we’re in the process of decommissioning the old plant which, it’s my understanding now, has been incomplete.
I want to thank the Hamlet of Baker Lake for continuing to follow up on the project and they have been very cooperative.
We also had another problem in Baker Lake, as the member raised, that was a very serious concern and that’s the leaching of oil through the ground, which means we had to spend almost $500,000 to put a Waterloo Barrier in place. And that project is also continuing this year.
The old power plant building itself that is still there and it’s still very ugly, especially for people that live close to the site, it smells.
Does the minister know when that building is going to be torn down and the land totally remedied?
There are two issues in Baker Lake with the remediation of the plant, they actually do flow. We have spent considerable sums of money over the last two years on the subsecive oil leaks and we have traced this back, and we believe there is a liability issue with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, or INAC, on the costs.
We have a legal opinion that tells us that and we’re trying to recover that.
The secondary issue is the remediation of the old plant in Baker Lake. Again, it’s not just a removal of a building, there’s also the remediation of the soil, and so on, in the community of Baker Lake.
And that work, as I had indicated, will continue.
It is my understanding, again, that the building itself will be removed in the next 12 months, but the soil has to be remedied first.
We have also been working, as the member knows, on the other big issue with the oil leach in the community and the placement of the Waterloo Barrier.
Again, the hamlet has been very proactive in there helping us, not only logistically but financially and administratively, with some of those issues.
As the minister indicated that our government feels that the federal government has some responsibility, can the minister clearly indicate today what discussions he has had with Ottawa on this issue and what commitments he has obtained from Indian and Northern Affairs Canada?
There was considerable... maybe that’s the wrong word. There were several oil spills at the old plant in Baker Lake that was owned by the Northern Canada Power Commission, or NTPC, and that occurred in the 70s and indeed in the 80s.
Because of the elevation, because of the sloping of the land near Baker Lake, that oil has leached into the soil and it’s getting very close to Baker Lake itself, to the water, so we put the Waterloo Barrier in place.
We have gone back to the federal government and we have indicated to the federal government, in several letters, as well as correspondence and legal opinions, that we believe that there is a fiduciary responsibility on behalf and for the federal government to take serious action in this matter. They, however, seem to indicate that they don’t believe they are liable.
The next step for us would be to look at some legal recourse. However, there are some conversations and communications between the Power Corporation, the hamlet, and the federal government on next steps.
We don’t want to proceed to a legal situation and work this out in the courts. We would like to be able to do that government-to-government-to-government and when I say government-to-government-to-government, I mean the hamlet, the federal government, and the Nunavut government.
That’s the direction I have given to the Power Corporation.
Question 636 – 2(4): Hydroelectric Projects in James Bay and Environmental Impacts (Kattuk)
The Premier knows how concerned Sanikiluaq Inuit are about their environment, especially with respect to the hydroelectric projects planned in the James Bay watershed.
With respect to the federal government’s environmental staff, we are not sure whether they will be conducting the proper studies of the environment.
Section 34 is the area that the people of Sanikiluaq are worried about and whether the study is going to be adequate.
The federal government hasn’t conducted any environmental studies required to review the projects to date and I asked the Premier to write to the Prime Minister about that this spring.
I was encouraged by my constituents to voice their concerns, but I was told that I had to go to where they were meeting in order to initiate this work.
So I wonder if the Premier has received a response to a letter that I asked him to write to the Prime Minister this spring. I would like to get an update on this matter from our Premier.
This is an ongoing process and I wrote the Minister of Environment from the federal government asking to work with him on this project.
I haven’t received a response to date, but we have been urging the federal Department of Environment to address the concerns of Sanikiluaq residents.
Can you inform me of what you have raised and can you give me a copy of the correspondence you wrote on this matter?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Premier.
I believe I have already given the member copies of the letters and I apologize if he hasn’t received them yet.
I will forward them to him again and I will continue to pursue the concern that I share with the member.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Oral Questions.
Question 637 – 2(4): Fuel Consumption by Qulliq Energy Corporation (Curley)
My question is for the Minister of Energy and it concerns the fuel charges that the minister normally charges back to the consumers by way of various policies.