EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Once we find out how much money it will cost, we can look into where we can find additional funds to be used for CEDOs in Nunavut for the NNI Policy.
Yes, it’s true, but even though the secretariat seems like an office where people go to get information, the municipalities are quite busy doing other work like trying to have to contract them out under transportation, like they work on the beach and do some transportation system, and usually they do work for the Department of Transportation.
Sometimes they have their funds budgeted, but sometimes they have to go over their budget. As I stated earlier on today, if you have any additional funding, if they go beyond the line item, because the municipalities are used on behalf of the government.
In that case, do the municipalities have to be concerned because you’re going to be providing some funds to pay for the NNI administration policy? Do the municipalities need to worry? Are you going to provide funding to these municipalities?
It’s hard to tell whether we have to provide additional funding.
If they have to administer the NNI Policy, or leave town, or go out of the community, we are willing to provide the communities.
If any of the communities requested for assistance or support; it’s hard for me to provide a response as to how much it will cost because we don’t really know how much it will cost to administer the NNI Policy.
Just to remind you, we are on page K-6, which includes K-7, K-8, K-9, K-10, K-11, and K-12.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I assume that the hamlet has to be very cautious about doing work for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation because it doesn’t give any real assurances that there would be extra money available for the economic development in the event that their expenses go beyond because of the policy the government has of NNI.
And I think that they could be sued for not giving a qualified person or company under NNI if not adhered to.
You know the law is a government and then the Department of Transportation has a secretariat that is recognized as a secretariat to manage NNI.
And I’m very doubtful that anything really has been established to adhere to the government policy under NNI.
Minister, I wonder if you could try and answer my last question itself: if the project is being delayed by hamlet’s authority, they are not sure of the department’s intent to assist or overcome the problems they have between the contractors and the hamlet, would the minister step in to make assurances that all this will be resolved if the figures are known by both parties?
I don’t know if I can answer something that has an ‘if’ in it or ‘would the government.’
I think we have to go by when it happens, how are we going to do it is something I think...our Department of NNI is willing to travel to the communities and explain how we can assist them with this if we were to get into that.
Again, it’s all government departments that’s under NNI, so I do believe that our secretariat will do their very best to make sure that we support NNI and that we also educate the communities that are using NNI.
Again, we want to really work closely with the communities and make sure that we are doing it the proper way.
I’m pretty sure there will be ways to improve it in the future, and again, we want to look into making sure that NNI works in our territory.
I just want to clarify one thing there. You assured me there’s the NNI Secretariat that is being established under your department, but the way I understood it was there is a question mark in there too: it’s there, but it’s not on the full scale of operations yet.
Translated to maybe, but we are not quite sure about; which can probably assist the hamlets.
I just wanted to say that word because it seemed that you didn’t really believe me in some of the things I said. So I’ll close my question at this time.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Alagalak. Members, K-6.
On page K-11, the Community Initiatives Program; there’s a decrease of $115,000 this year from last year.
Can the minister explain that, please?
As you can see on this page, there’s the Nunavut Chamber of Commerce. We’ve put money from there to there. That’s part of the reason.
I can appreciate the minister has a tough time juggling the money around; there’s so many important initiatives on economic development.
I’m a little concerned that the funding in that program has gone from $2,892,000 in 2004-05, and we’re down to $2.5 million.
We have to find more money to help business development, entrepreneurs in Nunavut, but we seem to be taking money out of these programs to create other programs.
I’m just wondering if the minister can comment if this going to be a trend that we’re going to continue to see in the years ahead.
Can I have Mr. Campbell to answer that question?
Chairman: Most definitely, Minister. Mr. Campbell.
Specifically on the question on why the decrease there; I just wanted to reassure the members that the $100,000 that each community is eligible to apply for under the CIP funding is kept intact there. Every community is still eligible to apply up to $100,000. So that’s still there.
Most communities are using the $100,000; some communities may not use the full amount.
The other point I wanted to make was we do have other areas of program funding that is available to the department.
That’s under federal funding as well; INAC is now providing $10 million per year that we can work with.
We have the $4 million SIP that we’re proposing for next year.
So between all those programs we would be able to be a bit innovative in the way we fund some of the requests that we are getting from the communities.
I just wanted to reassure the member that the communities are still eligible to receive up to $100,000 for CIP funding.
On page K-17 of your business plan one of the priorities for 2006-07, to strengthen the accountability and performance criteria for all contribution agreements. My question for the minister: can the minister or Mr. Campbell tell the House what are the outcomes of the performance criteria currently used in the department’s contribution agreements?
Mr. Campbell will answer that question.
We do, under the current contribution agreements, have some accountability measures within those agreements right now like regular reporting, financial reporting on a regular basis, monitoring them by our department, for some of this funding.
Because we’ve been under capacity over the past two years, what we’re suggesting here is that we’d be looking at these and reviewing the contribution agreements that we do have and how we can strengthen the accountability, how we can include some measures in there to include more work that the communities and the CEDOs can do for the department in implementing some of our programs and some of our policies.
I thank Mr. Campbell.
In the contribution agreements do you have requirements to submit reports to show the net effect of the contribution on the businesses in terms of jobs being created, the increase to the local economy, and Nunavut’s economy?
Yes, we do have a monitoring system where we make sure that our contributions are good.
Again, if we have to make any improvements, we’re always going to look into those improvements that we could do in the future for our people, for our constituents in Nunavut.
Can the minister, if we request it, table a list of all the contributions by community, by region, and show the net effect to jobs that were created by the contribution to the economy?
All those things...the way I look at all of this is that these programs are investments in Nunavut. So, we have to be very careful about how we invest and we have to know that we’re getting a bang for our buck; we’re not just putting money out there and not getting results because funds are limited and we want to put the funds into good projects, into good business ideas, and good studies; things that are going to help the communities develop.
I’m wondering if the minister could comment on whether he could make that information available to us.
It’s going to take time for us to develop that paper.
But we will certainly table something probably in the fall on the contributions that we made to the communities.
Mr. Peterson, do you have any more questions. I’m sorry. Mr. Peterson.
Mr. Peterson: I was waiting for the light to turn on here. But my hand is okay. We got to get this right: hand, light, talk...
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Minister.
I have two communities in my riding that we talked about last week when you had your other hat on.
Bay Chimo and Bathurst Inlet, how would they qualify for funding under the CIP Program?
I don’t know if they’re outpost camps or communities. We would have to look into that. Again, is it an outpost camp?
Is it a camp, or is it a community?
So I don’t have an answer to that question unless my deputy has an answer. Maybe Mr. Campbell could answer that question.
I guess I don’t have to talk about the issue here, but I think at some point we need to decide what we need to do with communities first of all, as a government.
That’s a policy that the minister has to follow up on with his colleague. But specifically on the communities, how do they qualify? What I can suggest is that we would look at them on an individual basis right now.
If requests come in from those communities, we would certainly not slam the door on the proposals. It’s something that would go through the regular review process with Ms. Keenainak’s committee that is dealing with the proposals.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Campbell. Fair enough because there are other outpost camps in other regions.
I thank Mr. Campbell and the minister.
The minister defined an outpost camp last week as an individual family, and then I pointed out that there are ten families living in Bay Chimo.
He commented that he thought that it was a community.
So it’s not an outpost camp.
The same situation exists in Bathurst Inlet where we have four or five families because it’s not really an outpost camp.
But two or three years ago, both of those communities did qualify under the Community Initiatives Program under the former department, the Department of Sustainable Development, until they were more or less unceremoniously cut off from the funding. And they have asked me to seek any answers as to why they can’t qualify for funds in that program anymore.
I thought I would take this opportunity to ask the minister if he could clarify that for me so I could give an answer to my constituents, Mr. Chairman.
If the minister could comment on that.
I guess we will have to go through the policy.
If we change the policy, they could qualify. I don’t believe the community has to be incorporated in order for it to qualify for the same program. So I can look into that further and check the policies of why they didn’t qualify after.
But then again, I think the community of Bathurst Inlet and Bay Chimo should be incorporated in order for it to qualify for the same program.
I know what it’s saying there, it’s on the policy. But there are situations where some of our communities or some of our people don’t quite fit nicely into the policy.
And I think this is one of those situations where there would probably be more people living down there if the government, and I’m not just picking on your department, but if all government departments provided certain basic levels of programs and services.
But what’s happening is the government is not supporting them as much as they think they should be and they are starting to have to move to Cambridge Bay and that’s putting a pressing demand on us and all the other areas when people really want to continue to live down there, if they could get some government support.
I don’t really think they are asking for much, they just want to qualify for the CIP program and some other programs.
So I know what you are saying about policies, but then there are always those grey areas where policies don’t apply.
That’s just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
On page K-12, the Strategic Initiatives Program, the minister mentioned earlier today that he is going to table the results of 2005-06. Is it fair to say that it was a very successful program in 2005-06 despite the fact that the money didn’t get out there until September, or October?
Yes, I think that was a very successful program. Again, we are going to do it again this year with better communication with the communities in Nunavut and I think that we can make improvements with this again.
And that’s a good program and any money is welcome to all communities that come in from the federal government.
On page K-14 of the business plan, one of your priorities for 2006-07 is to negotiate a memorandum of understanding with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to coordinate the delivery of economic development programs. Could you comment on what you’re planning to do to make a priority like that?
We have been trying to get an MOU with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for quite a while.
We need to make sure that we come up with economic development programs and we want to negotiate closely with them to make sure that we’re on the same page. As we are lacking in infrastructure, especially in the communities that are isolated, the plan is we’re going to talk with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada; coordinate the negotiation and come up with the MOU in the long run.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister. Can the minister give us an indication of how the discussions or negotiations are going with Indian and Northern Affairs in respect to developing and signing an MOU?
I’ll get Mr. Campbell to update where we are with the federal government on negotiations.
Mr. Campbell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have been having ongoing discussions with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.
As we speak we have our own Strategic Investment Program that we approved last year. They have the Economic Development Fund that was approved several years ago. So we are trying to coordinate our efforts in implementing a common investment strategy for Nunavut using that money.
As I said earlier, that works out to be about $10 million on an annual; $6 million from INAC; $4 million from the Government of Nunavut. We do have the officials working on an MOU.
The language is deliberate: MOU. We started this process by talking about a Northern Economic Development Agreement with INAC, but every time we talk that kind of language we seem to lose the federal officials at the table. So we’ve softened the language to come up with a memorandum of understanding, as opposed to an actual agreement.
So they’re at the table. The federal elections delayed some of the discussion of it but the officials are meeting again next week, as I was told today.
That would start the discussions again.
So what you’re saying is what you’re attempting to do is develop a program for Nunavut that would, in some way, do what an economic development agreement would do if we had such an agreement in Nunavut?
The answer is yes. We prefer, of course, to talk about the Northern Development Agreement; the Nunavut Development Agreement, if that’s what we decided at the end of the day.
At present, the federal government is not on side on a development agreement. So we are trying to take incremental steps to get towards an actual agreement at some point in time, still working towards the timeframe of 2008 to try and at least get serious on discussions on northern development.
Let me take this opportunity to welcome back Minister Brown to the House; I’m glad to see your travel was safe.
I think it’s very important for the record that Ottawa understands that the north is one and I think, southern Ontario is the other, the two jurisdictions in Canada that don’t have regional development agencies. You have the Western Diversification Agency in Western Canada and Atlantic Opportunities in Atlantic Canada, and you have Fed Nor in Northern Ontario.
But in the north where we need a lot of development, particularly now with fisheries, tourism, and mining, we desperately need that kind of help.
I heard the same stuff out of Ottawa for years that they don’t like to talk about economic development agreements.
By not talking about it, it doesn’t help us.
We do need the funding and I think it’s very important that the minister and his colleagues stress to Ottawa that we need some investment in the north.
I urge the minister to make the strongest possible case, as his other northern colleagues do, to get the point across in Ottawa that we are a young territory and we need help.
We are doing the best we can with what we have, but if we are going to make significant steps and strides to develop the territory and its resources, we are going to need significant investments. Bits and pieces here and there are not going to help us in the long term. We will be having these conversations every year for the next 20 years if we don’t get significant help from the guys in Ottawa there.
So that’s just a comment, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation) I don’t have anybody else on my list. (interpretation ends) Economic Development and Transportation.
Branch Summary. Economic Development.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $24,767,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Bear with me for a second; here we go. Okay, again. Economic Development and Transportation.
Branch Summary. Transportation.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $17,395,000.
Before I recognize the members for the next line of questioning, Mr. Akesuk.
Could I have Methuselah Kunuk sit on the right side of me?
I don’t think it matters exactly where he sits, but we will definitely allow that and I thank Ms. Keenainak for her appearance in Committee of the Whole today.
Minister Akesuk, for the record, please introduce your witness.
To my right is Methuselah Kunuk, our Assistant Deputy Minister for Transportation.
Welcome, Mr. Kunuk to the committee, to be here with us today.
So we have K-13, which also includes K-14, I’m sorry, this is just by itself, my capable assistant informs me; so K-13.
Welcome, Mr. Kunuk, to the hot seat for a few minutes.
My question for the minister, Mr. Chairman, Cambridge Bay has been raising the question of improvements to the airport parking in the community.
There have been two commitments by two previous ministers to ensure that that happens.
I wonder if the minister would give his commitment to improving the parking at the Cambridge Bay Airport this summer for the 2006-07 fiscal year.
Before proceeding, may I remind you to ask your questions on the page detail because we’re dealing with operations and maintenance.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We’re going to do our very best to make sure that Cambridge Bay gets on the list. We’re still working on it and I do believe that it’s important that these major hubs in our territory should have a proper airstrip for all the jets that are coming into the communities.
I’m going to make sure that we get Cambridge Bay in there somehow, one of those years, and probably in the near future.
Mr. Peterson: I have no more questions.
I have a question in this section.
In the communities, the terminal buildings, there is no wheelchair access to those buildings. Will this be looked into?
Chairman (interpretation): I reminded everybody we are on page K-13.
Minister, if you have any remarks.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes, you stated this before that the people who are in wheelchairs should be accommodated fairly. We certainly have to check all the communities with their accessibility to wheelchairs.
We probably can see improvements in those terminal buildings so they are accessible by wheelchair, and we will certainly look into this within the new funds when we deal with the capital estimates.
Chairman: Mr. Arreak.
Chairman (interpretation): Any other questions.
I have a very short question under K-13, on contract services. Out of those, how many hamlets have CARS contracts, and how many have private contracts?
There are seven individual contracts that have CARS contracts, and the rest are under hamlet councils.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Minister. Are you done?
We’re on page K-13, members.
Economic Development and Transportation. Branch Summary. Transportation.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $17, 395,000.
Chairman (interpretation): K-14.
Work on Behalf of Others. Detail of Work Done on Behalf of Third Parties.
On Canada-Nunavut Business Service Center, it was a one-year contract; it expires this year.
Is there no chance that it’s going to open up again, or start up again?
I think it’s probably provided an invaluable service. I’m just interested.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): To date, we are working on this issue and it will likely begin in 2007-08.
That’s certainly encouraging. What happens to the office and the staff that are currently employed under the Canada-Nunavut Business Service Centre operations?
That’s an ongoing process so the staff is still there.
Like I said, we’ll probably have numbers showing up in the next O&M budget year; how much we’ve spent on behalf of third parties.
So the department is going to fund the Canada-Nunavut Business Service Centre, but then collect a refund retroactively? Is that how it’s going to work?
I do believe that we have a good working relationship and we want to make sure that we understand each other on how much we’re spending on this. We’ll probably have a better idea of how much we spent and didn’t spend from here.
It seems obvious when I see these kinds of situations. If you know a contract is expiring; it was a one-year contract, but if you knew it was expiring six months ago, you would think that the federal government would be more willing to negotiate a renewal, or extension.
You are in a situation now where you are going to probably carry it for six months to a year, and then you lose a valuable resource in the process.
That jeopardizes the employment of people that are working in that organization.
I’m not sure how that fits within our financial framework but maybe the minister can explain that to me, or the deputy minister?
It’s a three-year agreement but it’s an agreement every year that we sign on. So we still got until 2008, probably with them. But we sign agreements once a year due to how much we’re spending on this.
I just want to move on to the CARS, Community Aerodrome Radio Stations. It’s encouraging to see, I think it looks like a $400,000 increase after many, many years. The hamlets have been crying for extra funding.
It’s good to see a little bit extra funding but I’m a little concerned that in my mind it doesn’t seem like it’s going to be enough based on the information that I’ve had.
Working with the communities over the years through the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, they will probably need $6 million and not $5,371,000.
I am wondering if the minister could comment on how the negotiations went in terms of cooperation with NAV Canada, recognizing that we have an urgent need for funding under the current program to operate our airports in Nunavut.
The agreement between the federal government and us is that there have been dates and there will be increases in the first year, second year, third year, fourth year, fifth year, so I do believe that we are working on something that won’t take forever.
We want to make sure that we have agreements that are increasing each year. I think we have done a great job, or our staff has done a great job doing this negotiation, as this will be something that will increase every year from the federal government.
The minister mentioned negotiations.
I recall a commitment by one of your predecessors that the Nunavut Association of Municipalities would be involved in negotiations. Were they actually involved in negotiations on the CARS Program?
Chairman: Thank you, Peterson.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): We’ll have Mr. Kunuk respond to your question.
Mr. Kunuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
During the negotiations, NavCanada didn’t want to talk to any representatives other than the ones from the Nunavut Government so we didn’t include any of the other entities during those negotiations.