EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Once the study is done, is there a timeline of when the actual construction would start in Arviat?
My deputy minister will respond to the question with your permission.
Once we get preliminary approval from Infrastructure Canada in January 2016, we would be ready probably to submit the business case within four to five months after we get final approval.
I’m not sure how long it’s going to take, the timelines for Infrastructure Canada to give us final approval once they have reviewed the business cases, but as soon as we get final approval for the business case, we would then proceed with the final design and then be ready to start construction six months to a year after the final design is completed.
I would like to ask the minister and perhaps his officials what kind of engagement they’ve had with the City of Iqaluit in regard to their infrastructure needs.
We actually meet with the City of Iqaluit quarterly. The last meeting that we had with the City of Iqaluit was on September 30.
We met with the mayor and their CEO to take a look at what their infrastructure priorities are within the community and what some of their urgent needs are, and basically try to work with them to look at capital investments to take care of some of those emerging needs within the city.
We are aware that the City of Iqaluit gets 15 percent of the gas tax, which is $2.5 million a year from the GN’s part of the gas tax program, which is used for water and waste management programs.
As you know from the capital estimates, we give the city $3.4 million to support some of their core infrastructure, such as their granular development programs, water and wastewater programs; those types of infrastructures.
We certainly do have a strong working relationship with the municipalities and we certainly do offer any technical support that they need from us. We just encourage them that, when they look at their projects within the city, they need to really take a look at it from a health and safety perspective and really concentrate on the core needs of the services within the city.
A few weeks ago, I attended a community consultation in regard to water issues, and the issue of the water trucks getting old came up.
I see in here that there are truck replacements that do happen from time to time. Have they ever had a discussion with you about their needs in regard to water trucks?
I think that question is directed at my deputy minister, so he will reply.
During our discussions with the City of Iqaluit, they had not mentioned to us about seeking any financial support for their sewage and water trucks.
They would finance those vehicles similar to what we do in other municipalities.
The sewage and water trucks are financed through their user fees that they collect for providing services to Nunavummiut, plus there’s about $7.6 million in GN subsidies that we provide to the municipalities to offset some of the additional costs for those vehicles.
I might reiterate as well that we have undertaken a comprehensive review, which should be finished by the end of this fiscal year, to take a look at the water, waste, and sewage programs right across the territory.
The purpose of that is to ensure that those programs are sustainable over the long term and, if not, then what needs to be done to make sure those programs are sustainable from the lifecycle perspective.
The city has participated in this review as well.
Keeping in line, we’re talking about water and solid waste management, as you said, $3.4 million is going to be provided to the City of Iqaluit through a contribution agreement.
Information provided by your department indicates that $8.9 million of this total contribution will be allocated to the development of a new solid waste management facility in Iqaluit.
It was anticipated that the new solid waste management program would be adopted by the Iqaluit City Council in 2012, but to date no plan has been officially adopted.
Can you provide an update on this management plan?
Chairman: Mr. Green.  Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I have not seen a copy of the City of Iqaluit’s solid waste management plan.
I do know, in discussions with the City of Iqaluit, that I think there’s close to $12 million that’s accumulated in the Gas Tax Fund that will be used partially to help develop a new landfill site.
We have often brought up the fact that we don’t like to approve fund that seem to have like a class “X.” It says in here in the substantiation sheet that they have yet to select a new solid waste management site.
They have to complete the decommissioning plan.
It seems like very little is known about the new solid waste management facility.
I’m wondering why we would fund something that we know very little about.
Once again, my deputy minister will respond to that question.
With respect to any funding that we provide to the City of Iqaluit, we do sign a contribution agreement.
As part of those contribution agreements, they must submit and get ministerial approval before they can start spending those monies on specific projects.
From time to time, we do get requests from the city for authorization to proceed.
Some of those capital projects are under the contribution agreements, but certainly, the contribution agreement is very strict in terms of how the city can spend that money and they really can’t do it without ministerial approval.
Obviously we want to see a new facility put in place in Iqaluit.
That has often been one of my biggest concerns; it’s about the waste management.
Sometimes I feel that the city needs to have perhaps more support in really coming forward with some of these plans. It seems like they have been dragging a long time.
We want the money to be spent wisely and efficiently, but at the same time, I recognize the capacity issues also.
I think that is why my first question to you was about the level of engagement with the city because you always hear different stories.
One of the stories I have heard is that the department and the city don’t often get along. I’m not sure if that is true or not, and I hope it’s not true because there really is a lot of work to do when it comes to this.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is it for me.
We’re on Community and Government Services. Branch Summary.
Community Services.
The first question I would like to ask is in regard to the minister’s opening comments on page 3, “$4,750,000 for code compliance upgrades for Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, and Coral Harbour fuel storage [facilities].”
What exactly is that for?
I don’t understand what he is saying. Can he indicate what he is referring to?
Chairman: It’s on page 3.
I’m trying to ask about the $4,750,000 that will be needed for code compliance upgrades for fuel storage facilities.
Which product is it for? Is it for gas or diesel?
I didn’t understand his dialect the first time around and I apologize for that.
It’s in your opening comments.
The list of projects that I’m showing is on page J-6.
The $2 million is to increase the tank capacity in Gjoa Haven. There is $100,000 for the warranty work for the fuel… . Just give me a minute.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. $3 million of the $4 million is for the construction of the Gjoa Haven tank farm and in Chesterfield Inlet, it’s for the EPCO upgrades.
I know that we have different dialects, obviously, so I will ask the question in English.
(interpretation ends) I asked a very simple question. When we look at that particular paragraph, fuel storage facilities in Baker Lake, Chesterfield Inlet, and Coral Harbour, is that for gasoline or diesel fuel storage?
For Baker Lake, we’re doing an increase in diesel consumption tank.
In Chesterfield Inlet, we did an upgrade to both the diesel and gasoline fuel tanks.
In Coral Harbour, we are upgrading the three million litre diesel tank.
Chairman: Mr. Mikkungwak, I think your question was for page J-5. Mr. Mikkungwak.
I am referencing his opening comments.
Moving along, my next question will be, on June 19, 2015, you indicated that the government will submit projects to Infrastructure Canada for assessment of eligibility.
Once a project is deemed eligible, the Government of Nunavut is then responsible for developing a full business case.
To date, has your department submitted any projects for assessment and, if so, when?
Can I ask you to repeat that question again?
I was just picking up some of the papers that were forwarded; I had a distraction there.
On June 19, 2015, you indicated that the government will submit projects to Infrastructure Canada for assessment of eligibility.
There was a full list of projects submitted to Infrastructure Canada in August 2015. The list of projects is being analyzed right now by the infrastructure staff.
Because of the election, the preliminary approvals for those projects are delayed.
We’re not likely to get a response back from Infrastructure Canada for the list of projects that we submitted until January 2016.
We have submitted a list of projects to Infrastructure Canada.
Can you indicate what is included in these business cases?
Once we receive preliminary approval from Infrastructure Canada, the next step is to submit the business case. The business case contains about the same types of information that we would require in a planning study.
We would have to take a look at the site conditions that would be included in the business case. An option analysis would be included in the business case.
It’s a very detailed business case.
It pretty much brings the project to the schematic design.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In your correspondence, you indicated that eligible projects under the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component can fall under a number of different categories, including public transit, wastewater, and green energy. Will your department be responsible for developing business cases for all capital projects that are submitted for consideration under the New Building Canada Fund?
Any projects that are submitted on behalf of the municipalities, CGS will take full responsibility for the development of the business case for those. For any projects that are submitted by other departments within the GN that are eligible for funding under the New Building Canada Fund, CGS will help the respective departments to develop the business cases and CGS will be responsible for submitting those business cases to Infrastructure Canada.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In your correspondence, you indicated that the federal government must review each business case before approving a project for funding under the New Building Canada Fund and that this process could take 3 to 18 months.
Can you explain how your department will ensure that all business cases are completed in a timely matter?
Once we have received preliminary approval from Infrastructure Canada, we will immediately start working with the GN for any municipal projects that we include in the plan, plus any client departments’ requests for funding. We will work with those departments and submit those business cases.
It would probably take the department in itself three to six months to fully develop a business plan to make sure that we’ve got all the requirements that are required for Infrastructure Canada.
Infrastructure Canada has indicated to us that it could take 3 to 18 months once they get the business cases before they give the final approval.
We do have a strong working relationship with Infrastructure Canada and we certainly do keep strong dialogue with Infrastructure Canada.
Once the preliminary approval is done and we submit the business cases, we will be following up with Infrastructure Canada officials on a regular basis to make sure that they can expedite those projects under this program.
Moving on to another topic, I’m looking at page J-4. I’m sure the minister is aware that I asked this question last year regarding Baker Lake. We have made requests for a utilidor system.
Can you respond to my question about the utilidor system for Baker Lake?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My deputy minister will respond to that question.
We have commissioned a consultant to undertake a feasibility study to determine the viability of a utilidor system in Baker Lake and what the investment cost would be to construct a utilidor system in the community.
This report is not expected to be finalized until December 31.
Once that report is finalized, we will share the report with the hamlet. If it is a desire to move ahead with the utilidor system, we do know it is going to be an expensive investment.
All I can say is, once the feasibility study is done, it is going to take some time to introduce this into the five-year capital plan because it can only go ahead when there is financing to include it in the GN five-year capital plan.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I’ll move on to another topic. The Premier went to Baker Lake and met with the Qilautimiut committee.
Baker Lake is one of the communities that have a large population of elders. Our elders had raised a concern regarding the dump.
The smoke from the dump can cause health problems.
(interpretation ends) With that, my question here would be, information provided by the department indicates that the most feasible option to develop new solid waste infrastructure in Nunavut is to implement the modified landfills that are described in the Municipal Solid Waste Best Practices in Nunavut Report.
Can you indicate if implementing the modified landfill model in Nunavut will require a complete overhaul of all the current solid waste sites in Nunavut?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you. I’ll have my deputy minister respond to that question.
With respect to the solid waste sites within the territory in 24 communities, solid waste sites are near the end of their useful life. It’s kind of a legacy issue the GN inherited from the GNWT.
As part of the strategy, we looked at the best practices and what type of landfill sites we would need to ensure that we can meet best practices.
Basically the new modified landfill sites would have three separate lined berms, one for domestic waste, one for hazardous material, and one for bulky metals, to ensure that no contaminants leak into the environment.
The new solid waste site will require fencing and controlled access. Certainly, part of the best practice is looking at options to divert waste out of the solid waste sites like cardboard, woods, and some of the other materials that can be burnt in using a burn box similar to here in Iqaluit.
Whenever we move forward to new solid waste sites, the first thing we will do is to do a solid waste audit to determine what types of garbage is being deposited into those landfill sites and then look at options of how we can try to divert waste out of the landfill sites so that we can extend their useful life.
The official seems to read my mind, leading me right into my next question. Will the minister commit to tabling this Municipal Solid Waste Best Practices in Nunavut Report in the Legislative Assembly?
Hon. Johnny Mike: Yes.
I also thank the minister for his response. I am very pleased and I can’t wait to see the report.
(interpretation ends) Information provided by your department indicates that the modified landfill model includes a complete fence, as the official indicated, a fenced facility with a designated lined cell for bulky materials, hazardous waste, and domestic garbage. Additional features, including burn sites, reusable products, and potential recyclables will be considered on a site-by-site basis.
Can you indicate what kind of factors would allow or restrict a community from having these additional features included in their solid waste sites?
Before we actually move in to the design and build of a landfill site, the first step for us to do is to do an audit of the existing waste materials that are deposited in those landfill sites.
From using those audits, it will determine how we can re-engineer those landfill sites in the community to best meet their needs for best practices and managing the solid waste sites going forward.
Even though we’re using a modified landfill site in all communities, it depends on the community’s size and the types of domestic wastes that are being deposited into the landfill sites that will determine the size of the new landfill site within those communities.
Moving right along, I’ll move on to another subject here.
On March 2, 2015 during Committee of the Whole’s consideration of the department’s 2015-16 main estimates, the minister of the day indicated that your department had hired Dalhousie University to undertake a review to “gather baseline data on the existing sewage lagoons to see if they can meet the new proposed, recommended effluent levels.”
The minister also indicated that information gathered through this review would indicate if Nunavut was required to undertake any improvements to its current wastewater management facilities.
Can you indicate if Dalhousie University has completed this review and, if so, what were the results?
Dalhousie has finalized all of its research within the communities that they were doing the research. All the baseline data now has been collected.
The preliminary analysis that we have received from Dalhousie so far is that it looks like, in most of the testing that they have done, our effluent levels are really meeting high standards.
Now that they have finalized this data, we should be expecting a report from Dalhousie University some time in the new calendar year, basically giving us the details of the results.
At the same time, based on the research that comes out of this final report from Dalhousie University, the next step would be then to work with Environment Canada to set effluent standards that are realistic for the north.
I’ll direct my next question to the minister.
Will you commit to tabling the Dalhousie University review of Nunavut’s wastewater system in the Legislative Assembly?
Hon. Johnny Mike: Yes and it would be an executive summary report, if that is the question.
As the minister indicates, it will be an executive report. Are we looking at different types of reports considering that there is a Dalhousie review that will be tabled and the other one that I referenced earlier?
Hon. Johnny Mike: No, it would be a report.
It is clear that the reports are going to have an effect on the proposals, but if we’re going to be doing any activities and building infrastructure, the elders do have concerns. For example, when they’re burning the dump in Baker Lake, it affects the health of the elders and the people.
Will Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit also be factored in?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, they will be factored in.
Chairman: Thank you. We’re on Community and Government Services. Branch Summary.
I’ve got a few questions here, but I’ll just continue on with the topic that Mr. Mikkungwak brought up. He spoke to the Provincial-Territorial Infrastructure Component of the New Building Canada Fund and he had asked the question, “Has Community and Government Services submitted any projects for assessment?” You stated that there has been some put forward.
Do any of those projects pertain to green energy?
Mr. Green: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The list of projects that have been submitted for infrastructure consideration is marine infrastructure projects and solid waste site projects. Those are the types of projects that have been submitted, but in terms of any other green infrastructure project, there was no project submitted.
I realize that your department doesn’t prioritize the submissions in a singular fashion, that you don’t do it yourself.
I’ll let that one go for the time being, but I’ll have to admit that I’m a little disappointed.
Following up with a comment made from your opening comments, it says that “…Community and Government Services is also responsible for assisting all Nunavut communities in the long-term planning and delivery of capital projects.”
Earlier this afternoon, I had some questions for the minister regarding land availability specifically here in Iqaluit. I know the minister said that he was going to get back to me, but I just thought maybe I would save his officials the time of having to brief you in on the topic.
I’m sure Mr. Green was listening very closely to the line of questioning I had this afternoon regarding discussions with the Nunavut Housing Corporation and the City of Iqaluit on recognizing, in my opinion, a very dire need of land availability.
Whereas we are in the percentage to waitlist the “highest need” community in the territory, yet we’re unable to build even one unit to meet the growing need of our residents with regard to housing.
I was just wondering if maybe the minister has been updated or Mr. Green would be able to respond to what Community and Government Services is doing with the City of Iqaluit and Nunavut Housing to address this need.
I just want to indicate that I have never received the letter from the City of Iqaluit on the availability of land.
My deputy minister will also respond to the question.
Earlier this month, I and my ADM Darren Flynn did meet with the Nunavut Housing Corporation. They have expressed some concerns about the availability of developed lots within the communities.
Basically there’s not necessarily of a shortage of lots in communities; it’s just that the lots have not been developed.
What we were working with the Nunavut Housing Corporation on is let’s look at putting together a five-year strategy and determine which community where the highest priority is for public housing and staff housing, and then we would work with our lands division and the municipalities to make sure that they could start developing those lots.
The biggest challenge with municipalities is they are non-tax based communities and they don’t really develop lots based on speculations. Basically what they really need is a commitment from us that we are actually going to put facilities on those lots. I think, over the last couple months, we have developed a really strong working relationship with our partners at NHC and our Lands and Planning Division and also with the municipalities to try to make sure that the sites are available when those housing units are required in the communities.
NHC did also mention to us that they had some concerns about the availability of lots here in the city as well and some other issues, and we have agreed with NHC that we would arrange a meeting with the city and NHC ourselves so that we can discuss any concerns that they may have with respect to land sites.
Mr. Hickes: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that information.
It does worry me a little bit that when the Nunavut Housing Corporation was allocating staff housing units and public housing units, it has been recognized for years that even with the investment, as I stated earlier today, with housing infrastructure across the territory, because of the way Iqaluit has been growing, the need has gotten worse, not better even with the investments that have been made.
In a response from the Nunavut Housing Corporation that I received on Friday, it states that each of the communities has a sustainable community development plan and that the part that’s missing right now is how to get that plan to start working and executing the plan, and that there are challenges with funding and cash flow from NHC’s standpoint.
I understand that in a non-taxed based community, Community Government Services has maybe a larger role to play.
Maybe with the City of Iqaluit, it’s a little bit different, but there is still that overarching leadership role that Community Government Service plays with the City of Iqaluit.
I understand we have just gone through municipal elections, so our new councillors are being sworn-in any day, and I’m hoping this will be at the top of their priority list.
What options have been explored with Nunavut Housing and the City of Iqaluit on how to address on a faster track basis to be able to follow through with an original proposal?
For example, we can’t do a unit-by-unit land development project here in Iqaluit. It’s just not feasible.