EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
These resolutions concern suicide prevention and search and rescue, both of which are issues that I have been raising during our sitting.
I would note that the resolution concerning search and rescue was moved by one of my constituents, Larry Audlaluk of Grise Fiord.
Mr. Speaker, the resolution calls on the Government of Canada to establish a search and rescue centre in Nunavut, a centre I know the community of Resolute Bay would be more than happy to accept.
Tabled Document 269 – 3(3): Federal/Provincial/Territorial Meeting of Ministers on Local Government, July 10 to 11, 2012 (Kusugak)
I am pleased to table the Provincial/Territorial Ministers’ Meeting on Local Government, July 10 to 11, 2012.
Tabled Document 270 – 3(3): Community Justice Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee April 1, 2010 to March 31, 2011 (Shewchuk)
I am pleased to table the Community Justice 2010-11 Annual Report on Victims Assistance Committee.
Motion 035 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Ningeongan)
I give notice that on Friday, November 2, 2012, I will move the following motion:
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that pursuant to the provisions of Rule 3, that when the House concludes its fall 2012 sitting, it shall be adjourned until February 26, 2013.
Motion 035 – 3(3): Extended Adjournment (Ningeongan)
Bill 45 – An Act Respecting Constituency Names and Superannuation of Certain Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Hudson Bay, that Bill 45, An Act Respecting Constituency Names and Superannuation of Certain Independent Officers of the Legislative Assembly, be read for the first time.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bills 41, 42, and 43 with Mr. Enook in the Chair.
>>House adjourned at 14:57 and Committee resumed at 15:24
I would now like to call the committee meeting to order. We will continue from yesterday.
We wish to continue with the review of Bill 41, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2013-2014, and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the departments of Education, Environment, Culture and Heritage, and, if time permits, the Legislative Assembly.
Do we agree that we will continue with the capital estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation?
Minister Taptuna would you like to have your officials sit with you at the witness table?
Chairman (interpretation): Does the committee agree that the minister’s officials go to the witness table?
Sergeant-at-Arms if you can assist the officials.
Thank you Sergeant-at-Arms.
Minister Taptuna for the record could you introduce your officials.
On my right I have Deputy Minister Bob Long and on my left Methuselah Kunuk, Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation.
Yesterday we finished with the opening remarks of the minister and the chairman of the committee of the whole was completed and then we reported progress then.
We are now in general comments in regard to Economic Development and Transportation, any general comments?
It’s not in the minister’s opening comments but just for consideration I would like to talk about.
I asked a question in regard to the question that I made in my members’ statement and my oral question, in regard to the airport shelters for Chesterfield Inlet and other communities.
I just wanted to make a comment about my communities were informed that whenever they sent out the request for proposal the department said it was too expensive and contractors did not for about three or four years, they figured that it was too expensive so they did not try again to do a contract.
So for that reason so that we would have someone to construct the things that we want done in the communities I would like to be, if there’s going to be a request for proposal, maybe we can get the information to the Legislative Assembly and then ask for request for proposals for those projects that have not been completed.
Because some of the construction that was going to be done in my community and other communities, they have to wait to have their projects completed.
I just wanted to urge the minister that if there’s any construction that has to be done from capital estimates.
I just want to make sure that this is done Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Under general comments this has been commented on before but in ministers opening statements or the opening comments of the committee chair.
The Rankin Inlet information tourism room, they talk about it a little bit, that there use to be about $700,000 budgeted for that visitors centre.
It was suppose to be finished last summer but when we get to the details of the capital I will be asking questions on that.
I know that there was $2.5 million allotted for Rankin Inlet, I am not really sure exactly for that visitors centre at the airport perhaps.
I just wanted to know weather that $700,000 will be included in that budget of economic development and transportation.
Chairman (interpretation): General comments.
If there are no general comments, I just want to remind members that we’re on page I-3.
Transportation. Total Capital Expenditures. $20,075,000.
Under my members’ statement I mentioned about the chairman of our committees comments there was $700,000 last year for the tourism information centre in Rankin Inlet.
I just wanted to know, I think, it’s under item 4, $26 million.
Can the minister give me information, what states that tourism information centre at the airport what state is it in now in Rankin Inlet.
I’ll have Deputy Minister Long respond to that question in detail.
The $700,000 is planning money for that visitors centre. It is not to actually build it and that work is underway.
Like I said earlier, the chairman of our standing committee of ED&T did indicate that there was $700,000. I do recall that it was specific last year that the design and planning phase would be completed by the summer of 2011, I believe, and now we’re one year later.
Having heard that the work is underway, can the minister indicate exactly when the design and planning phase will be completed.
We don’t have that information in front of us, but we will make every effort to inform the committee on the process of that and the status of that.
I think that the minister is really quite well aware that if you don’t provide details, it’s difficult to approve project plans through this House.
Having said that, it is really quite important whether or not the plans includes independent, separate, standalone tourism information sent and proposed, or will it be incorporated into airport as it was before?
As I indicated, I’ll provide the committee member and the chair of the committee with the information on the status of it.
The allocation that was in last year’s budget was the commitment towards the tourism industry because the region is significant.
Rankin Inlet, particularly, is a hub for that region and gets service only coming into that region from Winnipeg and other locations east and west.
Having said that, why is it not your priority to proceed with the visitor tourism centre in Rankin Inlet?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley Minister Taptuna.
Mr. Chairman, at times, there is a lot of priorities within the government, including our department, as you know in Rankin Inlet, the airport has been a priority because of traffic going into Rankin Inlet both from industry and the public.
It’s one of the things that have taken up a lot of time from our staff in trying to accommodate all of the traffic going through Rankin Inlet.
Within our tourism strategy that we’re hoping to table soon, tourism is one of our priorities, for sure, within our department.
I’m not sure whether it’s a priority.
You cannot indicate or convince this House that it is a priority when this amount of $700,000 that was in last year’s budget simply disappeared. Has it been rolled into other projects?
I’ll have deputy minister Long respond in detail to that.
Ms. Long: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The money has not disappeared. If it was not completely spent last year, then it would be carried forward as capital carried forward. The work will be completed and the money will not be lost.
Mr. Curley: Can the minister confirm and assure this House that you will provide further details about the nature of the project during the winter session?
Yes, I assure the member yes.
My question is on the opening remarks as well.
The minister knows that two years have passed, and we had something to do with building houses and it had to be carried over.
I wanted to say that when the public/private partnership began in Iqaluit, maybe if we can get the minister to tell us that we don’t want carryovers as much as possible.
Are we protected from having carryovers again and again so that we don’t have to spend way more than what is allotted?
At times some of these projects and things that we want to do at the department has some unforeseen glitches in them. We do our best to make sure some of these projects are carried through on a timely basis. Then again, we do arrive to some of these unforeseeable circumstances that prevent us from completing some of these projects that we talk about throughout our planning processes.
In most cases, Mr. Chairman, the member is right.
Some of these costs do escalate when they’re not completed. At the same time, we can control some of these things that do happen within some of these projects that we’re trying to do.
For that reason, we are the ones that approve or reject the budget. There was a motion a while ago that we need more information when you’re drafting your capital estimates.
The people that live in the communities have to understand clearly what the government is doing in spending capital money.
Mr. Chairman, while I am in the opening remarks, I don’t usually say thank you, but I would like to say the runway inspection vehicles talks about having one in Coral Harbour, a compactor and loader for Chesterfield Inlet. I am very happy to see that in the capital estimates. We will be expecting that.
I didn’t hear a question. That was just a comment.
Mr. Chairman, after we had our standing committee meeting in September, I wrote a letter to the minister requesting some information and some other items. I was hoping to get a reply to that letter before this meeting today.
Can the minister indicate when we will get a response to my letter?
Can the committee member clarify the question, please?
Chairman: Please clarify, Mr. Rumbolt.
On September 27, I wrote a letter to the minister after our standing committee meeting. We were requesting various information based on some questions that were asked in the standing committee meeting, such as why the Iqaluit airport will be getting a wobbly wheeler when they don’t have gravel runways. We also asked about navigational issues and some other issues in the letter.
If the minister does not have a copy of the letter, I can provide it to him later.
Minister Taptuna.  Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll have my Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation respond to that question in detail.
We looked into Mr. Rumbolt’s letter as to why Iqaluit has to have a wobbly wheeler.
They were going to acquire one from Rankin Inlet to have the wobbly wheeler here because they have to use a wobbly wheeler according to Transport Canada.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Kunuk. Mr. Rumbolt.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Also, during our standing committee meeting, there was some talk about the use of 24 automated weather stations in the communities. Can the minister give us an update today on what the plans for automated weather systems in our communities?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. Minister Taptuna.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, there has been no decision made. There are still in discussions with NAV Canada.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. Mr. Rumbolt.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Another question that came up during our standing committee meeting was the use of airport equipment by the municipalities. It seems that when airports want the use of loaders or dozers from the municipality, they seem to be able to get them fairly easily.
When the municipalities want the use of the grater in the community, it seems very difficult to obtain.  Can the minister explain the official policy on the use of airport equipment in the communities?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. Please explain, Minister Taptuna.
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation respond to that question. Thank you.
Mr. Kunuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the cases where we don’t really have equipment in the communities, we have been using local hamlet equipment to do some of our maintenance at the airports. At the same time, when we have equipment, we allow the community to use our equipment in the community if they need it.
I’m a little bit surprised to hear that, but I’m going to have to follow it up if we’re giving them a hard time to using our equipment.
I know that for construction purposes, we have not been allowing our equipment if they’re going to be used for construction. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the past, I’ve voiced concerns about the equipment shelter at the airport in Sanikiluaq. I’m just wondering if you can give us an update today on whether this building is up to par at this time or not?
Hon. Peter Taptuna: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have Mr. Kunuk respond to that question. Thank you.
Mr. Kunuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we had taken a little bit of time on that.
Initially, it was a little bit more costly than we expected. We had to do inspections and how it’s going to be repaired. Now that we know how much it’s going to cost, we’re going to be doing that next year using some of the Nunavut’s airport O&M budget.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Kunuk. We are still under I-3. Economic Development and Transportation.
I think the minister knows that in Repulse Bay, the air terminal, sometimes we call it air shelter; it’s one of the newest airports. I think it was in the five-year plan. It’s one of the oldest airports in Nunavut.
Did you know that, minister? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’ll have Mr. Kunuk respond to that question in detail.
Yes, we know that Repulse Bay really needs an airport. It’s one of the oldest shelters.
We are trying our best, we have not forgotten it.
Maybe once the Taloyoak Airport work has been completed… .
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): Also, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Kunuk, I know that in Taloyoak the air terminal is being worked on and the place that the air terminal is near completion in Taloyoak because I usually pass through on my way home to Kugaaruk.
I hope that the Repulse Bay airport next time they do any planning because you already know about it, the condition it’s in. I thank you for recognizing that it’s one of the oldest air terminals. I hope it’s going to be worked in the plan for Repulse Bay.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Your comments are heard.
We’re on I-3. It’s written in English. They are planning under policy and planning.
In the information you had stated that Nunavut and Manitoba would get a highway.
On September 1, 2010, our government and the people that they are partnering, consultants and I’m wondering how much money you’re going to support that the people can use all year round, while the minister is here I’m just wondering what status that is in because I know you had spoken to consultants or your department, I’m wondering how you are supporting this.
There’s a planned meeting of deputy ministers on what we call the Churchill Task Force and this involves a lot of other partners that are out there.
This planned meeting is going to be happening next week and this is to help us engage on what the real issues are and how this planning is going to take place.
I’ve indicated to the Minister of Transportation that this is happening and we did table the feasibility plan of the Nunavut/Manitoba road and I had indicated that we are going to be approaching and talking about this Manitoba-Nunavut road infrastructure and hopefully put in on the table to the federal government.
At this time, the member knows that once this infrastructure is done there’s all kinds of opportunities for Nunavummiut, especially in the Kivalliq region, to take advantage of all the economic activity it brings.
It’s not only the economic activity; it has the potential to bring in power supply at a lower cost, which brings down cost living for people in the Kivalliq region.
At this time, we don’t have a set amount of funding to either put out there for discussion.
There is nothing at this time.
I know we’re done with opening comments, but I recall the minister saying that the department looks at long-term efficiency of the freight operations in the Kivalliq and Kitikmeot regions.
In speaking informally with various levels and representatives from Manitoba, they had indicated that there would be a great partnership with Nunavut in order to create an all-weather road.
Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated about the status of it. I wanted to ask as well that the department has not allocated capital funding in this area since June of 2007 when the Legislative Assembly approved a capital carryover to fund an earlier Manitoba-Nunavut Road study.
Will your department require funding for this new cost benefit study?
That’s why initially the process is started for the meeting with interested partners, and other deputy ministers of other jurisdictions.
This will determine on what the next steps are going to be. At this time this government does not have money for shelters and this and that, let alone $1.6 billion road infrastructure from Manitoba into the Kivalliq region.
This initial meeting will establish some of the working points for how we’re going to proceed so that we can move that project forward.
As a formality while we’re in the subject of Nunavut airports.
I wanted to ask the minister; maybe some of my colleagues will recall that this issue was raised in June of last year in the Legislative Assembly, that approximately $12 million was approved in capital carryovers for the department. The majority of these carryovers were for airport-related projects.
I wanted to ask what factors are causing the department to carryover so many projects from year to year.
The capital carryovers are one of the things that are necessary for the department to do to continue on with our planned projects. It does not really hinder us in our future planning, but it does create a little bit of a backlog.
I just hope that we can continue improving the transportation services in Nunavut. As you know, there are people that do access the food mail service program, as well as travelling. Airports are an essential means of travel, as we only fly-in communities, as well.
I’m sure my colleagues from Pangnirtung, Kimmirut, Qikiqtarjuaq, as well as Baker Lake would like to know that there was a number of capital carryover projects related to airports.
Mr. Chairman, I wanted to ask if the department anticipates any addition new major airport projects that will be added to your department’s capital planning in the next two or three years? If so, which communities?
Yes, one of the bigger projects is, of course, the Iqaluit International Airport under the P3 model.
I’ll have my Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation respond to the other parts of the question.
Yes, we’re constantly looking at all of the airports to see if any improvements are required. Not only that, also Transport Canada to do their inspections every year. We do inspections twice a year as well, winter and summer.
All the things that require improvements in order to meet the regulations of Transport Canada, we do put them in the list of things that have to be improved.
Some of them might not come through with our regular capital plan process. If they are qualified under ICAP, that’s how we try to get the money, through ICAP as well for some of those projects.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you very much.
I just want to ask as well if the department has identified which communities would be expecting projects to come about in the next two to three years, and which communities they would be.
I’ll have the Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation respond to that.
I know that we have airstrip improvements in some communities and lighting improvements as well, but at this point, I don’t have a list of who is next on the list.
I’ll have to get back to the member on that.
As a reminder, we are on page I-3 and I-4. You can ask questions under those two pages.
I have a comment to make to the minister and a question afterwards regarding my community or Pangnirtung.
I believe that there’s more and more communities that are coming to the same situation. I believe Pangnirtung was on the priority list a few years ago because, of course, our airstrip is right in the middle of the community.
Under airport improvements, there is nothing that has been set aside for dust suppression in Pangnirtung, and dust suppressors are needed.
Every time a plane lands and takes off, dust flies all over the community, on to the houses and on to the people and everywhere.
We have made requests to put that under expenditures.
Something has to be done about the suppression of dust and mud.
It says here the assistant deputy minister is responsible for that and the policies and planning.
Is our community included in the airport improvements and requirements such as dust suppressors and so on? That’s why I’m asking the question.
Is it included in the capital items? That’s my question.
I hear the members’ concern and yes, this issue that he is bringing forth is under O&M, so at this time, we have not prepared to discuss that.
I was wondering if it was going to be under capital projects, if it’s under O&M then I would assume that we would have that kind of project going for half the summer.
The reason why I brought it up was because I thought it was a capital requirement so that I will be able to have that kind of project on the airstrip for the whole time that it is required.
I thank the minister and I’m very glad that we can get all types of aircraft landing in Pangnirtung but at times there’s violations of air regulations.
At times, if they can’t land they should have a leeway if they can’t land properly on the airstrip there should be enough room for them to either be able to go onto the side either left or right.
If there is no leeway for the airplanes is that a breach or a violation of any regulations?
I’ll have assistant deputy minister Kunuk respond to that.
First of all, regarding the dust suppressors, it has been used and we have done that in Pangnirtung and in other communities, for example Repulse Bay, but we have to make sure that we keep a close eye on the products that are being used to make sure that we get the best possible product.
This is under O&M.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): The other question, Mr. Chairman, I forgot what it was but we can’t really do much about the present airstrip right now in Pangnirtung but we have done some studies on looking at other locations where we can relocate the airport.
We have not come to any conclusions yet.
Mr. Oshutapik anything else?
The people of Pangnirtung are watching the proceedings and I’m sure that they’re listening and now know that there are no definite results coming out of the relocation of the study and violation of regulations.
If that’s the case, since the airstrip was built and since we started air regulations we know that we’ll never fix the problem as it is today.
We have made repeated requests and nothing concrete has come out of it.
I don’t have anything else to add on capital issues and thank you for those responses and I know that we are not going to give up on our request.
During our proceedings, I asked a question and I would like to make reference to it again regarding the airport equipment shelters.
When are the communities going to be informed about getting airport equipment shelters?
When can we expect to get an update on that issue?
I will get that status report immediately to the committee and the committee members.