EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
However, as a department, we can’t fund large projects such as a wharf or port and without that ability to fund it ourselves. We have to rely on the federal government or the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, to be more precise, for the funding. That is the only way to move forward, in partnership with them in order to complete the Small Craft Harbours Program.
To date, we continue to lobby and push for these projects to the federal government and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
We will continue to voice our need to have this program funded as this infrastructure is very important to us. That is what I can respond with at this time.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this kind of conversation has been going on for quite some time now. I know that your predecessor, Mr. Taptuna, was also tasked with trying to come up with additional federal support for small craft harbours.
What are your short- and long-term plans in trying to get additional funding? It’s such a needed program. Like we have heard, I think, over the years, many members stand up and say that they want more marine infrastructure.
What are your long- and short-term plans to get additional funding?
With respect to the short-term plan, our department can use its mandate to fund projects as we have budgeted $500,000 to assist the communities to purchase the floating docks.
However, in terms of the long-term future, we have to partner with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans and we have to visit them to discuss the identified projects and lobby them to fund the small craft harbour projects.
That is the only way we can deal with these issues in the long term in order to fund large infrastructure projects. (interpretation ends) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Government of Canada has announced that as part of the Building Canada Plan, Nunavut will receive $400 million for roads, bridges, and other public infrastructure.
Can you clarify if this funding is eligible to be used for new marine infrastructure as well?
Yes, it could be used for those. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
I’m very happy to hear that because recently, I wrote you a letter.
In the letter, I voiced my concern regarding Iqaluit marine infrastructure.
We often talk about the deep sea port, which I will mention after this. I’m talking more about hunters’ launch pads for boats. We have over 100 boats, I think, in Iqaluit now.
I can tell you from my own experience that it has been quite challenging with the number of boats growing and we have very little marine infrastructure to support the number of boats that we have in Iqaluit.
I think, really, it’s becoming a matter of safety when you see all the boats, trailers, trucks, people, children, and everybody walking around while we’re waiting to take our turn to either launch to go into the water or for the boats coming back.
At the same time, we have the tide issue. We have very long tidal flats that just add to the complexity.
I also think that we have to recognize that these boats and trailers are very expensive. People have invested a lot of money so that they can go and hunt and go camping. This is important culturally as well.
I’m wondering if, as the minister, you would be committed to really looking at this area in Iqaluit. I know that you have provided about $30,000, I think it was, this year for marine infrastructure, but that really only covered cleaning up some rocks and putting a bit of gravel down. It didn’t really address the real problem.
I’m wondering if the department could meet with the hunters and go over, perhaps, what the needs are to address this issue.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I agree with the member. Last summer and spring, Iqaluit’s breakwater or boat launch area had lots of boulders and rocks.
They cleaned that area up and it cost $39,000 to remove the boulders and big rocks out of the marine infrastructure in the tidal area. That’s what they worked on.
As I stated earlier on, the government does not have huge sums of money for capital expenditures. I’ll use for example the cleaning up of the area of marine infrastructure in Iqaluit.
The $500,000 that we’re requesting, as I stated, for small craft harbours, could help to develop the marine infrastructure to improve the marine areas that the harvesters use.
The community itself should apply for funding.
I hope that I responded to your question. If I did not respond properly, you can ask more questions.
I’m just looking at the Building Canada Fund and, like you said, it was eligible for this type of thing.
I guess I’m looking for at least your commitment to follow through and look at the situation that we have in Iqaluit because I think it’s a real concern not just for myself but for others too.
I think it is becoming a real safety issue and I really wouldn’t want something to happen before government reacts to something.
Let’s try and be proactive and look at the situation because there is definitely a need there.
My other question is: when it comes to marine infrastructure in Iqaluit like the breakwater and the causeway, who owns that infrastructure?
With respect to who owns (interpretation ends) the causeway and the breakwater, (interpretation) I’ll have Mr. Suvega respond to that question.
I don’t want to misguide you.
Primary responsibility falls with the Government of Nunavut, but in terms of things like roadways, they fall within municipal boundaries; the City of Iqaluit.
There are other landowners possibly involved; federal departments and agencies as well. (interpretation) Thank you.
Mr. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Am I hearing that you don’t know then? You are saying possibly. Do we know who owns the breakwater and who owns the causeway?
Who is responsible? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to have Mr. Suvega continue with the response. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Primary responsibility, as I mentioned before, falls with the Government of Nunavut.
Having said that, though, we still continue to urge and try and work with federal departments and agencies in investing or continuing to invest in marine facilities throughout Nunavut, including Iqaluit.
Can the department tell me then if they’ve had direct conversations with the federal government regarding our breakwater and causeway?
Personally, since I became a minister for this portfolio, I have not had a lengthy discussion in regard to one issue, so I’ll have my deputy minister respond.
We’ve had a variety of conversations.
Not to specifically point to one, but a range of topics could include things like safety during sealift operations, cruise ship operations, and military operations.
My next question, through the Small Craft Harbours Program, how does one go about applying for that and how do you determine what rates a community is going to get?
When communities themselves are going to apply for funding from our department programs or the access roads program with the $500,000 that I mentioned earlier, when our department receives an application from either one of the communities, we’re willing to review.
For example, if a community such as Iqaluit applies to our department and if they make a proposal, we can start working from there.
For the proposals that are coming from the communities, do all the communities in Nunavut provide you with a proposal?
In some ways, some communities did not make or provide their proposals.
There are many communities that provided their proposals, but I can tell you that not all communities made their proposals within that fiscal year.
Do you ask the communities that did not provide their proposals why they did not make their proposals?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the question, no, we don’t ask the communities why they didn’t make their proposals, but all the communities of Nunavut are notified about this program.
Can the minister tell me if he knows why the other communities don’t make their proposals?
When the money doesn’t need to be returned, I wonder why the communities don’t make a proposal for this funding.
Although I really want to provide an adequate answer, I can’t speak for each community as to their reason and I’m sure there are various reasons why they make their proposals. I’m sorry that I can’t respond to that question. Thank you.
To go on, on September 10, 2013, your predecessor, I guess under the good advice of his EA, informed the Legislative Assembly that all communities were encouraged to submit proposals to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation for projects that would improve existing marine facilities.
He indicated that “19 communities took advantage of this program.
Will you provide a breakdown of the communities and the projects that have received funding during the 2013-14 and 2014-15 fiscal years?
I can provide a (interpretation ends) breakdown of the program (interpretation) for 2013-14 and I can provide that information. (interpretation ends) We have it and we can share that information. (interpretation) I believe you asked about the 2014-15 fiscal year, but I’m sorry that I don’t have that information with me at this time.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to go on to talk about our dock, the deep sea port that we often talk about.
In June of 2010, the Legislative Assembly approved $532,000 in capital carryover for this project and then we had correspondence to the standing committee on January 6, 2012, where the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation indicated that the cost of the first phase of the project is estimated at approximately $25 million. The cost to complete the deep water dock is estimated at $100 million.
At this time, no funding has been identified to advance either phase of this project. However, the department is in regular contact with officials in the federal government and in industry who may have an interest in moving this project forward. As of today, what’s the status of the Iqaluit Regional Marine Facility Project?
Our department is always working on that and I would like my Assistant Deputy Minister, Jim Stevens, to complete my response to that.
The House already approved of Mr. Stevens to sit at the witness table when you walked in with the Sergeant-at-Arms. (interpretation ends) Mr. Stevens, welcome back to the table, but if I may, Pat, (interpretation) please repeat your question to Mr. Stevens so that you can get a proper response.
Thank you. Ms. Angnakak, go ahead.
In June of 2010, the Legislative Assembly approved [$532,000] of capital carryover.
In correspondence to the standing committee on January 6, 2012, the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation indicated that the cost for the first phase of the project was $25 million. The cost to complete the whole thing is approximately $100 million.
At this time, no funding has been identified to advance either phase. However, the department is in regular contact with officials at the federal government. We’re wondering: what is the status of this project today?
Minister Kuksuk, you already stated that Mr. Stevens will respond to that. Please proceed, Mr. Stevens.
What I can confirm is that we are in discussions with the federal government. What we are trying to do is put this forward as one of our infrastructure priorities. What we are doing is trying to convince the federal government that additional pre-engineering has to be done.
One of the biggest items remaining is to confirm the costs. That will only be done through some additional geotechnical investigations.
At this point, we’re trying to impress upon them the need for these geotechnical investigations, which will then, again, confirm the costs for that facility.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stevens.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s encouraging to hear. How soon do you think you can get a commitment out of the federal government?
It is their election year next year, I believe, so this is a good time to be asking. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to refer this to Mr. Stevens again, please.
Chairman: Mr. Stevens.
I can’t confirm the date that a decision would be made, but I think we have impressed upon them that this is an infrastructure priority.
I think we have provided the necessary information to the federal government for them to at least advance their consideration of the matter.
My last question: will the minister commit to getting back to us in the House with further developments of a project of that nature? It’s a lot of money.
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Yes, indeed. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Hon. Minister. (interpretation) Next on my list is Mr. Mikkungwak.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Finally.
I’ll be asking my question in English so that the minister can understand it properly. I will be asking some of the same questions that I asked in the spring session.
(interpretation ends) As the minister will recall, I asked him a number of questions earlier this year in relation to GPS approach systems and other issues related to airport infrastructure.
I appreciate the minister’s responses to my questions, which were provided in his correspondence dated August 25, 2014.
In his correspondence, the minister indicated that “a Northern Airports Usability Study was commissioned by the department” and that this study was completed in February of this year.
According to that study, the ideal GPS approach for Baker Lake’s airport would be a “Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance” system.
I recognize that the department has made a request to NAV CANADA to upgrade such GPS systems in Nunavut, and I look forward to receiving ongoing updates on this issue.
Can the minister specify what other necessary upgrades and projects have been determined in the department’s northern airports usability study?
There is a lot to your question. There are GPS landing systems, but they are under Mr. Stevens’ responsibility and I would like him to respond to that one, Mr. Chairman.
GPS, as everyone knows, is a priority for this government. We have approached NAV CANADA basically with a request to approach NAV CANADA with GPS approaches at all our airports.
Actually, earlier this week, we got confirmation that the first GPS approach for a Nunavut airport will be Arviat. They are doing the final engineering for that approach. They will be doing a flight test of that approach later this year and we expect it to be published some time in the new year.
Where does the community of Baker Lake, which I represent, stand in the GPS approach chart?
I would like Mr. Stevens to complete the response. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
When NAV CANADA looks at which communities are to get GPS approaches, they look at the size of the community, the number of flights that go into that community, and basically the historical missed approaches for every year.
On that basis, they determine a prioritization for that community.
At this point, I believe NAV CANADA has all the necessary information to provide a prioritized list. We have asked for that. We haven’t received it.
I would suggest that a lot of the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot airports are on that list.
At this time, I can’t give you a definitive position on that list.
I understand that you cannot provide the list, but as a department, I’m sure you guys are very familiar and aware that two years ago, if not three years ago, the community of Baker Lake, during the summer, July… .
I believe it was two or three years ago, it was probably the busiest in Nunavut, considering the fact that we had the highest number of exploration companies revolving around Baker Lake.
My question here is: when the determination is made, what type of aircraft are you referring to?
I would like Mr. Stevens to respond to that one as well if it’s okay with you.
To the best of my knowledge, it’s scheduled flights.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Stevens.
Do you also take into consideration chartered flights and small aircraft when involving in those studies?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Mikkungwak. Minister Kuksuk.
That is just a further continuation of the same question, so I would like Mr. Stevens to respond to that, please. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Again, to the best of my knowledge, it’s just scheduled flights. I believe that if there was a high incidence of chartered flights or other general aviation flights, it would be considered by NAV CANADA.
What I can do is commit, through our minister, to get that information back to the member.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Stevens. Mr. Mikkungwak.
Can the minister make a commitment to tabling this usability study in the House?
Yes, when it is ready and when I am ready to give it to you, I can share it with you.
I also would like to ask if the usability study that is forthcoming… . I understand, as indicated earlier, that you guys are basing your GPS lighting system installation with the federal government, but I would also like to be privileged on that. At the same time, I would like your information on the usability study in the airport traffic around Baker Lake regarding small aircraft, chartered aircraft, and also the scheduled aircraft.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Mikkungwak. (interpretation ends) I don’t know if (interpretation) you have a question or not.
I didn’t notice a question, but maybe you would like to comment on that, Minister Kuksuk.
I don’t know if it’s a question, but it seems that he is urging us in terms of what he wants to see us do in relation to taking over the incidences of scheduled and chartered flights.
If that information is readily available and we could share it, have it, and present it, then we will.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll rephrase my question. I understand that the department already has the usability study within their department regarding scheduled flights.
My question here is to the department.
According to my knowledge, being a resident of Baker Lake, I believe, in the last two or three years ago, Baker Lake was the busiest airport. Does the department have the information regarding usability regarding small aircraft and private charters in addition to the scheduled flights, and could I be privy to that information?
I think I now understand the question properly in terms of what the member wishes to see. Mr. Stevens, I think, is more able to answer this in terms of availability. I would like Mr. Stevens to respond. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
The study was commissioned by NAV CANADA and we would just have to have a simple request to them to release the information.
I am suggesting that we could provide any information within the report.
I would also like to add, just in terms of the prioritization of the approaches, one thing that I didn’t mention earlier was the actual infrastructure or the type of runway abutments and that type of thing that come into play. For instance, if the graded areas aren’t up to standard, it could preclude a GPS approach until the graded areas are widened or the approach ends lengthened.
Those are additional considerations that are taken into the prioritization sort of methodology.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In his response to my questions regarding Baker Lake’s runway, the minister indicated that the need for runway relocation or expansion in Baker Lake was not identified as a priority in the recent 20-year capital needs assessment.
As the minister is aware, Transport Canada recommends that airports provide runway end safety areas at each end of the airstrip if that airstrip is over 1,200 metres in length.
According to Transport Canada, these areas are “intended to reduce the severity of damage to an airplane in the case of undershooting or overrunning the runway.”
Transport Canada also recommends that these areas are at least 90 metres in length.
As the minister is aware, the Northern Air Transport Association has previously raised concerns regarding runway end safety areas.
If airports are expected to provide runway safety areas, this will reduce the usable length of runways in Nunavut.
As the minister is aware, many communities already have limited options as to where they can locate their airstrips and further reducing the length of the usable runways may prevent a number of air carriers from accessing communities in Nunavut.
Can the minister indicate how many airports in Nunavut are currently operating with runways that are over 1,200 metres in length?
I’ll give it to you this time. I don’t know if that’s got anything to do with capital, but I’ll give it to you.
For the question, for the wish list, we will be able to provide him an answer in due course (interpretation ends) at a later date. (interpretation) Thank you.
I acknowledge what you indicated earlier, but when I look at this capital, my angle on this is regarding my airport in Baker Lake.
On December 12, 2013, Transport Canada released an updated draft of its Aerodromes Standards and Recommended Practices.
In this new draft, Transport Canada proposes to standardize its recommendations on runway end safety areas.
If implemented, the new standards would apply to airports with runways that are less than 1,200 metres in length if the airports also operate with precision or non-precision approaches.
Can the minister indicate if any of the airports in Nunavut are currently operating with precision or non-precision runways and, if so, how many?
I can provide a return to the question and I’ll take it as notice.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Hon. Minister. (interpretation) Did you say that you will get back to us with that information? Mr. Minister.
Hon. George Kuksuk: Yes.
My time is almost running out.
(interpretation ends) Can the minister indicate how his department is preparing for Transport Canada’s standardization of runway end safety areas?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): This subject is something I will return with an answer to, which is inclusive in my taking it as notice.
Will that be all in correspondence and with the federal documents and the GN usability information?
I thank the minister for the commitment. I look forward to all that documentation.
Moving on to the MVIS, earlier this year, I actually asked about this in the House. With the MVIS, will that be working with CGS and with all the GLOs?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Yes, we are working with the (interpretation ends) Department of Community and Government Services (interpretation) in relation to that and the communities. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Hon. Minister. (interpretation) Your time has run out.
If you wish to be recognized again, you may.
Next on my list is Mr. Savikataaq.
I’ll continue where my colleague left off on the Motor Vehicle Information System. In the 2015-16 budget, you have budgeted $1.2 million to purchase and install the system.
In this fiscal year, you had budgeted $2.8 million, almost double, and you’re buying nothing and you’re not installing anything.
Can you just explain what the $2.8 million is for?
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In regard to his question, Mr. Suvega may be more capable of providing an answer of the breakdown of the various components. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
A lot of the previous expenditures have been targeted in trying to address the deficiencies in the current system, looking at what improvements could be made, looking at other jurisdictions, and of course, working with other GN departments, namely, Community and Government Services, in trying to design and go out to see what a new system could and should look like in the future.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Suvega. Mr. Savikataaq.
Just for clarity then, you had budgeted that money for the new Motor Vehicle Information System, but you are spending some of it on the old system.
I want to defer the question to my deputy minister. (interpretation ends) Thank you.
Mr. Suvega: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No. These were looking at trying to define what the current problems with the system are, such as the age of the system, what its shortcomings are, and what we want to try and address in what the new system could and should look like, all done in cooperation with other departments like Community and Government Services.