EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Are you beginning those kinds of conversations now or have they not taken place or are they completed?
We are not dealing with that matter currently, as this was just started with planning for additional work in the next fiscal year, perhaps in the fall and not August, as per my earlier statement. It started in August two years ago, but we anticipate that it will be completed by fall 2017 with final work done.
This site has a 30-year lifespan for the airport. We will work on that for the foreseeable future to reach the full capacity of the airport.
Furthermore, although I can’t provide details as it is under the purview of the Minister of Education through the (interpretation ends) student residence (interpretation) that you referred to, as that is under that department, we would have to debate that with them as it is currently in use.
Perhaps the Minister of Education can provide more details on that matter.
I think we spoke to the Minister of Environment before, and I think there are some contaminated sites that I believe are under Environment. Is this one of the sites?
With your involvement with other departments, has it been determined which other departments, other than Arctic College? North 40 is not just the old Ukiivik; it’s actually a bigger land area.
Yes, I understand the issue being referred to in the question. With respect to the airport project, we requested additional funding for the clean-up of certain areas of the airport prior to paving the runway.
This had to be done and we had to negotiate with the Department of Environment and the federal government to ensure that our government wasn’t the only one funding the clean-up, especially since the land was owned by another government previously.
Ongoing work will be required, including negotiating with the different levels, to deal with any environmental clean-up related to that project.
Thanks for that response. I want to go to a different document and I’m going to the Nunavut Airports 20-Year Infrastructure Needs Assessment. I just want to note that you didn’t mention it anywhere in your opening comments or anything and it seems to be such a substantial document.
It’s got lots of information on it. I’m going to be the first one to admit that this is a new area for me. I haven’t worked in the area of airports and that, but I did find it a very interesting read.
What I found interesting too was that it states in here that the GN is the airport manager for every airport, so you guys, the department, and I think it even makes reference to... .
I forget where I read that now, but the deputy minister is the “accountable executive.” You have a lot of responsibilities on your shoulders.
This report has a lot of information about lots of things, really, about the needs and the consequences of not fulfilling some of those needs, but I don’t see a reference to it in your opening comments.
It seems to be such an important document, but it’s not in here.
One of the things that I read in here, it talks about current deviations for operating certificates. Of course I’m no pilot.
I don’t know. What I’m reading is what I’m trying to understand.
It says here that “Certain safety related conditions exist that do not meet the normal requirements for aerodromes of this license type.” It’s talking about the different airstrips and that, I think. I just would like to know if you or one of your staff could really explain that statement.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk: Thank you, Itsivautaaq. (interpretation) I’m trying to follow what she was talking about.
When she referenced the document, she didn’t indicate the page number, but I would like to ask if it’s on page 4.
On 4.2, Current Deviations, and the page number is 4-2.
I’m sorry I didn’t say that.
I would like Art Stewart to respond to that question.
There are certain deviations at airports that do not currently meet transportation standards.
However, our department has authorization to continue and work on correcting these deviations.
I believe it mentions that seven of our airports are in that type of position. For instance, there may be terrain around existing airports that provide challenges. Our Nunavut Airports has been in contact with Transport Canada and has got permission to operate within those limits that exist.
I was wondering if you could tell me, then, perhaps the minister’s staff once again, if there are limitations on time frames for those deviations, how long is Transport Canada willing to wait before these deviations are mitigated.
We’ve had discussions with Transport Canada, but we don’t know right now how long they can wait.
On page 4.1 that she’s referring to, it indicates which airports are affected.
I can use an example. Pangnirtung is one of the affected communities and we’re presently looking into which avenues we can take on dealing with that.
We’re presently working on that.
There are three questions I would like to ask actually.
Under Mitigation you either have “Not in Needs Assessment” or “Included in Needs Assessment.”
Can you give me the total value of funds that will be required that are already included in the needs assessment? What is the total cost of the needs assessment that is already in place? What is the cost that you haven’t included in the needs assessment?
These budget estimates are not listed in this document because obviously the document is primarily for review of the priorities our department has in this field.
Perhaps the budget estimates can be processed using the government procedures. Whenever a callout is issued, our department undertakes the next step.
My deputy will provide further details on the process.
I would ask that Art Stewart be allowed to elaborate on the details.
The entire infrastructure needs for Nunavut Airports is estimated to be in the neighbourhood of $475 million.
We try to whittle away at that every year.
I can’t tell you exactly how much further we have to go because prices increase every year, but that is a fairly good rough estimate of our infrastructure deficit.
I just want to remind all members that we are here to deal with the proposed capital budget for 2017-18.
I believe I am on that when I’m talking about capital infrastructure for airports. That’s what we’re on.
That’s what I’m asking questions on. This is a needs assessment that the department has done and if you look through them and read through them, you will note that most of them are not in the proposed capital requests, so it’s good to go through it.
When you mentioned that big number of over $400 million for what Nunavut Airports needs right now, has this been conveyed to the federal government?
Is there any other funding? I’m sure you have, but are there any other funding sources? I think there is the airport capital project funding, if I am correct, and I have no idea what is in that pot or what you can access.
Could you elaborate a little bit on that, on what you have done to try to address some of these priorities?
Some of them are safety priorities. When you look at the Kimmirut Airport relocation and the Pangnirtung relocation, you have the Grise Fiord Airport, and they all need those new weight regulations.
I think these airports have imposed restrictions on different aircraft, which according to this report means that the companies are charging us more money because they have to use smaller planes that are more expensive.
Some of the airstrips in 2010, it says here, “Transport Canada first proposed that new regulations requiring Runway End Safety Areas...” That’s another safety issue.
I’m bringing this up because it is about transportation and airports.
That is a lot of money that Mr. Stewart stated. If you can elaborate a little bit more on that, it would be great.
Please remember that we have interpreters.
These capital requests are negotiated with the federal government each year, especially for urgent cases. My Deputy Minister, Sherri Rowe, will provide more detail.
Ms. Rowe: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We are always working diligently trying to find funding for our airport needs. There is the Airports Capital Assistance Program.
There is the Building Canada Fund. Unfortunately for most of these funds, we’re not the only department that has infrastructure needs. We are always looking for whatever funding we can.
Unfortunately we do have an infrastructure deficit of over $400 million, and all we can do is keep pushing forward and do the best we can do because there are other government priorities, unfortunately, that also have serious implications.
We do what we can with the money we have, but we’re always looking for other avenues to get more money.
One of those was for the Iqaluit airport using a P3 project, right?
We’re on K-3. Economic Development and Transportation.
Transportation. Total Capital Expenditures. $59,332,000.
Mr. Chairman, if you will allow me, I would like to get back to the opening comments.
In Madam Minister’s opening comments, I’m just asking for clarification on page 3 in English, the last paragraph, which is also on page 3 in Inuktitut, although it’s not the last paragraph in Inuktitut.
I won’t read the actual passage, but I feel that I can paraphrase the wording which states that the airport in Rankin Inlet will have to purchase a snow clearing machine, if I am not mistaken, at least an airport multitasking vehicle.
It states the reasoning for the purchase of these units is due to climate change. The English version is self-explanatory and so is the Inuktitut version.
I just want further elaboration, Mr. Chairman, what exactly is meant here when it states that this is “caused by climate change.”
I know this is very expensive. It’s a multitasking high-speed unit.
It’s not just for snow removal and I’m not a professional at that, but according to the briefing I heard, the airstrip becomes slippery.
In Rankin Inlet it’s a paved airstrip like the one in Iqaluit.
Sometimes a paved airstrip becomes very slippery due to weather.
I’m sure it’s not clear, but that’s part of it, Mr. Chairman.
It’s not clear.
I don’t understand it clearly.
Because their climate is changing, what is it changing now?
I know that the airstrip in Rankin Inlet is paved; I’m not concerned about that.
What is climate change affecting at the airport?
I would like to have Art Stewart answer the question.
It has to do with the weather where it now rains when it didn’t used to rain and the climate is warmer than it used to be. Sometimes it causes more freezing. I’ll have Art Stewart respond to this question.
Over the last several years there have been many more delays and cancellations due to weather, due to snow, hail, and rain. Whether that can all be blamed on climate change or not, there is certainly something happening with the weather.
We seem to have a lot more severe weather events and that’s what we mean by that and there’s evidence of that.
As I stated, we do have more cancellations and delays than we normally do.
I wanted to ask this question based on the discussion, apparently a result over a fear of impacts as opposed to actual proof.
Here in your documentation it states that it is caused by climate change, yet Mr. Stewart stated that it was not actually included.
I do grasp that most of these forecasts are based on potentialities or at least it seems that way.
Let me move on to another matter.
In your response to the committee, there was also another written statement that I wish to ask about.
It is on page 2. Although I will not quote the statement, I believe I can make it understandable.
It states that as the minister, you tabled the Nunavut Airports 20-Year Infrastructure Needs Assessment: 2014-2034.
In the documentation it is recommended that your department undertake a feasibility study to “determine the cost and benefits of constructing a new high arctic hub airport at Pond Inlet for civil and military purposes.”
I want to ask a question here, Mr. Chairman, with your permission.
I know it would be encapsulated by the parameters of capital estimates if it were feasible.
I want to ask what steps the department has undertaken on these recommendations.
My deputy minister will respond to that question, Ms. Sherri Rowe.
So far the only thing the department has done right now just internally within the department is looked at how that would work. Once Pond Inlet has a port there and they have a longer runway there for flights to land, we will be looking into it further.
We have had conversations with the community regarding this.
She said once we get a longer runway.
Is there a commitment to construct a longer airstrip and a port or marine infrastructure? Will we be receiving a longer airstrip in Pond Inlet?
My deputy minister stated that in the future, once you get a longer airstrip and the marine infrastructure is completed, the department officials can start the discussion some time in the future, but there’s nothing concrete or written as to when it will occur.
At some time in the future there will be discussions and negotiations with the hamlet council.
I don’t want to stay on one item, but I want the people of Pond Inlet to understand.
Once the Nunavut government works on our airstrip, we will get a longer airstrip and the work will be done by your department.
Your department said that once we get a longer airstrip and marine infrastructure in Pond Inlet, they would look into the community to see whether it can become a hub for military and commercial purposes.
What have you done to this request or proposal?
In order for a community to become a hub, one of the most important things is going to be are there going to be flights that land in that community to be a hub.
It’s the idea that you have everything coming in together, meeting in that location to go on farther. What we’re saying is that it’s the airlines that pretty much determine where a hub is going to be. We can have the infrastructure.
We can have it there, but it doesn’t necessarily mean that someone will decide that that should be the hub.
Those people have their own business cases to look at to see if it’s viable to them.
We have spoken with some airlines just looking at our new airport here, asking them about getting additional flights here, and the answer that we get from the airlines is it has to be viable for the airline.
If we wanted flights coming in from Greenland, Iceland, or anywhere in Europe, they’re saying that it has to be viable for them to stop here in Iqaluit, which would also hold true for Pond Inlet.
What we have to do to is keep discussing and working with it to see how we can build economic development in our communities and attract these items, but the government itself cannot say Pond Inlet is a hub and we will build there. First we would have to see what we can do that would be viable to create economic development and can we get private business coming in to use those facilities.
Is my understanding correct based on your response that your department won’t even review that initiative since you already stated the position and your response cuts off that possibility?
Even though this document states that this project will be fully reviewed, you are already stating the possible barriers to this initiative.
Does this mean that the department will not even consider ways to remove these barriers? Can the department look at the opportunities and not just the barriers based on this directive to the department?
I will refer this question to Sherri Rowe, my Deputy Minister.
We do have challenges.
I’m not looking at the negative. We have to be realistic. We have a 20-year capital plan showing some things that are just falling apart.
We have ATBs falling apart. We can’t do everything, but we do look at everything and put a lot of thought and care into those things to determine what we can and can’t do.
I know we can debate this matter endlessly, but I want to ensure my colleagues have their opportunity to raise questions.
Let me ask this final question based on only this issue.
This is a directive to your department to review the possibilities, not by instantly stating the barriers or challenges.
The directive is to review the feasibility of constructing a High Arctic hub airport in Pond Inlet for civil and military purposes.
Will the department conduct this feasibility study or has it already been done?
Ms. Sherri Rowe will respond to that question.
Yes, we will be looking into it.
If you had responded like that 10 minutes ago, it would have been over and done with.
I don’t know why (interpretation ends) it took us 10 minutes to get a yes, if the answer was always yes.
(interpretation) Let me move on.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask about this subject. During the winter 2016 sitting we approved the Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2016-2017.
It included $5 million in funding for the Iqaluit Marine Infrastructure Project and $1.2 million in funding for the Pond Inlet Marine Infrastructure Project.
My question is: have you already expended that money?
We are working on it now. I’ll refer this question to Art Stewart.
We are in the process of spending that money.
We have hired the prime consultant that will carry on the architectural and design work of both projects.
I don’t know exactly how much money has been spent to date, but the project is underway.
There are environmental investigations and permitting studies that have to be done to make sure that we have the proper permits, etcetera.
We are hoping to be shovel-ready, so to speak, or tender-ready would be a better word, next in 2017 and we expect that the construction contract will be issued at that time.
For Pond Inlet we’re looking at a completion in 2019 and for Iqaluit around 2020.
I have another question on this same matter.
Based on your written documentation for the 2017-18 capital estimates, it includes $1 million for the Iqaluit Marine Infrastructure project and a further $2 million for the Pond Inlet Marine Infrastructure project.
I would now like to know where these figures came from.
What is the basis for these figures?
I will refer that question to my Deputy Minister, Ms. Sherri Rowe.
As you know with the Pond Inlet marine infrastructure, the project management of the project is done by Community and Government Services.
They have the appropriate staff who can tell us the cash flow of how these projects and what year the money needs to be in.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Was that an answer to my question?
My question was: how were these specific amounts calculated?
I don’t know. Either I wasn’t paying attention or you didn’t answer my question. It’s one or the other.
I will once again refer this question to our official who is responsible for transportation policy and planning, Art Stewart.
The cash flows were based on estimates as to how we thought the project would progress. These cash flows are fine-tuned after the RFP is put out. As I mentioned, the contract for the prime consultant has been issued and those costs came into the estimates of the cash flows.
Those cash flows are simply estimates and they’re based on what we thought we would need for the evaluation of the geotechnical and environmental works and that sort of thing.
Again they’re just estimates that were developed with the design of the port in mind.
How accurate are those estimates?
(interpretation ends) Are they good estimates?
I will once again refer this question to Art Stewart.
Mr. Stewart: They are just estimates.
As I say, as the design process goes on, those estimates will be fine-tuned.
When they were developed, they were developed on the best information that was available at that time.
If you aren’t going to extend my time, this will be my last question.
With respect to the capital plans, another issue is identified specific to the Nunavut Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti Policy. It has to be included for all projects where the funding is from the Government of Nunavut or the Nunavut government in partnership with the federal government or the hamlets fund the project.
Now the Iqaluit and Pond Inlet marine infrastructure projects are funded by two levels of government, the federal government and the Government of Nunavut.
I would like to ask this question. The new fiscal year will start on April 1, 2017 with the new NNI Policy being implemented at that time.
I would like to ask which policy will be applied to these two projects.
Will it be the current policy or the policy scheduled to be applied on April 1, 2017?
You are correct that the NNI Policy will be implemented on April 1, 2017. Further, we are currently looking at the seabed studies and other environmental studies for both marine projects here in Iqaluit and Pond Inlet.
We expect that a better design plan, including the cost estimates, will be developed that either confirms the cost estimates or that it may be lower, but this will become clearer in the next fiscal year.
The work is being tendered in the upcoming fiscal year.
With respect to the actual date, if it were to be in the springtime, then the old policy would apply, but if it is past April 1, then the new policy would be utilized.
At this time it is impossible to predict which policy will be applied, but once the tendering process is completed, we will be able to provide a date.
At this time we don’t have a set date for the tendering process, so it is difficult to predict what issues or challenges will surface from the current review.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome to the minister and the officials as we are dealing with transportation, one of my favourite departments.
In her opening comments on page 5 of 6, I’m not sure if it’s two paragraphs or the entire last paragraph.
The last paragraph, I wholeheartedly agree with the aspects of focus on safety, prudent spending, and strengthening partnerships with the federal government and in large with industry, as we have an operating gold mine north of Baker Lake, as a community where we see investments, not only to the people but to the territory and to the government.
When I look at this opening comment from the minister, my first question will be: when you tie in all those together, does Baker Lake not fit into all these categories? My first question.
We include all the Nunavut communities. We don’t focus on specific communities but on all Nunavut communities as a whole.
I understand the minister’s point of view on that is the safety for all residents of Nunavut.
When we look at industry, there is a high number of traffic with transportation. Where does that fall into in the criteria of transportation?
Perhaps he can restate his question, (interpretation ends) high number of traffic in all communities. (interpretation) All the communities have traffic movement. What exactly does he mean?
Clarification, Mr. Mikkungwak.
It is obvious that all Nunavut communities are served by the airlines. However, as per my earlier statement, when the mine was developed north of Baker Lake, it resulted in many more aircraft landings on top of the existing air schedules. Part of the safety concerns relate to the increased air traffic resulting from the mine’s needs.
How much of a priority is placed on this issue?
With respect to local issues or concerns, we receive the information from the communities about the air traffic issues, including any bird-related safety issues. Nonetheless, in order to get it clarified, I would ask that Art Stewart be allowed to elaborate further.
Safety is a top priority and we have a safety management system that works with all airports in Nunavut.
For Baker Lake specifically, in the last several years there have been improvements to the lighting system, apron, and taxiway. There are also going to be renovations to the airport terminal building to make it more operational.
Those are the key projects that we have in Baker Lake in the past few years that address safety and traffic.
Thank you to the official for the response. When we look at those improvements and expansion or renovations to the airport terminal building, the apron, and the lighting system, is it all federally funded or is it in partnership?
We don’t see that in the capital.
Could the minister or the official elaborate more?
With respect to funding from the Building Canada Fund or other sources, I would like Art Stewart to respond to that.