EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I regret to inform my colleague that that information is not really available in front of us. However, it is something we can easily enough get from our department to answer his question as to the number of shows that are attended.
We are on page K-6.
Economic Development and Transportation. Economic Development.
Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $25,000.
Chairman: Total Grants and Contributions. $25,000.
Chairman: Page K-7.
Tangible Assets. Headquarters Region.
Total Headquarters Region. $60,000.
I see that headquarters region talks about the various Nunavut Visitors Centres.
I wonder if I can get an idea of where those funds are going to be going and exactly what they are going to be addressing.
I’ve got this page in front of me which doesn’t seem to tell me the exact numbers.
The actual numbers of the Visitors’ Centres is not something that I have in front of me. But during our sitting here I will get the information for my colleague here.
That information on where the Visitors’ Centres are going to be addressed and what kind of work is going to be done; I imagine it’s just minor capital projects with the amount of money that they put forward. So I look forward to getting that information that he is willing to commit.
Yes, this will include repairs, replacements or purchase of new equipment or basic administrational equipment for the Visitors’ Centres or audiovisual computerized display project equipment or other presentation equipment as needed.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We are on page K-7.
Any more questions, Mr. Tootoo.
Total Tangible Assets. Total Headquarters Region. $60,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Qikiqtaaluk Region.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $40,000.
I know the gentleman that used to sit beside me always used to say it is no secret that a few years ago there were a lot of concerns about a lot of vehicles in the capital budget.
Maybe to commemorate a memory here, I’d like to ask for this list of Economic Development and Transportation vehicles what that is going to be used for and by whom.
I just got reminded.
Mr. Chairman, the vehicle in question was in the capital plan last year and following to that, the intended use is for the regional office in Pangnirtung where the office is located on the other side of the river from the community and the facilities within the community.
So it will be for the department’s regional office in Pangnirtung.
I know that’s a long walk; when we had the session in Pangnirtung, we had to cross the river a few times going back and forth to the school.
Is it a new vehicle, for the record, I guess if they didn’t have an existing vehicle there before those offices were built that they need one.
For that price, I’ll make sure there is a new one and there is no vehicle available to the staff in that decentralized office.
I have no more names on my list. (interpretation ends) Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $40,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: Total Tangible Assets. $100,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
Chairman: Moving to page K-8. Transportation. (interpretation) It’s part of page K-9. (interpretation ends) Transportation.
Total Kitikmeot Region. $100,000. (interpretation) Agreed?
This is for the Bathurst Inlet Road and Port. I wonder if the minister can elaborate on what that $100,000 is going to be used for.
It’s for the ongoing support for the studies that were needed for the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road study. As you probably recall, I had a bit of a problem in remembering what BIPAR was. It was the acronyms that were used, but it’s for the ongoing support needed for the studies for that project.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know it can be difficult with acronyms. I remember trying to think of the acronym for the Strategic Highway Infrastructure Training program.
My next question, I guess, is this we are seeing here in front of us is the commitment, but I know a few years back, there was a commitment made to develop and work on this project by the government and this is what we are seeing at the end of that, and on top of that, are we looking at further...because a lot of things are being done, it’s just the feasibility stage.
Is that all we are going to see put into that, or are we going to see other funds in future years put towards this project other than...if it has been decided that it’s feasible to go ahead with it and look at capital dollars? As far as this goes, is that all that covers?
I thank my colleague for asking that question because in our plans for the following year after 2006-07, we have identified and estimated that we will need to put aside, in our plans, another amount of $75,000 to keep this file moving, but beyond that, there is nothing further identified for the project.
I’m going to need your help with this one.
During the committee meeting you pointed out and it’s not clear exactly under what item the small craft investment strategy would come out, but your department has concluded that small craft investment strategy for Nunavut.
You read that quietly during the standing committee, but it’s important you stated in that strategy that the infrastructure projects would take place in Clyde River, Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq, Chesterfield Inlet, Repulse Bay, and Kugaaruk.
Has the minister received any official response to the strategy funding from the federal government?
There are seven communities that requested it. The last time we had discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and our officials within the Nunavut Government.
At this time we are expecting documentation of the last announcements. We still have to hear from the Minister’s office whether this has been approved or not. Perhaps they are still under review.
At this time we still haven’t received any responses.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Minister for your response. Perhaps it is due to the federal election being called. According to your knowledge in your discussions with them, will you continue to discuss this further no matter which party is the government?
Yes, we’ve had ongoing discussions and our officials are keeping up-to-date with that, and also the minister and the Deputy Minister and I have recently requested a meeting with them because we feel that this is a very important priority to Nunavummiut, as well as all over. I have asked these two officials if I could meet with them in the beginning of December, so that I could have a face to face meeting with them.
As my colleague stated, I would be very sorry if this government does not go ahead because the federal government will continue to work on this.
We are on Grants and Contributions. Total Grants and Contributions.
Kitikmeot Region. Total Kitikmeot Region. $100,000.
Chairman: Total Grants and Contributions. $100,000.
Chairman: Page K-10.
Transportation. Tangible Assets.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): I had a question on the lower part.
Chairman: We are at Tangible Assets.
Total Headquarters Region. $500,000.
Chairman: Further down.
K-11 is part of the page.
It’s not written here. It’s not even mentioned whether the airstrips are going to be worked on. I am representing the community of Chesterfield Inlet.
Last summer when I was in the community the airstrip was eroding. They said that the surface was eroding....
Chairman: Mr. Netser, we are on Qikiqtaaluk region. Once the Qikiqtaaluk region is agreed to, we’ll move onto the Kivalliq region. Mr. Netser.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): I know that we’ll move onto the Keewatin region. When we move onto the Keewatin region we are not going to talk about this for the Keewatin region.
Chairman (interpretation): I apologize, Mr. Netser. Go ahead.
The airstrips; there is no runway being done in the Keewatin region as I represent Chesterfield Inlet.
The gravel is in huge pieces now and this is a safety concern. The heavy equipment vehicles have to take out the big rocks so therefore we need to plan for the community.
Why are they not mentioned in here; perhaps your department is not aware of the situation.
I’ll have Mr. Kunuk respond to your question.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For Chesterfield Inlet we have to look at the plans again when we’ll go ahead for that community.
At this time I have no response for him.
Perhaps you’ll probably want to go check up on that community. I can go to that community to make an observance.
Mr. Chairman, my question, this is not so much on what’s there but what isn’t there. Mr. Chairman, last year there was $100,000 in the Capital budget that was used to assist the City of Iqaluit in doing a feasibility study for a deep sea port and small craft harbour.
I am wondering if the Minister or his officials, I know that the report or the study has been done if the department has received and endorsed that concept.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Yes, for the Iqaluit feasibility study we assisted the City with $100,000 for that project and at this time the reports have been submitted to us.
We have copies of the report. We still haven’t responded to the report as yet as a department to the City.
I am wondering what kind of time frame we will be looking at to get a response on the report to the City from the department.
We are in a position to meet with the City to follow up the findings. So we will stand ready to discuss this further with the City at the appropriate time.
I know that there is basically two parts. One was a slipway for a small craft and a deep sea port.
And I raised issues regarding the slipway last year after we had an unfortunate incident occur here in Iqaluit where it took emergency service workers up to their waist or chest in cold water to try and assist someone that needed assistance.
And for those reasons I was bringing forward the safety concerns of having some type of a slipway that would be accessible regardless of where the tide was. I know we have, like a lot of communities have, considerable tides here and that does create a safety factor as to what happened last year.
I am just wondering if the department has plans to try and address that before we have to worry about it again.
I just want to make sure that my limited English is on the same subject here.
The information that I have is that that has been attended to and is in place over at the old Causeway area, where that boat launch has been put in place, in response to the question from my colleague.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is good to hear. You always hope those things aren’t necessary but it’s always good to have in the unfortunate event that that is necessary.
On the idea of the deep sea port, I know that the Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation, mentioned from the economic development infrastructure program that was announced by the federal government of today, would that type of project fall under the criterion of that program to be able to try and leverage funding towards a project like that?
I just want to seek clarification as to which program my colleague is referring to. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe it’s the Strategic Infrastructure Investment program, all the millions that they are giving away for strategic infrastructure to help develop economic benefits in the north.
I want to be careful of what I say here, but the department is fully aware of that potential. Also keeping in mind other communities where the program may fall. At the present time there have been no announcements from this government on the work that’s needed with the assistance of the federal government.
I stand to be corrected. My understanding is that those are under consideration at this time.
I know it’s premature to say but the minister indicated earlier that they’re in the process of reviewing the feasibility study and the report, and hopefully, the department will endorse it.
Given that, will the department work with the city to help lobby his federal counterparts in Ottawa to try and secure some federal dollars for a program like this.
Given the fact that as a territory we have scarce resources and we need to try and capitalize as much as we can on outside dollars for projects of such magnitude.
Yes, I totally agree with my colleague because we are committed to giving the support for infrastructure needs we know are badly needed in Nunavut and we are also prepared to seek further support from our cabinet colleagues in this regard.
So, to answer my colleague, yes, we are in a position to support those that are approved through this government in seeking the additional dollars we need to build them through other federal programs.
So, we are in support.
I have to listen very carefully.
The minister indicated that they would support projects that were approved by this government for funding and I just want to clarify that regardless of whether we have any funding available or not, will the department work with and assist the city in trying to secure funding for a project like this? I guess what I’m saying is regardless of whether it’s funding approved by this government or not.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Agreed.
I’m sorry, but I know lots of times that one little word can come back to haunt you. So, I would like to make it very clear on what’s indicated.
My next question and I know, again, it’s something I have raised in the past and that deals with the airport here and some of the safety concerns that were identified in the master plan that was done here a number of years ago.
I see that there is some funding in there for Airport Taxiway and apron one. I’m just wondering if that’s just a small contribution and that there are some federal dollars that coincide with that.
If I can get how much it is, just for the record.
My colleague is right that there are some federal dollars in the program.
In the three years, there’s $10.7 million being given by the federal government for the ACAP program.
So, yes, there are some federal dollars associated with this funding over the three-year period.
Also on here and I just want to get it on the record, under Iqaluit, it shows a plough truck, is that plough truck for the City of Iqaluit or is that for one of the government departments?
I can say with certainty that this one is for the airport.
While we are on the marine deep sea studies subject, I often wonder why the government does not carry out the opening of the marine transportation system for free market in order to ensure that there would be a reduction of freight and whether the public would know whether the freight rates would be determined not on the basis of the government contract, but the free trade for a free system, and if possible, why are we continuing with these zone monopolies as we have it now?
Is there any intention for your department to study all those and maybe support opening the free market system.
In the Kivalliq I believe you could pretty well have the free market system instead of having government contract binding rates 2 or 3 years at a time.
We are on page on K-11. Capital Estimates for Transportation. Qikiqtaaluk Region.
Mr. Minister, do you want to respond to that.
I guess just to state the fact that I think it has been said in the House already by one of colleagues appearing in COW. By my colleague along with my department I am not in a position to make a decision on this situation, unless it goes to my Cabinet colleagues or the Financial Management Board.
But I will indicate however Mr. Chairman, that I will be...let me try that again. I will make myself and my department available to take part in the discussions pertaining to this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think it is an issue that has to be considered not only to scrap what we have now but to look at options for the future. Because once upon a time we had government enrich them and invest in them and now they have opened up for a new market system. Maybe transportation will have to take into that route in order to ensure the cost of living goes down because they are going in frightening ways in many respects.
Mr. Chairman, I have a comment on page K-10. In the Standing Committee review of the department’s airport development plan, we appreciate some of the federal contributions as indicated through the Standing Committee in September where the Government of Canada contributed $10.7 million for Iqaluit re-development plan for Iqaluit. $1.1 million by Government of Nunavut.
But the actual study, the master plan says it is going to cost $40 million. Do you have an actual figure of how much it is going to cost?
It is important for safety reasons as well as the long term relationship with the airline industry that we have the full costs understood whether they’d be federal for a number of years. I would like maybe the Minister and his officials to know what the total cost maybe for Iqaluit.
The $40 million that was presented earlier is pretty firm so it probably is the best estimate the department has been able to share and we think it is a pretty firm figure at this time.
Having that on the record now, when will the other dollars be committed? Have you got a long term agreement with the federal government to arrive at a $40 million figure or is that in the air right now.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the best response to my colleague on that matter is the fact those discussions are an on-going process and it is difficult for me to say if there are any amounts of dollars that we can identify for future years. But at this time it is an on-going discussion process that we’ve got going with the federal government.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Also, when we considered the estimates during the standing committee, we also heard from the department that with respect to Arctic Bay, the cost of maintaining one and redeveloping it, versus developing a new airstrip, that Arctic Bay costs roughly the same, but $4 million for the first year and so on. The total figure is roughly $16 million; I believe was the figure that we heard from your officials and yourself.
Has the community determined exactly where it’s going to invest those dollars that you have identified, considering that they will likely cost the same in terms of developing it, but maintenance costs for a jet capable airstrip that Nanisivik... would be a lot more than having a smaller airstrip at the site closer to the town?
Have the minister and his officials come to an agreement with the town on exactly which one is going to be invested, with Nunavut dollars and federal money?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Mr. Kilabuk.
Yes, the understanding at this time is that a new airstrip will be constructed in the vicinity of Arctic Bay.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. We’re on K-11.
Department of Economic Development and Transportation. Transportation.
Total Qikiqtaluk Region. $6,021,000.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That A and E plough truck, is that something again that is for the airport or is that for use on municipal roads?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those are for airport use.
I want clarification under Kivalliq, Rankin Inlet, A and E plough truck, and we just agreed A and E Packer, or plough trucks, how are they different?
(inaudible) A and E packer for Qikiqtaluk region, one for Kivalliq plough truck.
I guess I’m going to say that I’m not in the best position to explain the difference between a packer... well I know what a plough truck is but...
I will get my deputy minister to give us the information on that question.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister. Mr. Kunuk.
Mr. Kunuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman, the packer is the one you tow in behind.
It’s got wheels to pack the gravel on the airstrip. But the plough truck actually has a plough in front.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I know what an A and E packer and an A and E plough truck is, but, (interpretation) in the translation, they both say the same thing. They both say plough trucks.
This will have to be amended, or changed.
Now I am happy that I didn’t try to respond, otherwise I would’ve responded something completely different. What my colleague just mentioned, yes, we will fix it.
We are on K-11. Kivalliq Region.
Total Kivalliq Region. $575,000.
Maybe they should start putting the Kitikmeot first so I don’t have to wait patiently until the end.
I’m not sure how we come at the end of these things.
My question for the minister, a few years ago there was a Nunavut transportation study. The authors of that report mentioned in there that we have all these overhead flights, international flights, that cross Nunavut, and that NAV Canada collects all these fees; I think it’s $1,000 a flight.
They recommended in that study that perhaps the Government of Nunavut should be after NAV Canada for a share of that funding to help us upgrade and develop our airports across Nunavut.
I wonder if the minister could update us if the Department of Economic Development and Transportation actually participates in those kinds of discussions, or negotiations with NAV Canada.
That is an issue that we can discuss with NAV Canada.
I have left it to Mr. Kunuk to provide some more on this to my colleague and the House.
In this case we had to work through Transport Canada for overhead flights because they are trying to work with NAV Canada on how we can get money from the overhead flights. That is the process that we have to go through.
The answer is yes, we are trying to work with Transport Canada on this one.
I thank the minister and Mr. Kunuk for that answer.
I think it’s important because I think the numbers, if I can recall from that study, are in the neighbourhood of $40 million annually that they are collecting from those overhead flights.
Even a small percentage of that, a couple of million, $3 million can make a huge difference annually to Nunavut airports as we have seen throughout the capital estimates and in a lot of our other discussions. I think just about every airport in Nunavut need some form of upgrading, or improvements.
With that in mind my hamlet council has been chasing the Government of Nunavut for many years, even when I was with them, to build an airport runway extension. I think back in the year 2000, there was actually a report; I think it was by Community and Government Services at the time. They were planning that they were going to do a 900-foot runway extension in Cambridge Bay.
It fell off the radar, so to speak.
I am wondering if the minister, or his officials, can update me today as to whether or not a runway extension is something that they are actively considering for the community of Cambridge Bay.
On the specifics of the extension of the runway for Cambridge Bay, that matter has really not advanced very far, as my colleague just indicated just a minute ago.
We are reviewing not only Cambridge Bay and its needs, but also the communities overall.
There are only a few but I can state to this House that that is part of the department’s ongoing work in identifying needs for our communities and also Cambridge Bay.
In the same transportation study for 2001, I think the authors, at that time, also indicated that Cambridge Bay is one of the four or five strategic airports in Nunavut that should be seriously looked at for runway extensions and upgrades, including the lighting of the runway. That was five or six years ago. The reality is that my community is becoming a very strategic hub in Nunavut, with all of the mining activity opening up.
With flights further north, the runway, I think, is only 5,000 feet long.
It’s a very short runway to be landing jets, and anyone that has ever landed in Cambridge Bay on one of the First Air or Canadian North jets; you are almost ripped out of your seats as they throw the engines in reverse. The people that experience that for the first time think we are crashing. The veteran guys have to calm them down, so, don’t worry, they are just trying to stop it from going off the end of the runway.
So, it’s not a situation we would like to see continue for too much longer.
The length of runway limits the types of aircraft that can go in there. I think we are limited to jets or 737s. We can’t take 727s in there and that’s something we have to address.
I think 727s would be more economical by letting them carry more freight, then that would help reduce the cost of living in the Kitikmeot, because it’s also a supply hub for the other communities.