EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They’re ongoing and we’re hoping to have them this year, or I shouldn’t say that, hopefully this year concluded.
So we do have a budget item, we’re ready to go, and we have money set aside for that.
I know for a fact that the ongoing negotiations don’t have a definite set of timelines, but have you been advised as to any counterparts or any other agencies or government levels as to what kind of timeline you would like to see implemented in order to get this project on the go to solidify the fact that these Heritage Rivers can, indeed, be recognized as such?
Mr. Monteith, through you, Mr. Chairman, can respond to the question.
Right now, the Canadian Heritage Rivers IIBA is led by Canada since it falls under their jurisdiction.
My understanding from my staff that attends those meetings is that there’s a difference in terms of the total budget that Canada has prepared to allocate for implementing the IIBA. There’s a several million difference between what NTI and the regional Inuit associations are asking and what Canada is prepared to provide.
The last I heard was that there was a meeting on September10 between NTI and the RIAs.
We’re hoping to kind of hear back from the results of that meeting, whether they’re prepared to accept Canada’s last offer. So we’re waiting.
I would like to ask a question under details of capital on page G-4 on the last item in regard to Axel Heiberg Park Development.
I just want to ask a question. Is that the designated name for the park? Who owns the park?
Is it a federal or territorial park?
The actual name of the Axel Heiberg Park is Napaaqtulik.
It’s going to be a territorial park.
The budget for last year was $400,000 and now they’re requesting for $150,000.
I would like to know how the prior year’s budget of $400,000 was utilized and if you can update us on this $150,000 on the park development.
It seems like it’s not a very high priority and some Nunavutmiut will not visit that park. Who would be visiting that park?
There are already tourists going up to the Napaaqtulik Park and we need to protect that island because people have been collecting petrified trees from that island. Once it becomes a park and if everyone is aware of it being a park, there will be tourists going up there and not just Nunavummiut will be visiting the park.
Since it has already been visited in the past, it is internationally recognized as the best area to be a park.
I’m sure that people have gone to that park. Where would they stay?
It doesn’t look like there’s hotel accommodation up there for the researchers and explorers, for prospecting, and perhaps for tourism.
If it’s not government designated, when can we see the legislation on that?
At this time, people have been going to that island and there are no accommodations available up there. I’m sure that the campers would be there with their tents and the ships have been visiting that park.
We have looked for ways of how we could develop the park better.
My last question will be this. If the park has not been fully developed yet or designated or including legislation, if it hasn’t been passed, can we get some indication of when the legislation would be introduced?
Mr. Akeeagok will respond in detail. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, we haven’t identified a time when it will be designated as a park, but we are reviewing this and expect that if this budget proposal or capital estimates are approved, then we will start developing that park within the next fiscal year and then at that time, get an approval. We are trying to consult with the communities in regard to the plan, but once this is passed, we expect to move ahead to designate it as a park.
Let me remind the members that we’re on page G-3. Mr. Elliott.
I just have some follow-up questions regarding the Axel Heiberg Island park development. I know $400,000 and $150,000 might seem like a lot of money to be spending, but I think, especially my constituents in Grise Fiord are extremely happy that the Government of Nunavut has taken the time and energy to look at the park, make sure that the boundaries are in the right place.
I know some of the concerns that have come up in the past are with, as the minister has mentioned and the deputy minister as well in terms of items being taken from the Petrified Forest. The community definitely would like to see preservation of that area.
I think that’s one of the questions I was wondering. Is there any opposition that has come forward that would be seen as a potential threat as to the park no going through?
I know that there is a set process that’s set up. There are the Inuit organizations, the Government of Nunavut, and there are other stakeholders to come to the table as well, but is there any opposition in terms of reasons why the park would not move forward?
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan)(interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott.
To date, we have not seen any opposition to this.
Again, I know that this summer, there was quite a bit of mineral exploration going on. Canada Coal was up there. In consultations that they have done, preliminary, you know, right at the start, they have contacted the communities of Arctic Bay, Resolute Bay, and Grise Fiord, and tried to hire as much as they could, in conversations I’ve had with them, people from Grise Fiord to help out with the work that went on this summer.
Is there any threat?
I know a real concern for members of the community of Grise Fiord is the idea that mineral exploration would outweigh the necessity for having that area preserved and saved.
I’ll have Mr. Monteith respond to you in detail with your indulgence.
You’re quite right. There is exploration up there specifically for coal, but this is one of the few cases where we actually received a letter from that particular company saying that they would not be going to the area of interest that we have for protecting that petrified and mummified forest.
So it’s sounding very positive to date and hopefully it stays that way.
I think my final question would be: I know the minister had mentioned that he didn’t know a specific date, but is there a ballpark figure? Is this something that will continue on for the next two years, three years?
In terms of funding, obviously, in the capital plan for 2014-18, there are no other capital dollars that are showing up.
I’m hoping that would mean that this park would come to fruition within the next fiscal year.
There will be an agreement called IIBA that has to be dealt with first. It will be worked on for approximately three years.
I have no more names on my list. We are now on page G-3.
Environment. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Program Management. Total Capital Expenditures. $3,980,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Go to page G-2. (interpretation ends) Department Summary. Environment.
Total Capital Expenditures. $3,980,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Do we agree that the Department of Environment is concluded?
Minister, if you have any closing remarks, I now give you the opportunity.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for the questions and the comments that we heard. We are now expecting for this to proceed.
I would also like to thank my officials, David Akeeagok and David Monteith.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak and your officials.
We will take a five-minute break because it’s going to be the same minister that is going to return to the witness table.
We will take a five-minute break and we will return as soon as possible while the minister is getting ready.
>>Committee recessed at 16:28 and resumed at 16:37
Chairman (interpretation): We can proceed. Thank you for returning.
I would now like to ask the Minister of Culture and Heritage, Minister Arreak, if he has any opening comments. Minister Arreak.
Bill 41 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2013-2014 – Culture and Heritage – Consideration in Committee
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The capital estimates for the Department of Culture and Heritage for the 2013-14 fiscal year is $60,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. Do you have witnesses that you would like to bring to the table?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, I do.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister. Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses in.
Thank you, Sergeant-at-Arms. Minister, for the record, please introduce your witnesses. Mr. Minister.
To my right is Simon Awa, Deputy Minister, and to my left is Regilee Adla, Director of Corporate Services.
The Standing Committee on Social Wellness has reviewed the proposed capital estimates of the Department of Culture and Heritage for the 2013-14 fiscal year, and I am pleased to provide you with the committee’s comments.
Committee members note that the department’s proposed capital budget for 2013-14 consists of $60,000 for minor projects, such as office renovations and the purchase of small equipment.
Funds such as this are necessary to support the ongoing work of departmental staff.
Mr. Chairman, as you are aware, the mandate of this department has recently undergone significant changes.
However, the department remains responsible for the conservation, protection, promotion, and enhancement of the cultural richness of Nunavut.
The standing committee has continuously supported the need for a Nunavut Heritage Centre which would allow for the repatriation of almost 150,000 cultural and historical artefacts which are currently been stored, under contract, outside of the territory.
The standing committee appreciates that the ongoing costs of such contracts are in excess of $1 million per year, which, over time, amounts to a significant expenditure.
A concern has been raised that the longer these artefacts are stored elsewhere and out of the territory, and often made available for study and research by scholars and institutes, the greater the risk of losing them permanently.
Mr. Chairman, a Nunavut Heritage Centre project was on the Government of Nunavut’s capital plan for a number of years.
Unfortunately, funding allocated to the project was consistently diverted to other projects and eventually it no longer appeared on the plan at all.
The standing committee recognizes that building a Nunavut Heritage Centre which could play a key role in supporting Nunavut’s arts and culture sector would require a significant investment in infrastructure.
With competing pressures from other high-priority infrastructure needs, a new approach must be taken to address this issue.
The standing committee calls upon the minister and his staff to investigate opportunities to repatriate Nunavut’s artefacts from other jurisdictions.
Committee members have noted that many communities maintain small museums and, with support, could possibly incorporate various repatriated items into their collections.
Initiatives such the proposed Performing Arts Centre, newly constructed educational institutions, or other government buildings may also be able to incorporate a heritage component within their design.
The standing committee encourages the minister and his officials to re-open a dialogue with organizations, such as Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Inuit Heritage Trust, to explore other avenues by which to conserve, protect, and promote Nunavut’s unique cultural history.
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Social Wellness would welcome the opportunity to review an action plan developed and brought forward by the Department of Culture and Heritage to address and propose alternative options for repatriating, preserving, and promoting Nunavut’s cultural heritage within Nunavut.
The committee notes that although the term of this Assembly may be over before aspects of such an action plan could be fully considered, members are of the view that such a plan could provide important direction for the future.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2013-14 Capital Estimates of the Department of Culture and Heritage. I am confident that individual members will have questions and comments as we proceed.
Before we begin the page-by-page review of the Department of Culture and Heritage, are there any general comments?
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Please feel welcome, Minister Arreak and your officials.
First of all, I would like to congratulate your staff. You have the most Nunavummiut employees out of all the departments and I congratulate you.
When we start going page by page, I’ll be asking questions to the minister, but I am concerned that there used to be a lot of money allotted for this department, especially to do with the heritage centre and they deleted that amount of money and there is now not very much money in the budget, capital estimates, and this is a concern of mine.
There are a lot of artefacts that are being stored outside of Nunavut, especially in Yellowknife, and it’s very expensive to keep those artefacts in Yellowknife. I am concerned about that.
That amount of $60,000 for the 2013-14 fiscal year, it doesn’t seem to be very much, but I will approve their capital estimates.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tapardjuk. Mr. Minister probably thinks that he will get his budget approved.
The artefacts are not stored just in Yellowknife alone, but there are some in Churchill, Manitoba, and perhaps in Ottawa.
We know there is a lot of old tent rings here in Nunavut and our ancestor’s artefacts and also some old graves.
When I was talking a while ago in Kugaaruk, I know that there is a lot of our heritage artefacts and they have tent rings and some of them are visible, even though some of them are visible, some that are buried beneath the ground.
I know that they’re going to find those pretty soon and the animals usually dig them up and with climate change, the permafrost is melting.
Also, there are archaeologists that sometimes come to our communities to look for artefacts.
We see on television the ad that says not to touch those artefacts, but we cannot control what the animals do and the animals also disturb those artefacts.
Are we not going to do anything about those artefacts that are on the ground?
Can we look at them and not touch them?
It is human nature to touch something and we like to pick them up.
Those types of artefacts, because it is human nature, some people pick them up, I’m sure. That’s what I think.
What are you doing with those things that are on the ground, right now, our artefacts that are around Kugaaruk area, in the Baffin region, Kivalliq region and in the Kitikmeot region? What are you doing with those artefacts that are on the ground? We don’t want to lose them.
I will be asking questions later on about them, again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the minister and his officials for appearing before us.
Just to get some information to the members, people in Baker Lake are proud to have the heritage centre in Baker Lake.
In the summer time there’s a lot of people that come into Baker Lake from all over the world by wilderness travelers, they come from Saskatchewan and Manitoba and they paddle up to the Kazan River and some of them come from Yellowknife they go through the Thelon River.
When they arrive they usually go and look at the heritage centre.
We give them interpretation of what they talk about what we have up there and I know that Culture and Heritage want to protect those heritage sites and centres because Inuit are very good at preserving things.
I just wanted to thank the minister and his officials for that.
Inuit survived and we survived in a harsh climate and we have to make sure that these types of stories or information are given to the public out there.
Can we go to page D-3?
Mr. Tapardjuk, you have a question?
The amount of money capital expenditures is $60,000 it states here that these are for furniture or minor capital budget to purchase office equipment and furniture.
That $60,000 will be used for those types of things?
I just want to get some clarification where those five positions will be going to? Or where that equipment is going to be going to?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): They are to be used for Inuktitut language services for Kugluktuk and to Iqaluit.
Just to get some clarification, I think they already have office space, my question is will they be occupying the present offices that the Culture and Heritage has?
There are already offices present for the five positions, and we just need to purchase new furniture and equipment and completion of minor renovations to existing offices.
I thank the minister, and I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to ask a question, like I said that there was $7 million allotted for a culture and heritage here in Iqaluit, a culture and heritage building in Iqaluit, but this is no longer in the budget.
As regular members, we’ve been expecting that amount of money to be spent for a heritage centre here in Iqaluit, but it didn’t happen and the question that I have, Mr. Chairman, is do you have any plans to have any funding for the heritage centre that would be built here in Iqaluit?
Just to remind you, Mr. Tapardjuk said I’m just chairing the committee.
Minister Arreak, if you can respond to the member because I think this heritage centre is very important for the people of Nunavut. The people of Nunavut would like to hear.
We expect the heritage centre to be built, but it’s not in the present capital estimates, but the House agreed to delete that amount of money that was going to be used for the heritage centre for the planning and design, it was about $120 million that was allotted for that heritage centre, but now, we don’t have any plans in place for that heritage centre during the life of this Assembly.
Mr. Tapardjuk (interpretation): Yes, thank you.
I just wanted to get clarification on that. On the Chairman of Social Wellness’ opening comments, I just wanted to quote that the historical artefacts, which are currently being stored outside of Nunavut, the Nunavut government pays an excess of $1 million per year on expenditures.
My question is; are we going to be paying capital expenditures just on the fees to house the artefacts? Isn’t it about time that the heritage centre department for next year’s capital planning that you consider having them stored in Iqaluit? Is that in the horizon for your plans?
Because there is a museum here in Iqaluit. Perhaps work with the local museum here in Iqaluit because it’s going to be very expensive to house the artefacts outside of Nunavut. I would like to hear more about that.
Mr. Chairman, if you allow me to ask that question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m sorry, Mr. Tapardjuk, it has been a long day.
Minister Arreak, I’ll allow you to respond to that question.
It’s correct that it’s going to be very expensive to house the historical artefacts outside of Nunavut especially in Yellowknife.
At this time, FMB has approved the supplementary and we’re planning for O&M in the next spring sitting.
We have to house the historical artefacts properly, they need special housing and they need to be properly stored, we don’t have a proper storage in Nunavut so that’s why they are stored over there.
Also, there are few museums in Nunavut; there’s one in Iqaluit. The community government itself here is responsible for the museum.
So, my deputy minister Mr. Awa can elaborate further.
Just to supplement the response, in Baker Lake, there’s a museum that is operated by the municipality and also here in Iqaluit, it’s operated by the city and it does not belong to the government.
As the minister stated earlier on, a heritage centre/museum… . If they are going to be housing historical artefacts, they need proper storage and they need to be maintained at proper temperature. For that reason, it’s going to be very expensive to construct a new heritage centre and the museum here in Iqaluit.
The way it is built, it is not constructed to house historical artefacts.
For that reason, although there are few museums in Nunavut, for artificial artefacts, for historical artefacts, they cannot house historical artefacts in the museums that we have in the communities.
To make sure I’m correct, we’re on page D-3, Culture and Heritage.
In my general comments, I stated that due to global warming the artefacts that are out on the tundra and old gravesites are deteriorating due to the weather.
I want support and looking at the planning and development and operation and policies, development of legislation and policy and budget coordination, I will be in support there should be some funding even though it’s capital, even though it would be very expensive so that we can house our historical artefacts.
There are stories to be told from the old gravesites.
For example, quite a few years ago in Kugaaruk, one of my daughters came to me and told me, “Father, there’s something out there.” So I followed her. My wife and children followed me, and it was overgrown.
The ground was melting and they saw something protruding out of the ground.
We saw a small knife and an arrowhead, and a small toy qamutik.
I told an elder that we saw a child’s old grave over there, and it’s an old site.
How do you know it’s an old gravesite?
Because I saw an old toy qamutik, it’s not a child’s gravesite. When the individual passed on, when he was getting sick and before he died, he knew he was going to die and was very sad about that and was a shaman.
“How do you know?” he asked me. The little toy sled means when they go to a different land, they would use this toy sled to slide so that they can forgive the curse.
That’s what it means; all the artefacts have their own stories to tell. I urge the minister to start planning for the future so that we can have a heritage centre that can actually house our own historical artefacts.
I just wanted to make that comment. It was not a question.
We’re on page D-3.
In English, Culture and Heritage.
Go back to page D-2.
Department Summary. Culture and Heritage.
Detail of Expenditures. Total Capital Expenditures. $60,000.
Do we agree that the review of the Department of Culture and Heritage is concluded?
Minister, do you have any closing remarks? You have the floor.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank my colleagues for your questions and comments.
I’m glad that you’re in support of the planned heritage centre that we keep hearing about.
Every time that we meet in our department, within our department, we keep mentioning the planned heritage centre and we would like to see a heritage centre in Nunavut.
The only way to develop that is to have full support of the members, get some outside funding from the Nunavut government, from the Inuit organizations.
If we have close relationships and support of the federal government, we can start developing the plan.
We already started the development of the plans due to lack of support out there, although we have discussed that.
Thank you for your questions.
I would like to thank Mr. Awa and Ms. Adla, as well as the people who worked on this plan.
I would like to move on before everybody gets too exhausted.
At this time, I would like to welcome and would like to ask the Speaker of the House to go down to the witness table.
Welcome, Mr. Speaker, if you have opening comments, please do so now. Mr. Speaker.
Bill 41 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2013-2014 – Legislative Assembly – Consideration in Committee
It is indeed a pleasure to appear before you and the members today to present the proposed 2013-14 Capital Estimates of the Office of the Legislative Assembly.
As members will note, the 2013-14 capital budget for the Office of the Legislative Assembly is just over $255,000.
Our priority areas for the coming fiscal year include ongoing investments in equipment and furniture for the Assembly and members’ offices, in addition to enhancements and upgrades to the Legislative Assembly’s audiovisual, Hansard and information technology systems.
As members will recall, the House approved a capital carryover in June of this year to undertake renovations and improvements to the Legislative Assembly.
This work has been necessitated by the resent passage of Bill 22, which implemented the recommendation of the independent Electoral Boundaries Commission to increase the number of Members of the Legislative Assembly from 19 to 22.