EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We are on Family Services. Branch Summary. Corporate Management.
Total Capital Expenditures. $1,790,000.
Go back to D-2.
Department Summary. Family Services. Total Capital Expenditures. $1,790,000.
Do members agree that the Department of Family Services is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister, (interpretation) we are done.
Thank you to the members and I thank the staff members who are here with me.
As we agreed, we will continue with the Department of Environment after this break.
We will take a five-minute recess while paperwork is being prepared.
>>Committee recessed at 16:25 and resumed at 16:34
Bill 08 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2015-2016 – Environment – Consideration in Committee
Chairman (interpretation): We are back. Thank you. We will proceed with the Committee of the Whole.
We are going to be dealing with the Department of Environment.
Minister Mike, I would first like to ask if you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Yes, I would like to invite two individuals at this time.
Do members agree to bring in Minister Mike’s witnesses?
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort my Angajuksakuluk’s witnesses in.
While the witnesses are being escorted in, let me remind you that we will be on page I-3.
To my right is my Assistant Deputy Minister, Steve Pinksen, and to my left is Niki Nweze, (interpretation ends) Director of Corporate Services.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, I do apologize that my deputy minister is not able to be here today.
He is one of the co-chairman of the caribou management meeting that is happening here in Iqaluit.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Welcome, Mr. Pinksen and Ms. Nweze.
We will now proceed. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister, (interpretation) if you have any opening comments, you may now proceed.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee of the Whole.
I am pleased to be here today to introduce the Department of Environment’s capital plan for the 2015-16 fiscal year.
(interpretation ends) For this fiscal period, the Department of Environment is proposing a capital of $1.6 million.
This expenditure will permit the department to concentrate on two program areas: wildlife management and parks and special places.
(interpretation) Within our Wildlife Division, these capital funds will be used to replace aging mobile equipment (interpretation ends) and for improving and renovating aging infrastructure. (interpretation) We will continue planning for the construction of a new wildlife office building in Resolute Bay in the 2016-17 fiscal year.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, our territorial parks and special places have an important role in the protection and promotion of Nunavut’s outstanding natural and cultural heritage, (interpretation) and they provide positive recreation and tourism services to meet the needs of Nunavummiut and our visitors.
It is our intention that in the 2015-16 fiscal year, we will complete studies for a potential new park in Kugaaruk in the Kitikmeot region. (interpretation ends) As well, in keeping with our umbrella territorial parks Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement, we will commence master planning for new parks at Napaaqtulik (interpretation) on Axel Heiberg Island and in Sanikiluaq, Arviat, and Clyde River. (interpretation ends) It is also our intention to continue to monitor and maintain infrastructure in all of our parks and campgrounds throughout Nunavut.
(interpretation) In closing, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s capital plan (interpretation ends) is focused in the areas that clearly support the needs and priorities of Nunavummiut. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, hon. minister. (interpretation) Chair of the standing committee’s opening comments.
Mr. Chairman, 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 Environment’s proposed 2015-16 capital estimates.
Members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for the 2015-16 fiscal year is $1.6 million.
The department’s capital budget for the 2014-15 fiscal year was $3,407,000.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2015-16 capital estimates include $100,000 in funding to undertake wildlife office renovations in various communities and $1.5 million in funding for the department’s small capital projects.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members were informed that the aging wildlife offices across the territory require improvements and renovations. Members look forward to receiving a detailed breakdown of which wildlife offices will receive funding for renovations during the upcoming fiscal year.
The department’s 2015-16 small capital budget includes funding for the replacement of mobile equipment and the development of infrastructure in territorial parks.
Members recognize that the territory’s parks provide recreational and tourism opportunities for local residents and tourists. Members also recognize that the territory’s parks require ongoing site maintenance and development.
In June of 2014, the Legislative Assembly approved $1,393,000 in capital carryover funding for projects at a number of territorial parks.
Members encourage the department to complete these delayed projects and look forward to receiving ongoing updates on the department’s progress in this area.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2015-16 capital budget does not include any funding for wildlife office replacement projects. Information provided to members indicates that the department intends to replace all 25 wildlife offices in the communities. Information provided by the department indicates that its schedule will require the replacement of one office on an annual basis over a 25-year cycle.
In June of 2014, the Legislative Assembly approved $1,219,000 in capital carryover funding for the replacement of Resolute Bay’s wildlife office and $150,000 in capital carryover funding for the replacement of the Repulse Bay Wildlife Office.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members were informed that the department has been experiencing delays in finalizing contracts for the completion of these projects.
Members are also concerned that the department is falling behind on the 25-year replacement schedule and encourage the department to explore solutions that will allow it to complete those replacement projects in a timely manner.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2015-16 Capital Estimates of the Department of Environment.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt.
I’m rustling through too many papers.
We will go to our review starting with page I-3. If members have any questions while I read out the pages, please raise your hand and you will be recognized.
We are on Environment.
I don’t have too many questions, but I would like to know if you could give me a status update about the Sylvia Grinnell Park development work that has been worked on over the last year or so and just a status update on that, please.
We started the project last year. Is that your question?
Chairman (interpretation): Ms. Angnakak, please rephrase your question.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I’m just wondering what additional work is going to be done over the next year and where you are at now.
I will refer this question to my assistant deputy minister, Steve.
All the work at the Sylvia Grinnell Park this past year has been small capital, so it’s small renovation projects, trail developments, and signage work. There is no major work planned for the short term for the Sylvia Grinnell Park.
I do want to take this opportunity, I think, to say on behalf of everybody who uses it that that work was very well done. I think it was very appreciated. It is very good development for people to be able to get out with their families and that.
In 2015-16, through your capital estimates, you included $1.5 million for small capital projects such as that one, including park-related projects.
In June of this year, the Legislative Assembly approved capital carryover funding for a number of park-related projects.
Can you indicate which of your department’s park projects are currently behind schedule?
I would like to refer this question to my assistant deputy minister.
We have a number of park projects which are a little behind schedule. One is some small capital work for Sylvia Grinnell. Another one is for the Iqalugaarjuup Nunanga Territorial Park in Rankin Inlet.
There is a small project there that is a year behind.
For the Clyde River territorial park project, that one is also behind.
There is an ongoing project in Kugaaruk which is facing a few delays due to a lack of availability of identified land for the park.
There is an ongoing project in Sanikiluaq as well, as well as Napaaqtulik park development, which is on Axel Heiberg Island.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Savikataaq.
I don’t have many questions either.
In June 2014, the Legislative Assembly approved $1.1 million in capital carryover for funding for wildlife office renovations. On average, $100,000 a year is budgeted for wildlife office renovations.
Can you explain how the carryover amount is ten times higher than the normal amount used yearly?
For a proper response, I will refer this question to Steve.
The budget identified previously, actually, was quite a bit larger.
We had $500,000. There was also an accumulated unspent from the carryover, so it actually did add up to that full larger amount.
We have been able to take advantage of an opportunity to really to extend the life of a couple of our buildings that were really needing it, a couple of buildings that were either going to have to be torn down or rebuilt and we were able to get some more years out of them.
Is the minister anticipating spending the whole budget this year and there will be no carryovers and all the work will be done and completed?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Savikataaq. (interpretation ends) Hon. Mike.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Those kinds of projects usually go very well.
In fiscal year 2015-16, the capital projects and small capital projects are planned within the department and I know for sure that they work diligently to complete the projects.
I can say that.
In regard to the parks and the offices that are required, I believe that we do want to work diligently on those projects this coming fiscal year.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Mike.
I think the minister didn’t understand my question.
I was just asking about the wildlife office renovations and whether he anticipates spending the whole $1.1 million carryover and that all projects will be done and completed in a timely fashion so that there are no more carryovers.
Mr. Savikataaq, the minister replied yes.
On a different note, the department’s position was that they are going to replace a wildlife office every year for 25 years until they’re all replaced.
I noticed that they skipped a year here. Can the minister just explain why they skipped a year?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): So that the member is clear on how the situation is, I’ll have Steve respond to that question.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, hon. minister. (interpretation) Let me remind the members that in order to preserve our decorum and to ensure we follow the proper protocol, please don’t just use the first names but the proper surnames.
We did hope and developed a plan to replace one of the older buildings each year.
That is not always possible because of changing government needs and priorities. The government has many capital needs and we’re not always able to get everything we want as a department, so there is a question of priorities.
Also, we do face delays in projects on occasion. One project was delayed due to finding hydrocarbons in the ground that had to be dealt with before the building can be constructed.
There are various reasons why a given project may not proceed as planned and scheduled.
Certainly, we have already faced delays in sealift and delays in contracting processes.
I understand about budgeting and delays and stuff, but the minister of the day had said before that they were committed to replacing one a year.
That being said, if you can’t do it, when a project is deferred for one year in one community, does that affect the project the following year?
For example, if the budget is there to do one a year, if one project is delayed, do you do two projects the following year or does it have a domino effect where every other project to replace a wildlife office is delayed a year?
This is kind of a difficult issue and we have discussed this issue previously.
When delays occur, for example, if we delayed an office construction for a year, our department finds out the reason why there’s a delay and there’s no other choice except to put it for the next fiscal year.
Whether or not it’s going to have a domino effect, I’ll have Mr. Pinksen respond to that part of the question.
There is somewhat of an effect because the GN has a limited capacity, so we don’t have an unlimited capacity.
When a project gets pushed off to another year, it means you have an added workload to that subsequent year, so it is a factor.
However, there have been years where we have been successful in building two facilities in a given year.
It is an effect, but it’s not always a domino effect that carries on forever.
Not to lay blame, but just to get a clear picture, are the capacity issues due to the Department of Environment or is it due to other departments that handle the projects?
This has been a difficult issue.
In the Department of Environment, when we make our plans and then add plans to construct a new office building or any kind of facility of the Department of Environment, we have to give that submission to another department to get the office building constructed, whether it’s office space or a renovation project.
Once the project starts, the other department takes on the project. For that reason, that’s where it becomes a difficult issue.
We now realize that the capital projects, whether they are new office buildings, for example, when they need to be constructed and when they are contracted out, our department is not responsible for that part.
Another department takes care of those projects.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, hon. minister. (interpretation) Before moving on, as the Chair, I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge an individual who has been our long-time friend and who has been very helpful to the individuals.
He’s the lawyer for residential school survivors. Steven Cooper, welcome to the Gallery.
Moving on. We’re on page I-3.
Since we’re reviewing the Department of Environment, during the renovations for office buildings, what’s the Department of Environment’s position at the local level if there’s a request for a capital project to help the community and to benefit the whole of Nunavut? What’s the process?
I apologize; we did not understand his question fully. Perhaps he can rephrase it.
I’m sorry we were asking him to rephrase.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Mikkungwak, please repeat your question.
In the Department of Environment, it seems like all the wildlife offices are going to be replaced according to the substantiation sheet.
My question is: if a project is going to benefit many people and if it’s going to benefit to the best interests of Nunavummiut, have you considered that kind of a project, yes or no?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I’ll have Mr. Pinksen try to respond to that question.
We have an office and a staff in each Nunavut community. Those staff are there to provide services to the community.
We need to be able to provide them with a facility that is suitable for them to work in and to provide the services to the community.
It always is a consideration of benefiting Nunavut and Nunavummiut when we’re planning our projects. I hope that is the answer.
I’ll speak in English so that he can understand me. (interpretation ends) In your paragraph, it indicates one of which is strategic planning. Your strategic planning is to provide adequate office infrastructure for all of your environment staff across the territory.
My question here is I’m looking at the global picture. Has the department considered capital infrastructure for our community or the territory as a whole to benefit the territory?
Mr. Pinksen will respond.
When we’re prioritizing our capital needs, we go through a process of assessing all current facilities.
In addition, when it comes to prioritizing renovation work and major projects like that, CGS does building site assessments for us to determine where the priority areas are and if things could be fixed in a cost-effective way.
We do go through that Nunavut-wide assessment.
In terms of does the Department of Environment look at Nunavut infrastructure as a whole, no, we’re dealing with our own program areas as opposed to broader territorial infrastructure needs.
I’ll make a preamble in order for it to be clear.
I live in Baker Lake and there is a lot of different wildlife in that area, but it seems like nobody’s really paying attention to the community’s development.
Some Inuit don’t always work in the office.
Some Inuit are full-time hunters and harvesters.
I can say that we’re from the mainland.
I know that in the community, we would like development for the benefit of the whole of Nunavut.
For example, there is a fish plant in Pangnirtung, there is a meat plant for muskox in Cambridge Bay, and there is another meat plant in Rankin Inlet.
However, in Baker Lake, with all the wildlife available in the community, have you considered for the future to help the harvesters in the Baker Lake area and to help benefit all of Nunavut with wildlife?
I finally understand what you’re asking.
The projects have to be initiated in the community. The community has to start it. It’s an economic development job that you’re asking about.
For developing fish and meat plants, the request has to come from the community.
The Department of Environment cannot go to the communities and tell them to start a project. We can’t really do that.
Most of the businesses like that started from the communities. It’s got a lot to do with economic development. Meat or fish processing plants is about making money; development.
I know it’s a good idea. I’m not trying to give you a bad answer. It has to be initiated from within the community.
Chairman (Mr. Akoak): Thank you, Minister Mike.
I’ll move on.
In reference to the second paragraph, it’s typed in there, policy and legislation development.
How many do we foresee in that aspect?
I would like Mr. Pinksen to respond to that. Thank you.
Mr. Pinksen: If the question is how many specific policies and legislation we are working on, at the present time in the current year, we’re redoing our Harvester Support Policy.
We’ve got a number of them that are under review for changes. We have no new legislation on the horizon at this point in time.
I’m just going back to one of the comments my colleague, Ms. Angnakak, mentioned of how much we appreciated the work and renovations that was done at the Sylvia Grinnell Park. Some recent media coverage informed me that not everyone was appreciative of it and that there was some vandalism done at the site.
Has that vandalism caused a delay in this project and what type of monetary cost, and does that impact the budget of ongoing renovations to that project?
I would like Mr. Pinksen to respond to that.
The vandalism nature of it was somebody set a fire inside the washroom facility, so it damaged the interior of the facility, but there was no major cost to it. It was something that we were able to fix within our operating budget.
There was an inconvenience that the facility was closed for some time.
Chairman (Mr. Enook)(interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Hickes, are you done?
(interpretation) We’re on page I-3.
The first question that I would like to ask the Department of Environment is: do you have any sheds or shacks outside the communities?
Mr. Pinksen will respond to the question.
In at least two areas, we have research camps.
These are very remotely located buildings like cabins that are used by our research staff when doing a lot of work in a given area so that they’re not flying back and forth to communities all the time.
I think there are at least two facilities, one in the Baffin and one in the Kitikmeot.
I think I heard that in your opening comments, but now where was that?
Nonetheless, you referred to this subject in English as (interpretation ends) special places. (interpretation) You were talking about special places.
My question is: are there many parcels identified by the parks division for this category of special places?
Further, your capital estimates state that there are park improvement funds.
Are these the only funds available to us or are there other funds out there?
Mr. Pinksen will provide a detailed response to the questions.
The term “special places” refers to any area that people want to recognize or designate for a cultural or an ecological or any other purpose that’s sort of driven by the wishes of the communities.
We have a number of territorial parks that we manage and operate. I forget the exact number right now.
We have another seven or eight that are in development right now, various protected areas and community parks across the territory.
If you need more specifics, I can find it in my notes.
I raised that question simply because there was a significant archaeological find. When this was being discussed, the residents of Kimmirut wanted support to develop this particular place.
Has the department collaborated with the Department of Culture and Heritage to place special recognition of this site? Alternatively, has your department considered a territorial park and, if so, are there any plans available?
Mr. Pinksen can respond to the question.
I’m not aware if we’ve had direct involvement in that project, but it is very interesting and we could certainly commit to having our staff contact the community and follow up on what they would like to see done with that area.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Are there any more questions on page I-3?
Thank you for allowing me the second round. I appreciate that.
I just have a question.
I know that when I was a young boy, the HTO looked after a variety of cabins out in the wilderness, and I’m assuming that that happened across the territory of Nunavut.
My question here is: would the local hunters and trappers organizations be able to submit proposals under small capital to renovate these cabins out in the wilderness?
Yes, please submit any proposal or suggestion that can be used to construct these cabins. Yes, I am in full agreement with this idea.
We’re on page I-3. Environment.
Branch Summary. Program Management. Total Capital Expenditures. $1,600,000.
Turn to page I-2. Department Summary.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $1,600,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Does the committee agree that the Department of Environment is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Future-older-brother-to-be (interpretation ends) hon. minister, (interpretation) we have completed your department.
I would now like to give you the opportunity to make your closing remarks.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, future-younger-brother-to-be.
You’re a good Chairman. It didn’t take long at all.
I thank everyone and our staff here.
Mr. Alex Sammurtok.
I would like to ask to go back to Item 5 in the Orders of the Day.
Speaker (interpretation): Member Mapsalak would like to go back to Item 5, Recognition of Visitors in the Gallery.
I didn’t hear any nays. Please proceed, Mr. Mapsalak.
I am extremely gratified to recognize the visitors here today. First, Steven Cooper, who is well-known by many people and whom I have known for many years, is in the Gallery.
A fellow visitor whose name is Andrew Rice is going to be inducted into the Nunavut Bar tomorrow to practise law in Nunavut.
That is why they are in the Gallery.
A reminder that there’s a meeting of the Full Caucus tomorrow at half past ten in the Nanuq Boardroom.