EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Arvaluk. We’re not dealing with capital projects. However, I informed the same minister last year that this is not the forum for dealing with capital projects, but since he made reference to that matter, he should try to respond to the question.
I will try and respond to the hon. member’s question here. The $500,000 was moved from capital to O&M as the program has been very popular throughout Nunavut since its inception and we just moved that over from capital to O&M. But not only that, we’re in the process of accessing more money from CanNor to supplement what we have there for access roads.
This item is probably in the business plan and I was wondering why it was there.
I know that interest in the Community Access Roads budget line is quite high as per community needs. However, when many communities are interested in constructing community access roads, why hasn’t this particular budget been increased at all?
Other items get increased when they’re insufficient.
So why has this particular figure not changed?
Yes, it is a popular program and the amount remains the same, with a very limited budget that the department has, but we’re accessing another $500,000 from CanNor, the new federal agency that we have here in Iqaluit.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): I wish now to move into a totally different topic as my last issue prior to directing my questions in our page-by-page review later on.
I want to note that this issue was not even referenced in his opening comments nor did I see it mentioned in the main estimates.
If memory serves, I seem to recall the minister making a statement last year in his department’s O&M estimates that the focus was going to be on developing local economies related to fisheries and inter-settlement trade.
I was wondering if these two areas have been allocated funding yet.
I would also like to know if these development plans are related to the small craft harbour projects in any way, as this need has been voiced before. I am not talking about planned construction phases but rather the planning documents themselves.
I want an update on the negotiations between our government and the federal government in regard to docks and harbours. I believe we discussed this issue at length last year.
As Canadians, we want to be part of Canada.
Today, nothing is happening north of 60 in construction.
When you travel anywhere in southern Canada, in New Brunswick, in Newfoundland and Labrador, or any other province, you will see all sorts of docks, wharfs, and small craft harbours all over the place.
Even lakes, such as Lake Superior and Lake Winnipeg, have developed docking facilities in each community or town along their shores.
We were led to believe that this department would begin negotiations. An important question is why Canada still excludes the north in infrastructure development. Why does the north of 60 have nothing compared to the rest of Canada?
I had expected to see some funds allocated towards this initiative in the operations and maintenance budget estimates related to transportation projects. Yet, there is no mention of any transportation projects or initiatives in the minister’s opening comments.
The Small Craft Harbours Program that’s under DFO, we still push that as a government.
I thank the member for his support in this because he mentioned north of 60 and he’s absolutely right that some of the construction stopped and north of 60 was it, the latitude north of 60.
There are ongoing talks with DFO and Transport Canada through our departmental staff and whatnot.
It’s an ongoing battle.
One of the things that we’re proposing to do is actually start on a process of coming up with our design for one of the communities in the Qikiqtaaluk region and that’s to expedite a project and to actually get a step ahead of DFO so that they can go ahead and start funding some of these infrastructure that we’re requesting, especially small craft harbours.
Chairman (interpretation): Are there any more questions to the opening comments?
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Unfortunately, the minister has neglected to respond to part of my earlier comments in regard to preparations toward replacing the aging community freezers, including meat processing plants.
Our communities require properly functioning community freezers and meat processing plants so that the local HTO or any other local body have the capacity and facilities to process, butcher, package, and sell country foods in a sanitary manner.
For example, here we are in the third week of our session and none of us are able to go hunting for country food.
However, because we have a small meat processing plant tied to our community freezer, we are able to get our country foods from that place.
Communities could potentially generate some revenue through trading with each other.
I expected to see this mentioned in the opening comments. My assumption was that this department had already struck plans to develop this needed infrastructure. I would like to get as much information as I can before this session is over.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Arvaluk. That was a good question.
Again, I got to say that we’re looking at these issues. For community freezers, it’s one of our priorities to reintegrate it into our Poverty Reduction Strategy that we’re trying to come up with.
It’s important and I agree with the member that there should be some inter-settlement trade of country foods.
We talked about the health of our people and a lack of good, nutritious food. Every time, we say that nutritious food is our country food, that there’s nothing like it out there.
I agree wholeheartedly that it’s a fact that we’re going to look into and we’re all working on that.
Chairman: I would like a raise in salary since I’m Speaker now.
On page 3 of the minister’s opening comments, it talks about the implementation of the new Tourism Development Strategy.
Is that strategy actually completed and finished today?
The strategy is almost done. We do have a draft that’s going to be presented to the cabinet for approval and once it’s approved, we will certainly make it available to the House here.
Chairman: As a draft, it will be done; I imagine it will be done once it’s approved by cabinet.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: I mentioned that once it’s approved by cabinet, I’ll make it available to the House here.
Mr. Elliott: I have a few more questions, Mr. Chairman.
Could the minister maybe… in the old tourism strategy that they had, were there any positive outcomes that came out of that one?
Chairman (interpretation): Who’s going to respond? Minister Taptuna.
In the old strategy, there were no efforts to implement it. As you know, things change as time goes by.
The new tourism strategy is based on what we know today. Of course, with changing times, we have to change with the times.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Mr. Elliott.
On page 5 of the minister’s opening comments, in the third paragraph at the bottom, the last sentence, there’s an increase of $250,000 to “the Kitikmeot Community Futures Organization to an equitable level.”
I might not be understanding what’s being said, but when did it drop below an equitable level?
Chairman: Minister Taptuna.
It’s a fairly new organization that’s starting up and it’s growing.
In order to keep in tune with what’s happening out there for economic development, of course, they need some more funding for their operations and maintenance.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Mr. Elliott.
In the paragraph below that one, it talks about the Nunavut Broadband Development Corporation going from $200,000 to $300,000. I’m raising some of the questions that Mr. Rumbolt was talking about.
Is that for just increased bandwidth or is that for them to look at other opportunities in terms of providing cell phone services to other communities that do not have it?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for that question. In my ministerial statement today, this afternoon, I indicated that by tomorrow, the Nunavut Broadband Corporation is going to be implementing their expansion tomorrow, March 18.
Of course, to maintain the more duties that they have, the more operating costs, that’s for their O&M. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, any further questions?
On page 9, some of them are capital items, but I think, “A review of the airport operating funding formula,” I believe that’s probably an O&M question.
I’m sure, but could he explain that a bit more? Is that the money that goes to each hamlet to maintain and operate the airports that they run?
As a representative of a community that might be taking over the new operation of an airport, why is it being reviewed? Is it because the costs are too low and hamlets are using too much of their other money to maintain airport operations?
I thank the member for that question. Throughout the years, the amounts given to the hamlets haven’t really changed and we’re going through a review process.
We want to make it equitable for the hamlets to continue their programs of maintaining the airports.
Minister… Mr. Elliott.
Mr. Elliott: “Minister Elliott.” Sorry.
I’ll take the raise in pay too.
In one of the answers to a question that Mr. Arvaluk asked, he sort of alluded to a community receiving a small port or a port.
Could you tell us which community it was?
Is that the infrastructure dollars from the federal government for Pangnirtung or is this for feasibility studies done in other communities?
Chairman: Mr. Long.
Mr. Long: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The first part of the answer is that Pangnirtung is getting a new port, as we know, and funds are also set aside for feasibility of plans for an additional port. The one that comes to mind first is Pond Inlet. It will be studied this year, I believe, and I believe that’s the only one this year where the design work will be done.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Long.
I don’t know what we’re supposed to do at this point.
It’s O&M, but we’re just delving into capital again.
This is only going to add to my confusion about what’s O&M and what’s not. A feasibility study, to me, seems to fall under both categories. We pay consultants so much to do everything for us, you never know.
I guess my question would be then I know, with the work that I have been doing with the HTOs in my three communities along with Qikiqtarjuaq, there is the Arctic Fisheries Alliance and they put in a feasibility study for a port in their community and were actually trying to access money for a socio-economic impact study.
So are you saying that Qikiqtarjuaq is not on the radar screen in your department?
Chairman: Mr. Elliott, I don’t know what we can do at this point.
I’ll have to get back to the member on that question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Yes, we usually vote on plans and those things, and I imagine that we will get into it in the fall when we deal with capital once again.
So this is what we end up with when you raise capital projects in your opening comments for O&M. Any further questions, Mr. Elliott?
Okay. At this point, I have Mr. Ningark. Okay, he’s happy now that…
… this issue was raised. Any further comments at this point?
I think my colleagues are going to… Mr. Aupaluktuq.
I’m sure that a couple of colleagues might have a couple of more questions for opening comments, but with respect to the time, I would like to move to report progress, Mr. Chairman.
Qujannamiik, minister and your employees. We will report progress.
(interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses.
Item 22. Orders of the Day. (interpretation ends) Mr. Clerk.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. This House stands adjourned until Thursday, March 18, at 1:30 p.m.
Thursday, March 18, 2010
Pages 1667 – 1733
Opening Prayer 1667
Ministers’ Statements 1667
Members’ Statements 1670
Returns to Oral Questions 1673
Oral Questions 1674
Tabling of Documents 1692
Notices of Motions 1693
Motions 1693
First Reading of Bills 1705
Second Reading of Bills 1706
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 1708
Report of the Committee of the Whole 1732
Orders of the Day 1733
Thursday, March 18, 2010 1667
127 – 3(2): US CITES Proposal Defeated (Shewchuk) 1667
128 – 3(2): Grants and Contribution Deadline (Tapardjuk) 1668
129 – 3(2): Partnership with Department of Education for Curriculum Development (Shewchuk) 1668
130 – 3(2): Caribou Strategy Consultation (Shewchuk) 1669
190 – 3(2): Air Freight Equipment Subsidy for Hunters (Ningark) 1670
191 – 3(2): Daycare Infrastructure Funding (Ningeongan) 1670
192 – 3(2): Innovative Thinking (Elliott) 1671
193 – 3(2): Support for Hunters (Okalik) 1672
Return to Oral Question 262 – 3(2): NTEP Graduates (Shewchuk) 1673
Return to Oral Question 265 – 3(2): Nomination for Innovative Human Resource Practices (Tootoo) 1674
305 – 3(2): RFP for Panellized Housing Units (Schell) 1674
306 – 3(2): Ministerial Liquor Task Force (Ningark) 1676
307 – 3(2): Polar Bear Issue in McClintock Channel (Okalik) 1676
308 – 3(2): Activities of the Public Agencies Council (Elliott) 1677
309 – 3(2): Pop Vending Machines in Government Buildings (Okalik) 1679
310 – 3(2): Activities of the Public Agencies Council (Elliott) 1680
311 – 3(2): Hiring Procedures for Inuit Social Workers (Komoartok) 1681
312 – 3(2): Respite for Medical Escorts (Ningark) 1683
313 – 3(2): Collective Bargaining Process – Housing Allowance (Schell) 1683
314 – 3(2): Child and Youth Representative (Elliott) 1685
315 – 3(2): $2 Million Farming Equipment (Okalik) 1687
316 – 3(2): Contract for Panellized Housing Units (Schell) 1690
139 – 3(2): Letter from Constituent – Mould in Workplace (Okalik) 1692
140 – 3(2): Copy of Correspondence from the Hamlet of Kugaaruk (Ningark) 1692
141 – 3(2): Photos of the Pujualussait Demonstration and Information Concerning Aboriginal Healing Foundation Funding (Komoartok) 1692
142 – 3(2): Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut on Human Resource Capacity in the Government of Nunavut (Speaker) 1693
143 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Languages Commissioner (Speaker) 1693
018 – 3(2): Reinstatement of Federal Funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation – Notice (Ningeongan) 1693
018 – 3(2): Reinstatement of Federal Funding for the Aboriginal Healing Foundation (Ningeongan) 1693
Bill 23 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2009-2010 – First Reading 1706
Bill 15 – Legal Treatment of Apologies Act – Second Reading 1706
Bill 16 – An Act to Amend the Judicature Act – Second Reading 1706
Bill 17 – Justice Statutes Amendment Act – Second Reading 1706
Bill 20 – An Act to Amend Certain Acts Related to Education – Second Reading 1707
Bill 23 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 2, 2009-2010 – Second Reading 1707
Bill 25 – Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, 2010 – Second Reading 1707
Bill 26 – Securities Transfer Act – Second Reading 1707
Bill 27 – An Act to Amend the Workers’ Compensation Act – Second Reading 1708
Bill 22 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2010-2011 – Economic Development and Transportation – Consideration in Committee 1708
Bill 22 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2010-2011 – Nunavut Arctic College – Consideration in Committee 1720
Bill 22 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2010-2011 – Culture, Language, Elders and Youth – Consideration in Committee 1731
Speaker (Hon. James Arreak) (interpretation): Thank you. Before we proceed, I would like to ask Mr. Curley to say the opening prayer.
Minister’s Statement 127 – 3(2): US CITES Proposal Defeated (Shewchuk)
Today is a very good day in Nunavut as is every day in Nunavut, but it’s a little special today.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform members of the positive outcome of my department’s efforts in opposing the United States’ proposal to up-list the polar bear under the Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).
The outcome reached early this morning in Doha, Qatar confirms that Nunavut will not cave to international pressure and misguided attempts to intervene in our conservation initiatives.
I am pleased to report this example of our success in telling the world that we always have and will continue to manage our polar bear populations sustainably.
This is truly an achievement that our government should be proud of.
Had this proposal been accepted, it would have had serious negative consequences for Nunavummiut and in particular, harvesters.
Over the past few months, we have worked extensively and tirelessly in collaboration with the federal government, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and regional wildlife organizations to lobby CITES parties and inform international audiences of the futility of this US proposal.
When this proposal was announced, our department did not sit back.
Positioned front and centre alongside our federal counterparts, we effectively and with determination stood against the proposal on the firm grounds that trade is not a significant conservation threat to polar bears.
A key aspect of this work has been effectively communicating the importance of the polar bear harvest to Inuit cultural identity and economic well-being.
We have also stressed the proven track record of Nunavut’s wildlife management system, which ensures public engagement, support, and involvement in critical wildlife decisions.
Minister’s Statement 128 – 3(2): Grants and Contribution Deadline (Tapardjuk)
I rise today to inform Nunavummiut about the grants and contributions from the Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
This funding will be reviewed soon by the Committee of the Whole and Mr. Speaker, if and once approved, these funds will be available.
Grants and contribution funding is provided for projects in the official languages, arts, culture and heritage, communications, and toponymy, and includes funding for community heritage facilities, community libraries, and for student training opportunities in archaeology and in palaeontology.
After COW reviews and approves the program, the closing date for applications is March 31 and applications are reviewed in April.
Sport and Recreation program applications close on a variety of specific dates and have open applications depending on the program.
Applications for funding in any of the program areas received after the closing date will be considered if there are funds available.
The Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth offers assistance with preparing proposals through its toll-free line, community visits, and grants and contributions administrators based in Iqaluit and Baker Lake.
I wish to remind everyone that the deadline of March 31 is nearing, Mr. Speaker.
Minister’s Statement 129 – 3(2): Partnership with Department of Education for Curriculum Development (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to report that my department has been working with the Department of Education’s curriculum writers on a number of very exciting new culturally relevant curriculum modules.
Department of Environment staff has been providing input and resources toward the development of science curriculum that integrates Inuit knowledge and values with current scientific information about terrestrial wildlife ecology, ocean systems, and weather systems in Nunavut.
When these new curriculum modules are rolled out to all schools in Nunavut, they will provide a foundation for ongoing involvement and participation of our staff with Nunavut students.
We look forward to supporting the involvement of conservation officers, biologists, and other department staff in classrooms and in camp programs to enhance and support the delivery of this excellent curriculum.
This new initiative will build capacity and skills in Nunavut students to positively contribute to the environmental management field in our territory in the future.
By partnering with the Department of Education in this project, we work towards building a skilled and local workforce equipped to manage the diverse and dynamic environmental challenges we face.
Minister’s Statement 130 – 3(2): Caribou Strategy Consultation (Shewchuk)
Caribou have great nutritional, economic, and cultural value in Nunavut and are an important part of our ecosystems.
There is a pressing need for the GN to adopt a comprehensive, long-range approach to caribou management. I am pleased to inform members that the Department of Environment will be proceeding this spring with community and stakeholder consultations for the Nunavut Caribou Strategy.
Representatives from the Department of Environment recently presented a preliminary draft strategy to members of the department’s Elders Advisory Committee. The committee, comprised of representatives from each Nunavut region, considered a number of key questions concerning caribou management in our territory. Valuable insight on moving forward with further strategy development and advice on community and stakeholder consultations came out of this meeting.
Early next month, we will begin a phased and collaborative approach to consultation on the strategy.
Department of Environment staff will work alongside representatives from the Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Secretariat, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and our Elders Advisory Committee to engage HTOs and community members in dialogue concerning caribou.
Regional symposia will take place in the coming months and input will be sought from other affected stakeholders, all working toward the finalization of a strategy that will ensure sustainable caribou co-management now and in the future.
Mr. Speaker, my department and I look forward to building on our past successes in wildlife co-management to develop a valuable and effective caribou strategy for Nunavut.
Member’s Statement 190 – 3(2): Air Freight Equipment Subsidy for Hunters (Ningark)
The Minister of Environment, (interpretation ends) Hon. Shewchuk, (interpretation) I would like to thank him on behalf of my constituents of Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk for mentioning caribou and polar bear management plans.
Mr. Speaker, snow machines, four-wheelers, and outboard motors are very useful for harvesting.
They’re not just used for sports and recreation in Nunavut; they are used for harvesting caribou, polar bear, fish, and narwhal during the summer, fall, and winter.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is very expensive to bring this equipment to Nunavut by air and when you order them, it takes a long time for it to arrive.
Perhaps, in the meantime, they just sit around at the cargo warehouse collecting dust.
This House met with the cargo carriers to discuss this issue. We, as elected officials and as a government, have to try and keep transportation and freight costs as low as possible because our constituents rely on this equipment for hunting.
We don’t like to see people having to wait a long time for their orders to come in when, in fact, the order may be just sitting around the warehouses waiting for the cheapest route.
For the majority of our constituents, say 90 percent, this equipment is not regarded as recreational but essential for livelihoods.
As Members of the Legislative Assembly, we have to try and find solutions to reduce transportation and freight costs for snowmobiles, outboard motors, and four-wheelers.
Member’s Statement 191 – 3(2): Daycare Infrastructure Funding (Ningeongan)
I rise today to continue to urge the government to reconsider its position on funding for daycare infrastructure.
Mr. Speaker, at present, the Government of Nunavut will only provide capital funding towards daycare infrastructure if it is included in the construction of a new school.
While I fully support this approach, it still provides nothing at all for those communities who cannot expect to see a new school built for many years to come.
Mr. Speaker, it is well recognized that in order to support the healthy and ongoing development of children, we must invest in their development as early as possible.
Our new Education Act even recognizes this fact within the legislation by giving district education authorities a new mandate to deliver early childhood education programs within the community they serve.