EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have on my left, Alex Campbell, Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
On my right, Methuselah Kunuk, Assistant Deputy Minister specifically for Transportation.
In case the three of us don’t know any of the answers, we have standing by Irene Adams there, Acting Director of Corporate and Strategic Services.
Please turn to page K-5 in your capital estimates book.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the chairman, a member may speak more than once to the 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 department estimates.
Thank you to the minister and his officials for coming.
I will keep my comments short.
I believe the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation has a huge, huge, huge job ahead of him.
I am thinking of all of the infrastructure development we are going to need for economic development if we want to get things going in Nunavut, and that is the state of priority.
So, I think I would like to hear some discussion on the idea of public-private partnerships, otherwise known as P-3s.
The minister talked about, since September, how they were working on an infrastructure policy.
So, I would like to hear some more on that, and I would like to hear a little bit about how the minister and his department are going to attract infrastructure funds or investments in Nunavut, because I think that is going to be very, very important in the next three to four years.
I would like to also state my general comments.
I would like to thank the minister and his officials in dealing with his Department of Economic Development and Transportation, and I would like to welcome Mr. Campbell and Mr. Kunuk.
The comments that you made, Mr. Minister, about the airport terminals in Pond Inlet, Gjoa Haven, and Coral Harbour... . I would like for them to be successfully renovated or extended.
What I wanted to say was that the federal government’s strategic infrastructure fund for Nunavut... . I wonder why they are nickel and diming us in Nunavut.
The Yukon government and the Northwest Territories government, while they have so many millions and millions of dollars yet they are asking for infrastructure funding, but in Nunavut, even where there is an infrastructure fund, they just seem to be giving us nickels and dimes.
Only the 35 groups, I don’t know who they are, are the ones that are benefiting from the infrastructure fund.
They have not been doing any consultations in all of the communities or in all of the territories; I wonder if there could be something done better.
What I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that I have seen them.
I have seen what I am talking about.
I can’t table them.
They have so much money for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.
They’re on the mainland, but in communities such as Nunavut, there has to be an interlocking system; $50 million in Rankin Inlet, but we have to get support in order for us to get it.
That’s good as far as I’m concerned. That’s what we need to do, but I think we have to really be vigorous with the federal government because some of them don’t have any bridges over the rivers.
When trying to cross them with four-wheelers, especially in Baker Lake and Coral Harbour, there are bridges there, but that’s just the beginning.
In the summertime, it’s very hard to get from one location to another.
I wanted to find out about the strategic planning.
We have to get a little bit stronger with the federal government and request the terminals and other things that we have to build in Nunavut.
I know, in regards to docking facilities, we’re doing them bit-by-bit and not all at once, but if we can get them all at once, it would be a lot better.
Those are the comments that I have at this time, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the minister and his officials.
There is not a lot of funding for this department.
They’re going to have to do a lot of work.
I would also like to briefly make the comment, like Mr. Curley mentioned, that we have to be able to request more funding from the strategic infrastructure funding, because the federal government makes available to aboriginal people funding for infrastructure for highways and roads and stuff like that.
I think there was about $6 million allotted to them but we did not get one penny of that.
Like Mr. Curley said, we are just getting nickels and dimes.
We need a lot more money than that because the population of Nunavut is growing and we need more of those deep-sea facilities, too, for fisheries, because there are a lot more fisheries than before.
We have no infrastructure such as those things.
If we want to see economic development in Nunavut, we have to ask for more funding.
Even the community docking facilities that are used for canoes and boats and other stuff, we cannot even access them because we don’t have a safe harbour.
The thing is that especially within the past five years, there have been some Peterheads that have been banned from transporting materials from down South because of the restricted regulations and stuff.
There are all kinds of things, such as the Nunavut-Manitoba road, that could benefit the people of Nunavut in regards to transportation.
We don’t have any funding for such things.
We requested funding from the federal government and we never see it.
For those kinds of things, I think we have to have more ideas and be able to rigorously ask the federal government to be equal to those other two territories, because they get a lot more and they’re in the highway system.
I think the minister should vigorously ask his federal counterparts for this funding.
Welcome, Mr. Minister and your officials.
The business of economic development in Nunavut has to be heard for people that would like to have their business.
They need to start developing their own economy in Nunavut.
Some of the people that request that funding are unilingual, in Inuktitut, and they can’t really make an appeal or they can’t fill out an application because they don’t read English.
Then, when they get denied their request and asked to go to another person, they just start to give up.
We also need some deep-sea facilities because I found out, last summer, when there were people that went to my community that had a difficult time, that when the ship comes in they can’t really unload; they have to go Greenland in order to unload their cargo.
Those deep-sea facilities should be available here in Nunavut.
It would really avoid the high cost of flying from one community to another in Nunavut.
As well, the minister talked about the $90 million that is coming to Nunavut, but 10 percent of that is already spoken for by the federal government to do something else.
I think we have to really stress to the federal government that we need this; even though the $9 million is not much, it helps out a great deal.
Like my good friend said, in order to have more ideas to achieve our dreams, we need to get more funding from the federal government.
I would also like to welcome the minister and his officials.
Mr. Curley briefly mentioned, and I would like to support him in saying... . I know that in the western arctic they are making roads up to Tuktuyaktuk.
I think that we have to start making a road network to and from the communities.
This way, we wouldn’t have to pay high prices for all the merchandise that comes into our communities because of the high cost of flying in and out of the communities.
Also, all of the communities in Nunavut should have a docking facility, especially the two communities that I represent.
One of them has a docking facility, but it is being used by a company and cannot be used by the local residents.
It creates a problem for them.
I just want to echo some of the issues raised by some of my colleagues.
This department has a tremendous challenge that they have to face over the next few years, not only in economic development and transportation.
I think we are on the eve of a boom in development for mining and gas and exploration, that whole sector, and I believe we need to make sure that we’re ready in Nunavut to benefit from that.
That goes in the way of infrastructure.
A road link was mentioned, maybe a rail link, improved port facilities.
Things like that, I think, would allow us to capitalize more on opportunities that are going to be made available in the next five to ten years.
As acknowledged before from my other members here, those types of mega projects, we cannot afford to do them on our own.
I think we need to work collectively to try and find a way to convince our counterparts in the South and in Ottawa to see it as a sound investment for them.
I think one way of doing that is to get support from our provincial counterparts, as well, in lobbying for these things.
As our economy grows, their economy grows.
Everything that we have up here comes from down South, either Alberta, Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario, Newfoundland, everything that we have comes from down there.
If we grow and prosper, it only stands to reason that the economies in those jurisdictions will grow and prosper as well.
I think that would be a good angle to use in soliciting support from your counterparts at that level.
Having good transportation links, and one of the things that I’ve heard over the last number of years up here is the incredibly high cost of construction.
I think if you had better facilities for the unloading of ships and sealift supplies, and a quicker turn-around time, you also open up the potential for backhaul stuff that could greatly reduce the transportation costs incurred by government and the homeowners and everybody.
If they have something that they can haul out, then they’re getting revenues both ways, and if they can do it twice as quickly, then their costs are cut in half as well.
So, I think that that’s something that we need to look at, as well, and take into consideration when we’re looking at different options and arguments to our counterparts in the South to put in some money, because I know we can’t do it by ourselves.
I guess having said that, Mr. Chairman, that’s pretty much it for now.
I will have a couple of questions that I’ll be asking at the appropriate time.
Are you ready to go line by line?
K-6, Economic Development and Transportation.
Total, headquarters region, $ 25,000. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): In this division and in the headquarters and as part of your responsibilities, when the funding proposals are made by the federal government, I’m sure that you’ve applied for the strategic infrastructure funding.
In the federal contributions ratio, could you give us an idea of how or what the ratio is?
Chair (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley.
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): At this time, we have an agreement with the federal government, and it’s 66.6 percent for the strategic infrastructure fund and 50 percent for the communications fund.
That is the agreement we have with the federal government.
I am sorry, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Kunuk, welcome. (interpretation ends) Details of Capital.
Total, headquarters region, $25,000. Total, grants and contributions, $25,00.
Chairman: Page K-7, Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Total, headquarters region, $75,000.
Total, tangible assets, $75,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Page K-8, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, grants summary.
Transportation, go to K-9. (interpretation) Any questions?
Mr. Alagalak: I want to ask a short little question here on K-8 and K-5.
Over the last year, there have not been any funds available for upgrades of computers and hardware and so forth.
What do you have for equipment, is that through your department?
That is part of our operations and maintenance budget for the main estimates of 2005-06.
Are you satisfied with the answer?
Thank you, Mr. Alagalak.
K-9, do you agree?
Sorry. (interpretation ends) Grants and contributions.
Total, Kitikmeot region, $100,000, total, grants and contributions, $100,000.
This part is of great importance in the Kitikmeot region.
I don’t know if the members have heard the numbers being tossed about in the work that the Kitikmeot corporation and the department is doing, but we are talking about a $168 million infrastructure project, a deep-sea port and road, and it’s probably in the regulatory process before Nunavut Impact Review Board.
One hundred thousand dollars doesn’t seem like a lot of money.
It is. I am sure the Kitikmeot really appreciates it, but the bigger issue is going to come down the road when the Kitikmeot tries to find or raise $168 million.
This is where I wanted to ask the minister if he has given any thought to private-public partnerships and how the Kitikmeot, not only the Kitikmeot, but the other regions who are working on similar projects, are going to be able to raise the financing to move ahead with these projects, since we are putting a lot of investment at the front end, study money.
If the minister could answer that question, please.
Yes, P3s are definitely one very good possibility for what you want to do in Nunavut.
There is no way that we could come up with the money ourselves to do what we need to do.
There is no way that the federal government is going to fund all that we need to do in Nunavut.
The private sector is going to have to come up with the lot of the money.
Whether we borrow that money from the private sector or not is, again, something we’re going to have to take a very serious look at.
But the whole infrastructure proposal that you’re putting together right now is based on the premise that the private sector is going to really help us along on developing that infrastructure.
We’re looking very seriously at a joint ventureship between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nunavut, and the private sector; the Bathurst Inlet road and port, just as an example.
But for the infrastructure that we’re looking at for all of Nunavut, P3s are definitely one possibility.
Mr. Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Simailak.
The minister commented on the infrastructure proposal that the department is working on.
Could you shed some more light on the work you’re doing on that proposal and how your discussions are going in Ottawa to ensure there is support for infrastructure projects in Nunavut and the Kitikmeot?
Hon. David Simailak: The proposal that we’re working on right now is looking at all the infrastructure needs for Nunavut over the next five years.
Let me say that we’re going to need to build to support in the various industries, be it mining or fishing or whatever the industry is, be it tourism or the arts and crafts industry.
Let’s say, look at a five year window.
And no, discussions have not yet started with the federal government on that five year proposal, but we’ll be starting up very soon, as soon as we finalize the proposal that we’re rapidly working on.
We are working on it as quickly as we can, because it is top priority, as far as I’m concerned.
Back 1998-99, the Kitikmeot Corporation retained the services of two internationally renowned economists to develop a model to project the benefits of major infrastructure projects like this in Nunavut.
They cost-evaluated mainly on the Bathurst Inlet road and port project, and their work shows that if this included an IDOT project, which was just used for Lupin, that there could 17,000 person years employment generated over 15-20 years, not just for Nunavummiut but for all of Canada.
And they’re projecting that it’ll be a $2 billion increase to the GDP of Nunavut and Canada, so it will be a significant impact on all of Canada.
I was listening to the federal throne speech earlier this fall, when it was mentioned that Ottawa wanted to help folks in the North develop their economic development potential.
These are the kinds of things, as my colleague Hunter Tootoo mentioned earlier in his comments, that we have to show that Nunavut can have a significant impact and can contribute greatly to not only to our economy but to the economies of the southern provinces.
I’m sure Alberta gets a great amount of business from the Kitikmeot, Manitoba gets a lot from the Kivalliq Region, and Quebec gets a lot of business from the Baffin.
So, we have to show, through this kind of work models and proposals, that Nunavut can have a huge impact on the rest of Canada, and I encourage the minister to keep up that work.
We have to raise our profile and keep hammering away and making that point with the decision makers in Ottawa.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman....
Just to comment on that, I agree with you totally on what you’re saying there.
That is actually a very strong message that we sent to Ottawa from the Northern Development Minister’s Annual Conference that we just had in Chibougamou, Quebec, just a few short weeks ago, because every northern jurisdiction knows and has proven time and time again, that what’s good for the North is good for the rest of Canada.
As was mentioned earlier, everything we have in Nunavut comes from the South.
Any money that comes into Nunavut, we know most of it ends up back in the South.
What we need to do is to find a way for that dollar to go around Nunavut a few times before it heads south.
So, yes, I agree totally with everything you said there.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Simailak.
To make a supplementary to my colleague’s comments, in regards to the throne speech... . It seemed like in the throne speech, they said that it was over and above.
It was economic, social, and all aspects where they would be giving more support financially, over and above what is required.
Did your department look into this?
It’s obvious that we have to.
I don’t think that this government should just focus on a five-year plan.
We have to look at transportation.
We have to look at mining development.
Then, if we talk about transportation, there is so much potential in the Keewatin.
It’s not only the Manitoba-Keewatin road, and because of that, when we’re talking about the strategic plan, I think we have to do something else, like consultations for the economic forum.
I don’t even know who those people are.
We have to have an entity that will focus all their time and have the freedom to focus on what’s going to be happening 10, 20, 30 years from now.
We have to look at a long-term plan and see what the road network is going to be up in Nunavut.
We have to look at the road network because of the extremely high cost of living and the ever-increasing airfare.
We can’t rely solely on that anymore.
It is placed as a high priority in our department, and we are having ongoing discussions with the mining developers on the Keewatin-Manitoba road.
This week I will be having a meeting with the Cumberland representatives to talk about a road that has to be built outside of Baker Lake in order to provide services to the developers.
In the Keewatin, there is the shipping route and these roads, but they are ongoing discussions in developing infrastructure and transportation requirements in Nunavut.
We will need the support of the members of the Legislative Assembly.
At the current time our staff and the required personnel are available to make sure that whatever was announced at that meeting is implemented.
I am very hopeful that we will see those major developments coming out in Nunavut.
Go back to K-9, details of capital.
Total for the Kitikmeot region, $100,000.
Total, grants and contributions, $100,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. K-10.
Headquarters region, $580,000.
I want to ask Minister Simailak about access roads.
It seems that figure has never changed for Coral Harbour and Chesterfield Inlet; that figure remains the same.
So, we can’t make an access road that goes further.
It limits our ability to extend the access roads.
If we had more funding, we would be able to extend the access roads.
I am wondering if there can be increases made to this figure, or is this is the maximum figure, because it definitely is not sufficient.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Netser.
The access road program, the $150,000, is definitely not enough.
Ever since Nunavut was formed we have been accessing funds for access roads.
There were more communities that requested funding for access roads and we have used up the $150,000.
Ideally, we would like to use more.
The Department of Transportation definitely requires more funding because we have to support those programs.
Before this is increased, we have to stick with that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Simailak.
The infrastructure program, is that where the work for the airports come into play, or is that through a different program?
Hon. David Simailak: The Strategic Housing Infrastructure Program is a partnership program with the federal department of transport, and that is the money that we used to build the three terminals buildings that we are building right now: one in Pond Inlet, one in Coral Habour, and one in Gjoa Haven.
This is the final year of a five-year agreement that we have with them.
We have just started discussions to re-negotiate the agreement for another five years.
We are hoping that we will be able to negotiate a lot more than what we’ve been getting in the last five years.
It was last spring I asked some questions about the work that was supposed to be done to the airport here in Iqaluit.
There was a master plan, and it had all kinds of safety concerns.
With all the new regulations that are coming in, there are also a lot more regulatory requirements that our terminal doesn’t meet.
We found out today they can handle terrorists in town here, no problem.
I’m just wondering, is there a listing?
I was told at that time that the work here was supposed to be coming up next year, and I’m just wondering if and when we can expect to see that work being done here.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Tootoo.
It’s true, and it would be substantially expensive.
We had asked the federal government for an airport strategic plan and it was included, Iqaluit was included in there.
So, at this time I don’t know exactly how much funding will be made available.
If I could just add to that.
Yes, there are new security regulations that have come in, and we have to enhance the security at the airport to meet the Canadian Transport Air Security Authority Class II requirements.
There is a whole new security system that has to be installed, including x-raying all luggage going south, and that includes any luggage that comes in from outside Iqaluit that is also going south.
All of that work has to be completed by October, 2005.
I’ve just had a full briefing on it a couple of days ago at the airport, and it looks like we will be able to do it.
But all of that upgrading will be funded entirely by CATSA.
I know the master plan identified a number of safety concerns, including the size of the apron.
I remember a few years back when a plane came in here and its wing clipped off the fuel line on one of the pumps out there.
There’s just not enough room anymore.
Given the fact that the government has been made aware of this, is there at the airport, in the event of a disaster, or an unfortunate incident as they call them in the airline business, and given the fact that the government was aware of these conditions, is there any possibility for any liability to be flung towards the government?
Are we going to be on the hook because these things aren’t done?
Hon. David Simailak: There are two issues that we are discussing here.
I think there is, first of all, the immediate need to upgrade the security system, when it comes to luggage, that we have to have installed by October 2005.
That’s one issue that we are working on right now and that will be funded entirely by CAPSA.
The other is the Iqaluit airport master plan itself.
That’s a project that’s going to cost over $40 million.
The terminal, where it is located right now, with the buildings that are located around it right now, was designed to have only one jet aircraft parked outside the terminal at any given time.
There are times at our airport when we find as many as five or six jet aircraft around the terminal building, and that’s totally against regulations.