EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The completion of these plans will ensure that the future planning process takes into account all environmental, cultural, social, and economic goals. In addition, the ICSPs will provide both government departments/agencies and the community itself with a long-term vision for their infrastructure development.” The standing committee looks forward to ongoing updates on the department’s efforts concerning these important initiatives concerning capital planning for communities throughout the territory.
The standing committee is pleased to see that the department has included funding for arena upgrades for the communities of Coral Harbour and Arviat in its proposed 2012-13 capital estimates.
Information provided by the department for these projects indicates that these upgrades will give the communities the ability to have artificial ice, which will provide a longer playing season.
However, members would like to note that the thermosyphon technology does not actually provide artificial ice, but does assist in providing a longer playing session, and encourage the minister to clarify this issue.
During his recent appearance before the standing committee, the minister indicated that the department is exploring different funding options so that all Nunavut communities can undertake improvements to existing recreational facilities.
The standing committee looks forward to receiving updates on this issue and is very supportive of initiatives to improve the quality of recreational facilities in Nunavut given their important role in fostering health and wellness in our communities.
The standing committee notes that an additional $500,000 has been allocated in the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates towards planning for a new recreational complex in Rankin Inlet.
To date, the department has allocated $200,000 towards this project.
Information provided by the department for this project indicates that its scope has changed from a basic arena to a complex that will include an “indoor games arena, curling rink, exercise/weight area, meeting or convention area with a kitchen and canteen area and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.”
Members note that the information provided by the department does not include total projected costs for this new recreational complex.
Members note that information provided by the department for this project indicates that “it is not practical to determine the cost estimates until the feasibility study is completed and the scope of work is known.”
However, members note that the department issued a request for proposals earlier this year for a feasibility study for an indoor sports facility in Rankin Inlet.
The request for proposals stated that a final report was to have been submitted by March 31 of this year.
Members encourage the minister to update the House on the status of this project given that information provided to the standing committee during its review of the department’s 2010-11 capital estimates indicated the total cost for the project would be approximately $16.0 million.
Although the standing committee is supportive of new recreational facilities in the territory, it is essential that projects be reasonable and affordable. It is also important that all communities enjoy a basic level of recreational infrastructure and that communities which currently lack such facilities as swimming pools be provided with clear information as to how they can apply for support.
The standing committee will be considering these factors carefully as this project moves forward and its total costs become clear.
Mr. Chairman, members note that the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates includes funding for a granular project for the community of Arviat.
The department’s 2012-13 capital estimates also includes a Kitikmeot granular project with a proposed budget of $2.6 million.
This project is a continuation of the previous funded quarry development project, which was to be in all Kitikmeot communities with each community purchasing or using existing equipment.
However, during the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, he indicated in his opening comments that this project will only occur in the communities of Gjoa Haven and Kugluktuk.
Information provided by the department for this project indicates that “Communities are in grave need of assured stocks of granular material. Almost every municipality in Nunavut is in crisis when it comes to access to good granular material.”
Members look forward to receiving an update on the status of this pilot project and, if it successful, strongly encourage the department to expand the initiative to other regions. Members also encourage the government to look into increasing its funding for granular projects.
On March 27, 2009, the Minister of Environment tabled a report in the Legislative Assembly concerning this issue. The minister’s report indicated that “Nunavut, Québec and Newfoundland did not endorse the document.”
Members note that on September 15, 2010, a joint federal and territorial announcement was made for six infrastructure initiatives, one of which was for the construction of a new pumphouse for water treatment in Baker Lake. Members also note that on September 16 of last year, a joint federal and territorial announcement was made for the construction of a new sewage lagoon for wastewater treatment in Kimmirut.
Members also urge both departments to continue lobbying the federal government for funding to upgrade Nunavut’s wastewater facilities to meet proposed new federal regulations.
On September 23, 2010, the GN issued a news release which stated that “The Department of Environment and the Department of Community and Government Services (CGS) are working together to examine Nunavut’s solid waste management practices as a whole.
CGS will take the lead on establishing a Nunavut-Wide Solid Waste Management Strategy which will involve a comprehensive review of the current state of solid waste management in the territory.
The strategy will examine a number of options for solid waste management for the territory, including recycling, incineration, [and] gasification.”
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2012-13 capital estimates documentation indicates that $2.25 million will be provided to the City of Iqaluit in block funding through the federal government’s Gas Tax Fund. Members recommend that the minister table an annual report on the city’s spending under this agreement so that all Members of the Legislative Assembly and the general public will have a clear picture of how the funds have actually been used.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates include $5 million in funding for small capital projects, which includes such items as mobile equipment repairs, community planning studies, block funding, granular programs, and spill response equipment.
Members encourage the department to clearly list the breakdown of these projects in the annual capital estimates document which is tabled in the Legislative Assembly given that they amount to approximately 15 percent of the department’s total planned spending.
Members also note the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates includes $620,000 in funding under its small capital projects budget for snow fencing in the communities of Cambridge Bay, Chesterfield Inlet, Gjoa Haven, and Repulse Bay.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2012-13 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
You will all have time to comment if the committee members want to make a statement.
However, we have to remind you of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), at the discretion of the Chair, a member may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review of the departmental estimates. At this time, we will open the floor to general comments.
Does anyone have any general comments with respect to the department?
If there are none, then we can go to the page-by-page review.
Page H-3.
This is the review of the Department of Community and Government Services. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary.
Capital Planning. (interpretation) Are there any questions on H-3?
Are you agreed that the capital estimates for 2012-13 are acceptable?
Hold on. Let’s wait a second.
We are on (interpretation ends) Capital Planning. Branch Summary.
I want to get this clarified. I represent two smaller communities as I sit here and Chesterfield Inlet and Coral Harbour are not the only small communities in Nunavut.
I want more information from the minister prior to this funding being approved.
We tend to debate the standards and criteria when we talk about recreational facilities.
How old is the plan that was submitted by Rankin Inlet, specifically where it states that it is towards a recreational complex?
In my opinion and in looking at the current situation amongst our communities with respect to large facilities, some communities have never had renovated facilities.
With respect to the standards and criteria, how old is this policy and is this policy being used at this time? I would like to understand that first, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Currently, with respect to the multiplex facilities, we don’t have any standards and criteria, but these policies will be developed eventually.
That is the reason why I question the current standards and criteria that are used for the capital planning process, including any future policies, as they don’t seem to be a good foundation, at least from the perspective of a person from a smaller community.
It is a policy to ensure that smaller communities are considered when looking at capital projects.
When we talk about standards and criteria, these smaller communities don’t even have the same type of facilities and before they get recreational facilities, the larger centres move ahead with their capital projects.
Due to this reason, I want to ask again: is it understandable or do I understand that the recreational multi-complex will be above and beyond the standards and criteria you are currently following?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Are you discussing the Rankin Inlet complex, or which facility are you referring to? Are you referring to the complex that is listed in this report?
In the days of the GNWT, the existing standards and criteria were transferred to the GN and they are almost identical, but we are working on developing standards and criteria for projects.
There are different factors, as you pointed out, between the smaller communities and larger communities. If we used the same design for all communities, then we would run into problems with larger communities complaining about the small size while other communities would have too large a facility for their population.
We also follow the wishes of the communities as it pertains to their capital project planning.
As an example, when we were consulting on the future community hall for Igloolik, we had to amend the particular building plans that we were using at that time. The end result was that the area for showcasing talent was amended and made larger to accommodate their theatrical work.
Additionally, in Grise Fiord, we worked with the hamlet to do some retrofitting on their community hall.
We basically follow the wishes of the communities. Our general goal is to try and follow the wishes of the community. That is how this was arrived at.
I want a bit more clarification on the issue of standards and criteria. Apparently we do not have standards and criteria at this time.
For this multi-purpose complex facility in Rankin Inlet that we are discussing, I want clarification on whether the standards and criteria are being used even before they are established. Is that a good foundation? That causes a problem for me.
When a facility is being planned, such as the standards and criteria for projects within the municipalities, are you proceeding even though the smaller communities have not reached that level? Some of the facilities require renovation, but getting funding is problematic. The way I see it, it is an uneven playing field and that is what I am questioning here.
Our government has stated that it will treat every community equitably and be fair.
What I am trying to voice on behalf of my communities especially is that the plans are outlined in the substantiation sheets where it states that the facility has been renovated. Some communities have not even had renovations, whether it is an arena or another facility.
Some communities have never caught up and that is why I question it.
New standards and criteria policy being developed and even prior to their completion, it seems to already be a foundation for capital projects. I would prefer that we see the previous renovation work prior to a new plan.
This seems to give communities the idea that they will never get those facilities if they follow that. So I want to raise more questions on this.
Even prior to adopting a standards and criteria policy, can you use the draft?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, I do understand where you are coming from. However, the GNWT standards and criteria were our foundation for this particular project as our own standards and criteria haven’t been completed.
We don’t want to just await the development of this, so we are trying to complete what the smaller communities wanted. Communities such as Grise Fjord and Igloolik wanted their projects. Otherwise, we would have to wait for the completion of the policy.
We try to follow the wishes and needs of the communities and we try to support the communities.
Whenever we go to a community, and to use the example that you brought up, which is the Rankin Inlet capital project, we try to ascertain what type of facility they want, such as the hockey arena, and this applies to all communities. This applies whether we go to Coral Harbour or Rankin Inlet.
We try to accommodate the needs of the communities and work on projects they have patiently awaited.
When they undertook that process in Rankin Inlet, the residents attend a public consultation meeting and they stated that a hockey arena wasn’t their only need, but they wanted a multi-plex with a community centre, a swimming pool, a gymnasium, and other facilities.
That was their vision for the future. For that reason, they added these requests into a design plan. If they were included in this plan, it would be much easier to undertake the plan.
It doesn’t state that all of these additional extensions will be constructed this summer and it doesn’t state whether these additions would even be constructed.
Within this designing process, all of the ideas submitted have been included as part of the community’s wishes, but if they were included in the overall design, it would be less expensive to start planning for these additional wishes of the residents.
To use the example of the hockey arena, if they were to have that approved, they would have to look for additional funding from other organizations as the Nunavut government is not the only funding agency. If they wanted to add a swimming pool, it would already be in the design plans of the complex. Similarly, if they wanted to add a recreation facility, all of the piping, resources, and piles would already be in the plan.
In my opinion, the residents had a good vision of what they wanted for their future and it will not add much to the design phase and the project planning.
I support the wishes of all hamlets in all of Nunavut, irrespective of whether it is a small or large community. Whenever a community is consulted about a facility, their input is added to design and plan. Whenever a public consultation is presented in your community, please go and submit your suggestions about the future design of your local facility.
This is all they are doing in this design phase, which is not occurring outside of the community plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hope that was understandable.
Mr. Ningeongan (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for his response.
I want to ask this question. I wonder whether or not the minister or one of his officials can identify how many communities have standard sized swimming pools. We are not discussing Olympic-sized pools, so if someone can identify how many communities have regular sized pools.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With respect to swimming pools, I believe there are six communities.
I can’t really delineate how many, but I believe there are five or six communities that have swimming pools.
I’m not sure exactly how many.
I just want to understand properly and I want the minister to understand that many communities don’t have facilities and some communities that have swimming pools, based on my experience, offer a seasonal swimming pool, but I know that there are not very many. I can use Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet as examples. However, Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet have swimming pools.
In the Kivalliq, we call them Nalugalaarvik.
Due to that, I wanted the minister to understand that some communities don’t even have any facilities, but other communities that already have these facilities are clamouring for larger facilities.
In that regard, the service provided by the government is not equitable. I haven’t been pushed to speak about this, whether they are from the Baffin or the Kitikmeot or even from my fellow Kivalliq residents.
As the MLA representing Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet, I can see the difference in how you treat each community.
If I use Coral Harbour as an example, I keep getting encouraged to push for a swimming pool in their community, yet we have never even reached that phase where we have a swimming pool, and then we see other communities with an existing pool requesting an Olympic-sized pool. I wonder whether the smaller communities will be considered when they request these facilities.
I noted that the minister stated that the bigger communities tend to get larger facilities, but I want him to also notice that the communities, especially the smaller decentralized communities, have never even received a swimming pool, yet other communities are requesting Olympic-sized pools. I don’t think it would really matter either way. However, with the majority of communities not even having an existing swimming pool, we already see plans for a larger swimming pool with the current standards and criteria.
I don’t think there is even a vision since it is one sided.
I prefer that we complete the standards and criteria policy and I envision that perhaps when they start using them, I would see progress.
Without the final standards and criteria policy, Mr. Chairman, the process will never treat communities equitably.
We should be completing the parameters that can be used for future facilities. We ought to be asking if the policy has been completed, at least I think that would be fairer. That is what I wanted to get clarified.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Yes, thank you.
I’m not just trying to represent Rankin Inlet, but I want you to understand, Mr. Ningeongan, that this is just a planning and design phase.
It can be used by Coral Harbour.
Since you cited the example of Coral Harbour, if the hamlet requested a swimming pool and put it into the capital plan, then the planning and design specialists would arrive in the community. That’s another option you may have.
It doesn’t state here that Rankin Inlet will get it; it just states that they are conducting a planning and design phase. If they wish to move ahead, they may be able to undertake that using private money.
I don’t think communities should just wait for government funding, especially when they are planning future facilities down the road.
As a department, we will not stop any community from requesting facilities, whether it is Pangnirtung, Rankin Inlet, or Chesterfield Inlet.
Yes, Rankin Inlet has a swimming pool and I know that for a fact because I used to be a mayor of the community.
We got a swimming pool by raising our own funds and not using any government funds.
The hamlet and the residents of Rankin Inlet raised funds to buy a swimming pool.
They didn’t wait for any government funding or design specialists.
Once they made a decision to get this facility, they were committed to getting a swimming pool. They undertook their own initiative to get it without any assistance from this department. I am proud of their efforts.
I think that’s how I see it.
Once the planning and design phase is over, whether it is an Olympic-sized pool or just a regular sized pool, if the hamlet can find the funds, let them do so.
We don’t want to stop any hamlet from trying to build their own facility if they have a long-term vision and funding available. If the government wants to provide assistance, they can do so.
Mr. Chairman, I just want to remind members that when the department officials arrived for a public meeting, the Hamlet of Rankin Inlet and the residents submitted these ideas for these facilities that they wanted included. They incorporated these ideas into the plan.
It doesn’t state here that they will be constructed this year or the next. It’s just speaking about the design plans and the planning process.
You still have some time left if you want to use it, Mr. Ningeongan.
Since I was told I have a little bit of time left, I thank you.
This other concern I have, Minister Kusugak, is that the smaller communities don’t get funding to get to the planning and design phase and operational funds to allow for a swimming pool to be utilized for the whole year.
I think part of the reason is the federal government has to contribute to infrastructure funds. If you’re trying to get a complex or recreational facility, it would be expensive, as we both know. The Government of Nunavut would contribute about 25 percent and the federal government provides 75 percent.
That’s the way things are done now. If the smaller communities were to submit 25 percent of the total cost, that is a lot of funds that poses a barrier and some communities have deficits in their budget.
Due to these reasons, in following the standards and criteria issue, has any policy been created? Are there any standards and criteria policies in your department in case any communities want a certain facility?
Do the smaller communities that don’t have large budgets for capital projects need to undertake their own initiative and finally qualify for funding? That’s what I would like to find out.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): With respect to the matter you are referring to, Mr. Ningeongan, that is good information to receive and that is what we would like to see.
However, the capital planning process we utilize today generally has problems or issues related to that process, as we have seen since we became members.
The plans that would apply to their facility should be in a new capital planning process that we have spoken about and should be incorporated into this new process if the process will be revamped.
Once it is, it could be incorporated into that process. That is why the capital planning process for smaller communities, indeed for any community irrespective of their size, should not be dependent on its size.
We’re talking about swimming pools, recreation facilities, a soccer field, or another facility.
We are aiming for the time when communities can better plan out how to obtain these facilities. I think it’s important that it’s being included.
You have a little bit of time left, Mr. Ningeongan.
Yes, I do have a little bit of time and I want to save a bit of time in case my colleagues have other questions.
I will stop there for now and I hope that my time is added to that.
Chairman (interpretation): There are still two names I have who want to comment on this issue.
I want to remind you again that we are on page H-3, but these capital plan funds are separated into pages H-4 and H-5. Perhaps we can include these pages in our review.
(interpretation ends) Capital Planning. $25,397,000. (interpretation) That is what I’m trying to remind you of on H-4 and H-5, that these are the amounts allocated on those pages.