EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The initial park did include a significant amount of land that was on the lease and permits that had been issued by INAC.
However, since the last year, the community revisited those lands that they initially wanted to have as part of the park and had come up with a new concept.
There is just a very small parcel of land within the proposed park that actually is on the lease.
So we’re quite confident that we can move ahead with the next phase, which is to work with KIA and to get their acceptance for Inuit owned lands that fall within the park.
By then, we hope to have addressed that very small part that INAC has issued.
Minister Shewchuk, did you want to expand on it?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Yes, I would just quickly, Mr. Chairman, to advise the member that there are couple of park concepts that were finally presented to the Kugaaruk Community Advisory Committee on April 21, 2010. One of these concepts was accepted, including Inuit owned land, mineral claims, and prospecting permits that were to be endorsed.
Anyway, final approval for one of the concepts was received from the Hamlet of Kugaaruk on July 19, 2010, so that is showing that we are moving closer to this being a reality.
I am able to get some answers on the second issue.
The first issue is something to do with buying Canadian made equipment.
I’m wondering if the minister, along with the other ministers who do the purchasing, would seriously consider buying Canadian made ATVs, snow machines, and outboard motors. Will the minister and his colleagues consider seriously looking at it? It is possible, but I think we can play a small part in the economy of the country by purchasing Canadian made equipment.
I’m glad my colleague is sitting listening to this at CG&S over there so that we can discuss your concerns at a later date.
There are some difficulties in having… we do have to buy our goods from Nunavut and Nunavut businesses and when it goes to an open tender, that’s what happens.
They would have to be part of this process too of handling and dealing in machines and equipment made in Canada, and I’m not sure.
That is an avenue that could be looked at though, but we take your concern into consideration and we will look at it.
I have no further names on the general comments in regard to the opening comments from the minister. We will go page by page. On G-3.
Department of Environment. Environment. Branch Summary.
Program Management. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $4,020,000.
I understand, Mr. Schell, you have a question.
I wish you would have sung happy birthday. Unlike Mr. Rumbolt, I think you have a wonderful voice.
Your department’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates includes $500,000 in funding for renovations of existing wildlife offices.
However, the substantiation sheet doesn’t say which project or which offices require renovations. What communities require wildlife office renovations?
We depend on the input from all wildlife officers across the territory in individual communities to update us on the work needed in specific wildlife offices and then the regional managers of each region prioritize their list and the work that needs to be done.
When it all comes together, amongst the managers and director of wildlife, decisions are made on which offices should be prioritized and what work to be done.
Also in your department’s five-year capital plan, you indicate plans to construct four new wildlife offices in Coral Harbour, Pangnirtung, Repulse Bay, and Resolute Bay. Your department’s 2011-12 draft capital estimates have allotted $1,715,000 in funding for the Coral Harbour project, but it doesn’t specify any totals for the other wildlife office replacement projects for Pangnirtung, Repulse Bay, and Resolute. Do you expect that these projects will require approximately $2 million each to complete?
The member is right on the cost projected at $1.7 million for the Coral Harbour office.
Better figures could probably come from Community and Government Services and the people there who are the experts in that field, but I suspect that those prices would be between that and $2 million per office.
Does your department anticipate a similar project in the future and which communities would be next on the list for replacement?
As were outlined, I believe it was Coral Harbour, Pangnirtung, and Repulse Bay was next after that.
We do have a list established at some point in time, I don’t have that on me right now, but we could supply that if you wanted it.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Chairman, I just found my list, so I can quickly read it to you if you want to hear it and I will.
After Coral Harbour, it’s Pangnirtung, Repulse Bay, Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay, Gjoa Haven, Cape Dorset, Kugluktuk, Kimmirut, Qikiqtarjuaq, Igloolik, Clyde River, Taloyoak, Iqaluit, Arviat, Rankin Inlet, Pond Inlet, Baker Lake, and Kugaaruk, and that takes you all the way up to the year 2027.
Just a couple of quick questions, I guess.
With regard to the park development in Sanikiluaq, for the benefit of the listening public out there, I wonder if they can explain what the $100,000 was spent on last year on the park development.
The $100,000 was spent on, again, community consultations, dealing with the hamlet and the community, establishing the first protocols in developing a park, and in that regard, in what areas and what land you are looking at, what you want the park to accomplish, and the purpose of the park.
For your 2011-12 budget, there’s a further $100,000 in the budget. Can you tell us what that money will be spent on?
That $100,000 identified in this coming up budget is again for development of the park process and, that is, getting deeper and in-depth into it and having a consultant involved with the community and our department.
My first question is regarding the Kugaaruk Park. This time with the financial implication that adds to it, my understanding is that $600,000 was allotted for the project. Further, there was $100,000 back in 2008-09.
What is the status of this project and what was the $100,000 which was approved for this project in the 2009-2010 fiscal year used for?
I will get the director of parks to answer this question so that he can explain it very clearly.
Over the years, we have done several studies in Kugaaruk.
The first study looked at a very general area. We worked very closely with the community and unfortunately the area that we initially looked at contains significant permits, areas that have been permitted by INAC, and were being explored by the mineral industry.
So a second study was done following that to just look at further areas that might have potential for park development that wouldn’t overlap with lands that INAC had already released to the public.
More recently, we just did a big cultural landscapes resource inventory that looked at traditional place names around the community and looked at a little bit of the history behind each of those place names.
That was the last study that was concluded that also arrived at two options for the community to make a decision on.
In the last month, we just received letters of support from the Park Advisory Committee and the hamlet council endorsing one of those two concepts.
We’re now working with the Kitikmeot Inuit Association to try and see how we can work on some of the land that is owned by Inuit.
There is a budget that was approved approximately three years ago by the former Premier following a meeting that he made in Kugaaruk. An envelope of $600,000 was allotted to the Kugaaruk Park and we have been funding the studies to date out of that pot.
Along the line of questioning as my colleague from Hudson Bay, Mr. Rumbolt, for the record and for the record of Qamani’tuarmiut, in your 2011-12 capital estimates, what exactly is planned for the Thelon and Kazan Heritage River development?
The development activities for the Thelon and Kazan Heritage Rivers are tied up in the Thelon and Kazan River background, the Thelon and Kazan CHRS nomination documents. They are looking at management plans, but I believe that the processes there are being held up by IIBA agreements that need to take place.
So that is where the status of that is right now.
I would like to raise this question to the minister on the Pangnirtung Wildlife Office.
They are planning to replace that building with an allocation of $150,000.
In the upcoming 2011-12 fiscal year, the project was included as a capital project, but there are no additional funds allocated in the 2011-16 capital plans.
Are we not incurring unnecessary capital planning since it seems to be too early to start planning or does the department have other projects that they need to include in this planning process?
Is it usual practice to conduct planning exercises several years prior to a project being undertaken?
If this project will be started in 2017, does it mean that we have to spend several years on the engineering and design phases prior to the project start-up? Will we be purchasing materials on an annual basis prior to the project being undertaken?
I would like to know exactly how this process plays out, but I know that the planning and the design phases can be drawn out over a very long period.
It is a well intent of the department to carry this project through.
The proposed $150,000 is for the planning and design stage in Pangnirtung in the next fiscal year.
The planning and design will give us, and I think this is credible that we have a better understanding of the price of those buildings to be built after we do the planning and design, and then we would move forward in the scheduling of the construction.
It is our intent to do that, to insert that construction at that time, and it would be all of us who decide what projects go forward at that time.
I would like some additional clarification on the definition of “timeframe.” What I understand is that the timeframe is nowhere near what the expectations of the community are.
It is understandable that you have to plan properly in order for the construction project to proceed and have all of the materials on hand.
However, when you are talking about the planning and design stage during this fiscal year, when could we expect the final plan and design to be completed?
I know that there was another office being planned for Repulse Bay, as well as one in Coral Harbour.
We know they have to be replaced. With respect to Pangnirtung, when can we expect the replacement facility to be presented and in which fiscal year?
Our position is that we would like to see construction start in Pangnirtung in the year 2013-14.
So that is what we have targeted for and that is what we are going to shoot for.
In regard to the Napaaqtulik Territorial Park on Axel Heiberg Island, I know I had written the minister in regard to this, but I was just wondering if he could give an update on what has happened.
I know $100,000 was allocated this year and now we are putting another $150,000 in there. Would he be able to give us an update as to what has been happening in that area?
Again I will get David Monteith, Director of Parks, to give you a detailed update on that park.
Most parks take at least ten years from the idea stage to what I call the ribbon cutting stage where they are finally unveiled, not all of them but some do.
With respect to Napaaqtulik, it is very hard for us to determine when it will become a park or even if it will become a park. First of all, we need to do research on it and find out exactly what is out there, the level of support in the communities, and then look at what is the best tool to protect the site. Should it be a park or should it be some other conservation area and who has that legislation?
So the money that we have put in next year’s budget is a projection based on the work that we are going to commence doing, or actually we just awarded the contract about a month ago.
We have contacted both mayors and the SAOs in both communities to make sure they are fully aware of this.
Ludy Pudluk, as most of you know, went up there with us. I believe it was in 2000. It was a department team that went out to Napaaqtulik, had a look at the site and looked at some of the issues at the time.
However, we were unable to advance any work at that time simply because we were in the middle of negotiating the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for territorial parks at the time and we were asked to kind of hold back until those negotiations have been concluded.
So that is now behind us and now we’re kind of eagerly looking forward to proceeding with coming up with something that is meaningful for Napaaqtulik.
It’s not in this year’s budget, but the Resolute Bay Wildlife Office replacement is scheduled in 2013-14 to start receiving money in terms of the planning stages of that.
I know when the minister had travelled to Resolute Bay, there was a concern or I guess it was not really an issue. The HTO wanted to possibly take over the old building once the new building is constructed.
I’m just wondering if he could give me an outline as to what I should be telling the HTO to do to ensure they receive this building once it’s turned over.
I would advise the member that the planning and design is planned for that, 2013-14.
Again, as we plan and design for these things, we hope to construct them as soon as possible thereafter. That is the purpose to get a better price of what they’re going to cost.
I can’t commit right to this day when that construction would happen.
However, I would say that once that construction is complete, a good use for the old office would be for the HTO.
Is there a process in terms of… ? Since it becomes a GN asset, does it get turned over to CGS and we would have to contact CGS, or the HTO would have to contact CGS, or do we do it through your department?
Yeah, the member has it right there. Once we moved out of it, it would become a surplus asset and then it would be turned back to CG&S.
The process would be to communicate with CG&S and let them know you’re interested in that building.
In regard to one of the questions that Mr. Okalik asked in regard to the Sylvia Grinnell Bridge, I think he mentioned there was $800,000 that was coming from INAC to construct the bridge. I’m just curious.
What is going to happen with that funding? Does it go back to INAC or is it going to be allocated to a different project?
No, that funding would go back to INAC.
It was allocated for that specific project and same with our other partners involved, the money would go back to them.
I have no further names on the list, so we will go back to page G-3.
Environment. Branch Summary. Program Management.
Total Capital Expenditures. $4,020,000.
Chairman: Okay, we will go back to page G-2. Department Summary. Environment.
Detail of Expenditures. Capital Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $4,020,000.
Is the committee agreed that the Department of Environment is concluded?
I would like to ask Minister Shewchuk if he has any closing comments.
I would like to thank my witnesses, David and David, here for being with me and for all the staff in putting all of this information together for us.
I would really like to thank all of the members too for asking all of the pertinent questions and supporting the Department of Environment’s initiatives to move forward in the future and benefit all Nunavutmiut.
I know we’re going through some difficult challenges as we move forward, but we will get through them.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Shewchuk and your staff. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses.
I would now like to ask the Minister Taptuna of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to make his opening remarks.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Economic Development and Transportation – Consideration in Committee
Unnusakkut, Members.
I am pleased to be here today to present my department’s 2011-12 capital plan to the Committee of the Whole.
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation is proposing a $3.92 million capital plan for the fiscal year 2011-12.
This is a very modest budget for the department and consists mostly of design work and planning studies that we will be undertaking before starting the construction phases of larger infrastructure projects.
In this regard, the department is starting to plan for three projects.
In the first project, we propose beginning the design work and geotechnical studies for a major runway overlay and upgrade of the lighting system at the Clyde River Airport.
This project will be similar to those that are nearing completion in Arviat and Taloyoak.
These are expected to have a service life of approximately 15 years.
Mr. Chairman, we propose to also begin developing the planning and engineering for a relocated airport in Pangnirtung.
As the committee members are aware, the Pangnirtung Airport has been challenged to meet demand for a long time and we hope to be able to do something about it with the years to come here.
My department has been collecting weather data at the proposed site on the plateau for several years now and will be analyzing that data and beginning the engineering needed for a project of this size.
It will be a large project, with an expected budget of over $40 million, and we will obviously need to do a lot of background work before presenting it to the federal government for consideration.
We are also proposing $100,000 to begin the citing work and soil investigation for an equipment shelter in Taloyoak.
We have started the process of putting shelters in several of our airports, with the first one starting in Whale Cove this year and others making their way through the design and tendering phases.
Mr. Chairman, these are the major transportation projects we will be undertaking in the 2011-12 fiscal year.
There are also some other projects under $250,000 which are grouped together under the heading, “Small Capital Projects.”
We have allocated $800,000 to complete these projects, which will include new runway inspection vehicles for three communities, minor repairs to buildings and airports surfaces in six others, and two plow attachments.
Several larger equipment purchases will be made under the “Minor Capital Project” heading. Under this project, we have allocated $1.7 million which will be used to purchase wheeled loaders for Iqaluit and Kimmirut, plow trucks for Resolute Bay and Iqaluit, and a snow blower for Qikiqtarjuaq.
Mr. Chairman, over the years, the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development has made it very clear that harbours are a high priority for our communities.
The federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans, in collaboration with my department, completed the Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report in 2006.
The report agreed that small craft harbours in our communities could provide very high returns in safety, access to our resources, and economic activity.
Mr. Chairman, we continue to believe these harbours are essential, and I am pleased to inform the committee that we recently struck a working group consisting of members from my department, the Department of Environment, the Department of Community and Government Services, and the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans to advance our position.
We have included $500,000 in this capital plan to contribute towards that effort and to make minor improvements to community marine facilities.
We believe that we have had some success with small projects in Arctic Bay, Clyde River, and a handful of other communities this year, and we will be making part of the funding under this program available to communities under contribution agreements so they can facilitate some of their own changes.
Mr. Chairman, as I said in the beginning, this plan is very modest.
I would like the committee members to know that my department will be delivering other capital projects as well through carryovers and Building Canada appropriations.
In closing, I believe this plan makes good use of our very limited resources and is well focused on the department’s mandate. We all realize there is more to do, but I will continue to work hard with my department to ensure that partnerships with the federal government, with industry, and with the communities are strengthened and that the investment this government makes in Nunavut has a lasting value on the economic and social future of the territory.
Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to answer any questions from my fellow colleagues.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses to the table.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) I would like to ask Minister Taptuna to introduce his witnesses, please.
On my left is John Hawkins, Director of Policy.
On my right is Deputy Minister Bob Long.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development have comments? Mr. Rumbolt.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for 2011-12 is $3,925,000.
The department’s budget was $5.55 million in 2010-11. Its capital budget was $5,833,000 in 2009-2010.
The department’s proposed 2011-12 capital budget is focused primarily on transportation-related infrastructure, such as airport improvements and runway upgrade projects.
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates includes $500,000 in funding for the GN’s contribution towards the construction of small craft harbours in Nunavut communities.
During the June 2010 sitting of the Legislative Assembly, the GN approved a transfer of $800,000 from the Small Craft Harbours capital project to the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
The department’s 2010-11 capital estimates only allocated $500,000 for this project.
Members note that $1.12 million in funding was contained in a capital carryover in the 2010-2011 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 2.
The standing committee encourages the minister to table an annual report in the Legislative Assembly concerning the department’s actual expenditures in this area, including a detailed list of which communities have received funding.
It listed eight recommendations, the first being that, “The committee recommends that the Government of Canada move forward to develop and implement, in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut, the harbour development plan recommended by the DFO-Nunavut Harbours Working Committee in its 2005 Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report.”
The standing committee notes that the Government of Canada’s response to the Senate Committee’s report was presented on November 18, 2009.
The committee notes that the response indicated that, “There are no immediate plans to construct additional commercial fishing harbours in Nunavut at this time.
However, discussions continue with the Government of Nunavut regarding infrastructure needs to further support local fisheries.”
Members are pleased that the minister tabled the GN’s updated Nunavut Transportation Strategy in the Legislative Assembly on June 5, 2009.
During the minister’s 2009 appearance before the standing committee, members were advised that Transport Canada and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation had agreed to undertake a joint study on marine needs in Nunavut.
This is a particular concern to members who represent our small, remote communities.
Members note that the project for the relocation of the Pangnirtung Airport is included in the department’s five-year capital plan and that $500,000 in funding has been allocated in its 2011-12 capital estimates.
Members look forward to ongoing updates on its progress.
The Legislative Assembly approved $2.75 million in funding in the 2009-2010 Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1 for the planning and design of a new Iqaluit Air Terminal Building and $925,000 in funding for the planning and design of the Iqaluit Regional Marine Facility.
Members encourage the minister to provide an update on the progress of these projects to the Legislative Assembly.