EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They’re the bankers, I’m not, and so it would be their call really, whether they can see a market up here and if it’s something that they can do.
That’s their call, it’s certainly not mine.
We don’t have a quorum right now. (interpretation) I have no more names on my list.
Economic Development. Total Operations and Maintenance. $23,995,000.
Going to page 12.
We are dealing on transportation now.
We briefly talked about some of the stuff that we wanted to talk about, such as CARS, because sometimes there are getting away from the communities.
I think there are quite a few communities that have broken away from doing contracts with CARS and the officials told us they wanted to try and get long-term funding agreement.
Is there anything new that you can tell us Mr. Minister in that regard?
The people that work at the communications building of the terminal, I would like to get a bit of information again because the department has offloaded those CARS to the hamlets and some of them were in a bad situation.
So for that reason, maybe the minister can provide us with further information about what their negotiations are with NavCanada.
For the record, could you please introduce your witnesses, Mr. Minister.
On my right is Methuselah Kunuk, Assistant Deputy Minister of transportation, in regards to the CARS program in the communities, those observer communicators, presently the NavCanada’s Executive were just awaiting there, waiting for them at this time whether there is an agreement in place or not, after we have the negotiations.
We are just awaiting on the NavCanada group, after negotiations were done, where just waiting to hear from them now.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): That’s very important information that we wanted to hear, because some of the communities have a separate contract, perhaps if the department could give us information about which communities have a contract?
Just to clarify that, I think there are four communities that have contractors.
But we will look at it to see if that number is correct.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes that’s good to hear.
To the next one, Access Roads, there use to be a section here on Access Roads and is this under the municipalities.
During the Committee meeting we touched upon this a bit, some bridges were a bit too big, I just want the minister to elaborate more on this.
Mr. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Minister.  Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes that is under capital.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Under transportation, there are long term strategies, and we talked a bit about medical travel, and how we can change some of the policies under the medical medivac travel.
We asked them to be a bit more cautious, because it’s not just passengers, there’s a lot of cargo coming in and out of Kivalliq, and we didn’t want them to jump in and sign the agreement.
This is mainly a comment but I’d like to ask maybe your deputy or your assistant in regards to marine transportation, the new contract.
How many contracts are there, and when does it terminate.
The contracts are under Community and Government Services.
We are not responsible for that.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): They didn’t have a transportation section and we somehow failed to skip that section.
Under Transportation Strategy, you probably include Marine Transportation.
After there have been some changes from Montreal, the cost of living impact is quite high.
I wonder if this was taken into consideration when you were negotiating with the marine strategy because you have to consider Manitoba and Kivalliq region, that’s their supply route and it will never really go to Quebec.
I wonder if this can be considered this way.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): The Community and Government Services, we can assist them in having discussions with those but at this time, this is under the responsibility of Community and Government Services when it comes to contracts.
The marine transportation is our main transportation because the air transportation, if it was under one of the recommendations, even though you don’t provide the contracts, I think you make the policies, which includes marine, doesn’t really involve highways because we don’t have any, so it’s either going to be marine or air transportation.
Maybe if I ask the minister, what is the purpose of the Marine Transportation Strategy.
With transportation, we mainly deal with break waters, roads, access roads, and if we get fortunate enough to get highways, the highway to Montreal and the airstrip, those are the main ones that we deal with in transportation.
Under minor works, Coast Guard, I know it’s under third parties; it deals with marine re-supply facilities.
Will the transportation part always be with Economic Development or will it be moved under Community and Government Services.
The third party funding that was received last year, $368,000.
The marine service fees, the price went up.
Has anybody ever complained from shipping companies because it is too costly for the Eastern Arctic.
Mr. Kunuk can respond to that.
The marine services, ice-breaking services are combined together under the federal government.
Even though we don’t really have the power but through discussions, some of the ships that come into our communities, how and why they are charged for fees, even though there is a provision there that it shouldn’t apply to north of sixty?
It’s because they depart from down south and come up and they have to go down south.
We asked if they could be exempted but the way the federal government looks at it is different.
Maybe it is too technical.
It is depending on what the supplies are that are on the ships.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I wonder if the transportation have heard the marine services fees costs quite a bit.
The construction companies and Northern Stores charge back to the operators to pay the Coast Guard for the icebreaking services. (interpretation ends) The Marine Transportation companies pass it on to either government and then it goes to the consumer one way or the other. (interpretation) The freight costs go up.
Have you raised this concern to the federal government?
In that regard that it should be exempt for the shipping services in the Eastern Arctic.
I received correspondence from the shipping company that comes to the Nunavut.
They are charged with the fees that they have to pay.
I raised a concern that that was one of the reasons why the prices are going up and I have written a letter to the Minister of Transportation.
I expect that he will respond and I will be meeting with the minister this spring and I will discuss again that this is not acceptable to Nunavummiut.
The federal minister and I are working on this.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): So I would just tell the minister that the Coast Guards, their agent...When the cost of living is too high the homeowners and businesses the price of a house, 33 percent of it is just transportation costs.
For that reason I wonder if the Indian Affairs Minister, since he will be coming up to see, they say that that they can’t have it exempted but in the Great Lakes they are exempt.
So I feel that we should be exempt of taxing with the marine ships that come up from Montreal.
I wonder if the minister can bring this to his federal counterpart.
That is one of the things that I am willing to discuss with the minister that we should also be exempt from that fee.
To make him understand to see if anything can be done about that.
We know that they are very stubborn but even if they don’t agree right away in the Great Lakes the shipping companies are exempted and around Hay River, NTCL up towards north of sixty.
For the ships that come up to the Eastern Arctic, the fees are skyrocketing, so I would urge the Minister to always bring this up and I want our colleagues, Community and Government Services to bring this up because everything costs so much more up here.
Under K-14, (interpretation ends): Nanisivik Polaris Social Economic Study in colored gemstone project (interpretation): was funded in 2004/05 and this year there is nothing budgeted.
Is it because the project is completed?
We were given $55 thousand in 2004 from INAC and that was to conclude to the closure of the Nanisivik Polaris Mine.
There was also a discovery around Kimmirut on gemstones and they were going to do more exploring.
It was to initiate to start exploring on gemstones and this funding was already used up because the purpose of it is completed for that, so that’s why there is no further funding.
The standing committee raised a concern yesterday, in regards to the airstrips.
The smaller communities are left out when it comes to the ports facilities.
Fisheries and Oceans, we want to work with them and we have requested funding to improve the ports in seven communities. Last summer there was a consultation with the communities and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans identified seven communities that they would consider building ports for.
The report has been given to the Minister but the Minister has not responded to see if those seven communities were identified, are going to receive ports.
We expect to hear from the Minister very shortly.
I wrote a letter to you because this was a concern from my constituents in regards to access roads.
There used to be funding provided for access roads but now we don’t see it on paper any more so can he update us on that.
The community access roads is under capital, and it was already approved. $150 thousand has been identified to he communities to build access roads.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Chairman: Thank you.
We haven’t had an update on the Manitoba -Kivalliq highway, could you give us an update on that issue?
Mr. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Minister.
We are helping financially, but it’s mostly being worked on by the Inuit associations.
We have identified who is going to be doing the study.
The company is called Essency-Lavolin, and they’ll be doing a study on the highway that is being proposed between Manitoba and Kivalliq.
It’s Essency-Lavolin, they’re going to do a study where or how it’s going to be constructed and all the other logistics.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. Barnabas.
Mr. Chairman, I want to ask some questions on the transportation end of things, but before I do, I’d just like to beg your members or acknowledge Mike Ilnik in the gallery here.
Mike is well known to many members of this House and he’s also known to me as a defend, and he’s laughing over there because he knows what that means.
I would like to welcome him to the gallery, and it’s good to see him around.
And, also understand Mr. Chairman, he just celebrated his 21st birthday about a week and a half ago, so I’d like to wish him a happy belated birthday.
Mr. Chairman, on the transportation end of things, my colleague from Rankin brought up a very excellent point on an issue I raised with the Minister earlier during the session, and he had committed to contacting the shipping companies that have to pay those onerous fees and tariffs set forth by the federal government.
And, you know, to me, what my colleague from Rankin Inlet indicated, they gave themselves an exemption for the Great Lakes, well you know, another perfect example, if you want to call it of urban rule, where they look after themselves, and that’s where most of those companies are based, they don’t have to worry about it.
You know, I think, to me, it’s just another pathetic excuse of a decision made by the federal government that they look after their majority big urban centres and industry in that area, but you know, a decision like that, without realizing, maybe it’s just ignorance, let’s hope it is, that the impact that it has on a territory like ours and you know, and with the limited resources we do have to spend on construction on anything, everything we get from the south comes by ship, and that cost has gone up because of these fees and tarifs.
I know I asked the Minister on this earlier and I just had to, it burns me to see stuff like that going on, and again offer the Minister anything that I can do, or we can do as Members of this Assembly to assist him in trying to convince the federal government to wake up and smell the coffee on some of these things, the impact that it does have on us, we will do what we can.
I had to get that out of my system.
Mr. Chairman, on the transportation end of things, one question I have for the Minister, has to deal with the airport here.
And it’s my understanding that the airport here in Iqaluit, when being looked at, is being officially designated as an International airport and I am just wondering if that’s something that designation is in fact in place, or are they looking at it, or where are we at.
Mr. Chairman: Thank you Mr. Tootoo, and if he’s a Leaf fan, I wish him my condolences.
Hon. David Simailak: I’m told that the Iqaluit airport has always been an international airport.
That’s what I’m told.
It’s a good thing we have a minister of immigration here.
As a result of Iqaluit being an international airport, and given the changes that have been forced on the whole air industry as a result of 9/11 and other events since then.
Are there any additional criteria that the airport has to meet in order to maintain that designation?
Are there any specific changes or improvements or security issues that have to get looked at as a result of that?
My assistant deputy minister is in a much better position to answer that.
Mr. Chairman: Mr. Kunuk.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): In regards to the Iqaluit airport, we are looking at the security aspects of the airport because of the land limit issue; it doesn’t have much, in fact, because it’s designated as an international airport, but it’s a capital city, we do get a lot of aircraft from all over the world and it’s more on 9/11, more so than being designated.
We have to look at the security aspects and putting detectors and so on.
Those changes, is that something we’re going to be getting federal assistance on, or again, are those things that are pretty much being forced on us by the federal regulation.
I’m just wondering if we’re going to be getting any funding from them to comply with their regulations.
The Canadian Air transport security authority is finding the necessary funding for us, for the necessary security measures in the Iqaluit airport.
That was good to hear that.
Are there any other issues around safety other then the security issues, I know at that time they were looking at, I think it was the maximum number of planes that they could set down here, it was about 17, and be able to put there on the ground, 11, or 17 or 14 planes that they were looking at, they were all getting diverted.
That day, we didn’t end up with any here, but that was the plan, the maximum that we could take.
Are there any, and also the fact if you look at the airport here, it is a very busy airport and are there any other safety issues around that the department is looking at with the federal government?
Because of the small size of the terminal, that is why we only had a limited number of aircraft that could come in since 9/11.
And, because of the Canadian regulations and CARS, we have to make changes to the airport.
It is in the plans because we have to comply with the standards that are set up by the federal government and we’ll be getting funding from the federal government.
Does the Minister have any indication on when that is going to be?
I remember asking that question last year and there were indications then that it was going in this year’s plan to the federal government, as a priority of this government for consideration.
I’m just wondering if it was something that was approved through that funding or has it been put on hold again for yet another year.
The Iqaluit Airports is one of the issues I discussed with the federal Transport Minister when I was in Ottawa a few months ago now.
I outlined to him the security issues, safety issues that we have here.
I still haven’t received an answer from him as to where he’s gone with it.
It is something that I will be raising with him again the next time I meet with him which will certainly be within the next couple of months.
I will be asking him for an update on that.
On K-14, the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Program, the ship, for the last few years has come in but this year there isn’t anything there.
So, I’m just wondering if the ship sank or what happened to the funding there.
That program right now is on hold.
Transport Canada wanted to wait until the three air terminal buildings that we’re building in Coral Harbour, Gjoa Haven and Pond Inlet are completed before they look at more ship funding.
That ship is in dock somewhere.
When does the Minister anticipate that those projects will be finished so that other projects that have been identified by the government will be able to be brought forward and identified.
The ATBs in Pond Inlet and Coral Harbour are basically finished.
There is still a bit of minor work to be done on the both of them.
The construction on the Gjoa Haven one was stopped for the winter.
The work on that one will begin again very soon.
We’re hoping that that one will be completed this spring.
Can one anticipate that maybe by this fall, when we look at the Capital Budget that there will be ship building dollars in the budget again for other identified priorities, identified by this department.
Yes, my department will be negotiating with Transport Canada as soon as the three ATBs are completed.
So, hopefully we will be able to get some more money from Transport Canada.
Again there was, if we could go back a page, on to K-13 on the Community Aerodrome Radio Stations, and there was $4.6 million for last year, a little bit more than that for the year before, nothing for this year.
I’m just wondering at that, looks like everything else that the federal government gave us money to do things for us is gone.
I’m just wondering if you have an explanation on that from the minister.
As I mentioned earlier in the day, that most negotiations with NavCanada are basically completed, a final proposal has been submitted to the Chief Executive Officer of NavCanada.
He his taken it to his Board of Directors, and were hoping to have an answer for that pretty well any day now.
But it would be new money, it would be 2005/06 money from NavCanada, which is why there’s no amount in there right now, if those negotiations are successful, then they would show up April 1st.
I note that looking at the numbers from previous years were $4.619 million and last year $4.678 million were the actual from the year before, hopefully it will be higher then that, because I’m sure that cost of delivering services has gone up and not down over the years.
So hopefully that’s something, again were taking on through the negotiations with the attitude that we’ll do something if we give us the appropriate resources, to do it properly.
That was just a comment, your time is up.
I would like to ask a question to the minister, apart from that, I wanted to comment on the harbor, when the ship came in the dock, it wasn’t ready, at the time the contract wasn’t completed because of the fact the route they were taking to another community, the weather wasn’t good for sailing, they harbored into Kugluktuk and apparently then they finished the dock.
During the spring time, the people have complaints about the breakwater because of the fact it wasn’t completed, the standards.
As we know, when you have ice roads along the shore, the ice tend to brake up faster without snow, and this was back when an individual went through the ice in the spring.
And there were complaints and concerns about the ice roads, when they put ice roads along the shore, they should complete the roads with snow over them, so that they have a more solid access to cross over by skidoo, because of the fact that when the Kugluktuk river froze down, it tends to break up the ice rapidly.
My question would be can you ask the contractors to do a good job of completing the ice roads and cover the ice roads with snow so that during the spring time it’s not so dangerous for individuals to cross over.
That’s a long the dock and that’s a question for the Transportation Department.
I will have my Deputy Minister look into that and once he finds out, he will inform the members of the legislature.
Thank you, Mr. Minister for your reply.
I would like to meet with you once again on this matter.
I thank you for your reply.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, though I spoke about this issue earlier, the operator has given an information sheet.
The cost of living is quite high.
We might have a motion in the house, I think would be ideal.
So, I’ll be reading in English very briefly in regards to that information that was provided to us.
The Government of Canada in 1996/97 introduced user fees as a cost recovery mechanism, for the provision of marine service by the Canadian Coast Guard including H Navigation and ice breaking.
I’m just going to skip down a bit.
In 1997, after the Marine Service Fees Policy was implemented, the Canadian Coast Guard Officials realized that vessels that service communities in the Eastern Arctic depart from locations South of 60.
Consequently, it was proposed by the Canadian Coast Guard in consultation with industry that vessels with container plans would be charged for marine services fees at lower ton/Km rate.
In 2000, breaking with the conventional accepted practice, the Canadian Coast Guard redefined the definition of container vessel, thereby increasing the marine service fee rates charged by more than 10 times against the vessels inclusively servicing the Eastern Arctic.
This fee increase occurred at a time the Canadian Coast Guard was under a moratorium on fee increases.
I am going to skip further.
The Canadian Coast Guard claims no single adjustment to the marine services fees are possible at this time.
This, however, is not consistent with recent facts.
For example, on December 17, 2004, the Canadian Coast Guard gave notice it is pursuing the single adjustment to the fee structure for a select group of shippers in the Great Lakes, hence not only single adjustments possible, they are being pursued right now by Canadian Coast Guard for select shippers in the south.
So, Mr. Chairman, what these groups of operators are looking for is that the fees be disallowed and be retroactive.
So, I’m proposing if the members can agree that we can introduce a motion to disallow this it would be important tool for you as the Minister when you’re speaking with the Minister.
I just wanted to put those on the record, Mr. Chairman.
We are on page 12.
Total operations and maintenance, $16,884,000.
Chairman: K-13, 14.
Page 4, Economic Development and Transportation.
Total Operations and Maintenance, $44,664,000.
Chairman: Are we agreed that Economic Development and Transportation is completed?
Do you have any last comments on your budget or department; you have a couple of minutes.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
The questions that were posed and the comments that were made have been recorded and taken by my officials.
I am sure that I will look into them and improve, and your comments are very well taken.
I thank the members for their questions and I thank my officials for assisting me while I sit at this table answering questions.
I would like to thank your officials as well.
I would ask Minister Tapardjuk, of Human Resources to make his opening remarks.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chairman.
I’m pleased to present the proposed Main Estimates and Business Plan for the Department of Human Resources for 2005 and 2006.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Human Resources has been allocated of $19.4 million which represents an increase of 7.6 percent of $1.9 million over last year’s budget.
We have a compliment of 87.5 staff, which includes 14 management intern positions that are assigned across most government departments.
Our goal is to develop programs and services that will produce long-term benefits to Nunavummiut.
At the same time, we will increase the representation of Inuit in the Government of Nunavut.