EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
(interpretation ends) I would like to ask some questions about the new community hall and arena project in Pond Inlet. I am certain that the Speaker will review today’s Hansard carefully.
We are being asked to approve just over $1 million in 2006-07 for this project. According to the substantiation sheet for the project, the total amount will be $2.94 million. The Hamlet of Pond Inlet is concerned that this project may be postponed.
I would like to ask the minister, or her officials, to provide a detailed update today on the status of this project and to indicate what response they have provided to the hamlet’s letter to the minister on November 17, 2005?
I also thank my colleague for his question. (interpretation ends) We are looking at options and designs of the whole facility.
The response should be available next week.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Minister. Mr. Barnabas.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If the community hall does not get built in 2006-07, what is that money going to be used for?
As the minister indicated, we are looking at options now.
For instance, one of the options we are looking at is a potential phased approach to the construction of it.
There are options that involve looking at the existing facilities and what possibilities there are for modification and improvement with the existing facilities to fit within the funding envelope.
We are doing this very rapidly now so that we don’t lose any time for the next construction season.
So at the present time we still think that work can move forward in the next construction season to use that money.
The question is finalizing those options so that we can present them to the community to get the reaction and agreement with the community on what the most desired option is.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Have you or your officials communicated with the hamlet about the total estimates for the proposed complex?
What estimates did you give them?
What new agreements did your department come up with after the architectural engineering was done?
I will get Mr. Sitland to respond to that question.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Sitland.
This project is in the pre-design phase.
What we do is we have a consultant go out, and based on functional need, they do a pre-design and an estimate of the cost.
The estimate of the cost of this facility, and there were three options, but they all range in cost of $7 to $7.5 million for the entire facility.
We looked at options to reduce the cost, but because we don’t have a full design, you can’t actually change design items. Really, the only changes that you can make at the pre-design phase are changes in use.
So, as we indicated, we looked at options of either phasing construction or retrofitting existing facilities.
We are examining those options, and some time next week, we hope to have a decision on the way to proceed.
We will do this with the community and they will have a say in what’s ultimately chosen for that facility.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Is this in reference to my earlier question about the possibility of delay due to massive cost increase, almost double your original estimate as the information given to the hamlet by your senior staff?
If the member could repeat the question, I didn’t quite get it.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you get my earlier question; there might be a delay because of the change in the figures of the funding, like the hamlet gives one figure and you guys give another figure.
Because of the higher cost, would that defer that building?
We hope to have a decision next week on our course of action.
After examining all of these options, we will talk with the community, and then once we have jointly decided on the course of action, we will proceed.
We are hopeful that we can still meet the schedule as originally contemplated, but we are proceeding as best we can in using the funding, I think, the wisest possible way.
Mr. Barnabas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What are the total figures that have apparently been presented to the hamlet, not in the capital estimates, all the way up to 2011? That’s five years ahead.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Barnabas. Madame Minister.
Hon. Levinia Brown: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. May I ask my deputy to respond to that question please?
The project estimates we prepared in the summer, in July and the substantiation sheets show that at that point in time there was an estimate of $2.9 million for the project.
As Mr. Sitland mentioned, regrettably during the planning process over the summer and the fall, the estimates we then got for the preliminary design came in almost double that cost. We don’t have at this point in time, additional funding to put into it, so that’s why as he mentioned, we are looking at the options for the facility and what can be done on the facility.
The figures that were presented to the community this week by our senior staff in Pond Inlet were to, in fact, advise them of what the costs had come in for that preliminary design work, so that they were aware of it, and then also to assure them that we were looking at the options that were available and, as he has said, get back hopefully next week to them, with some options of what we can do to deal with that cost problem.
It does frankly present a problem, because at this point in time, the money in the budget is not sufficient to cover this particular design, but there may be alternative designs we can use.
Mr. Barnabas: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Will you commit to writing to the hamlet with detailed information on this project?
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): That’s it.
On J-13, is that part of what we’re discussing right now? Can we ask questions on J-13?
Chairman (interpretation): No, we’re on page J-10 and J-11. After you approve those pages, we’ll go to J-13. We’re on J-10.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I have a question on the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund to do with projects.
Resolute Bay sewage and water works is part of that. I would like to ask a question. The Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund has given some money.
I’ll say it in English.
(interpretation ends) It is significantly important for Nunavut to be given a share of the Canada Strategic Infrastructure Fund. My question to the minister and her officials is; how much more money can be expected from CSIF over the next five years? Is CSIF funding that appears in the five year plan guaranteed in spite of the upcoming election?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like Mr. Rich to responds to that question.
We have available, through the Strategic Infrastructure Fund, $20 million over the next three years.
That $20 million is already committed, so it is guaranteed notwithstanding what happens in the next election.
There are indications that the fund might be renewed and extended, however that is subject to the next election. But the $20 million we got in the first instance is there.
I have no more names in my list. We are on J-10 and J-11.
Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $5,658,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Moving onto J-12 and J-13.
Like we heard that Repulse Bay and Chesterfield Inlet have inadequate granular deposits.
I just wondered if the department has thought of getting granular deposits from Coral Harbour to bring them by those barges from Coral Harbour to Chesterfield Inlet and Repulse Bay. I think it would be cheaper. Has the department had any thoughts of barging granular deposits from perhaps Repulse Bay to Chesterfield Inlet in the summer?
Yes, I like that idea of what the member has raised because I know that it would cost money again but because it is part of the other community granular deposit. I remember I know there are a lot of barges that go out with no load and I think we can look into it but I will get Mr. Sitland to answer part of the question.
As the member recognizes there is an imbalance of granular materials across Nunavut. Coral Harbour is blessed with a great source of granular materials whereas other communities practically have none.
Part of the projects for granular in the territory is going to look at all sort of options available to us.
That is an option and we haven’t looked at it yet but we are not going to rule it out. We need to find ways of having granular resources as a sustainable resource in all of our communities and we don’t want to ignore any of the options that will be available to us.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): Yes, I am sure you would know how much it would cost because they have to blast the granular in order to make gravel for the airport, and they know how much it would cost.
The minister knows about the very good granular in Coral Harbour. If you could do a feasibility study and set aside some funds to see if this is feasible; perhaps if a member from Repulse Bay could propose this and I propose this for Chesterfield Inlet.
I am in a learning process. Yes, we will look into that.
We are on page J-12, along with J-13. (interpretation ends) Tangible Assets.
Total Kivalliq Region. $3,088,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Moving onto J-14; it’s part of page J-15. (interpretation ends) Tangible Assets.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is for the minister.
Could she give me an update on the solid waste site? It seems like it has been a three year project in Cambridge Bay. Could you give me an update on where that’s at these days?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. Ms. Minister.
Let me find the page. (interpretation ends) The solid waste site fencing, it has to do with the prevailing winds which cause debris on roads creating clean-up costs, and negative environmental and other impacts.
People and wildlife can access the site causing potential liability and safety issues. We will be enclosing the area and the fencing will alleviate the problem.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for answer.
Is the solid waste site fencing is for the existing solid waste site, or is that going to be for a new solid waste site?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want Mr. Sitland to answer that question.
Mr. Sitland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The solid waste site in Cambridge Bay is an interesting problem.
We are running out of capacity in that site.
However, two options exist to us.
We have the option of either increasing the site so that we would be able to continue to use it. As the member knows the sewage lagoon flows through the site, and so we have a concern with the sewage lagoon flowing through the solid waste site.
As of yet, we have not yet made the decision on whether we are, in fact, going to build a new site, or if we are going to expand the old site.
As part of the expansion of the old site it would include fixing this problem of the lagoon flowing through the old site.
Regardless of which site it is, we do want to fence our solid waste sites because they do present problems that the minister had indicated.
Thank you, Mr. Sitland. I know it was an annual ritual when I was the mayor.
Every year I would get calls from the constituents about the garbage blowing through town. It was good for the kids because we would have an annual garbage clean-up day and we’d pay them a dollar to two dollars a bag, so it was good for the local economy and for the kids. It was quite a mess, depending on which way the wind blew, and it blows across the ocean there, as well.
My other question, sort of related to this, is the status of the metal waste site that is adjacent to the solid waste site and sewage lagoon that you just mentioned. The three are right there. I know we have talked about it in the past as well.
How do we contain the waste out there and dispose of it because it’s just getting to be too much to handle.
If the minister or Mr. Rich or Mr. Sitland could update me on that please?
Certainly; I will ask Mr. Sitland to answer that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Madame Minister. Mr. Sitland.
Bulky metal waste sites across Nunavut are a problem to us and Pinasuaqtavut actually speaks to one of the challenges with bulky metal waste sites, in that we’re supposed to explore the repatriation of used vehicles.
Together with the Department of Environment we are doing some work on that; however from my departmental point of view, it’s even more than just bulky or used vehicles that we can look at repatriating to the south.
So, we are looking at ways to get rid of some of these things; bulky metal wastes in our waste sites. Some communities manage the facility very well. If you go to Cape Dorset, for example, it’s managed very well there but it’s mountains of the stuff.
It’s a significant challenge in all of our communities. I’m not entirely certain of how Cambridge Bay is doing with their facility, but it’s part of our overall strategy to look at solid waste sites across Nunavut.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sitland.
I don’t think that the ownership issue has been resolved.
The Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, I think they consider themselves the managers of the solid waste dump and the bulky waste.
But, the actual owners of the facilities are the Government of Nunavut, so I’m not entirely sure if that’s all been cleared up or if it ever will be cleared up.
It represents a problem for the hamlet over there and more so nowadays, because you’ve got a lot of contractors and mining companies, expediters that seem to be using the facilities to dispose of some of their perhaps hazardous materials and the hamlet has difficulty in...You can’t be out there 24 hours a day watching the road, to see who’s going out there to dump stuff.
It became a bit of a contentious issue this summer with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs officials involved and some of the mining officials.
I think we have propane canisters out there; we have fuel barrels that haven’t been properly disposed. We have refrigerators that may have Freon in them, depending on how old they are.
We have numerous old vehicles.
We have our old school, or, the school that burned down, the entire school is out there in the bulky waste dump and I don’t know what else. It’s a step down memory lane when you go out there. You can go back 30, 40 years of history.
There is just not enough room and it’s causing some serious problems for the community growth out towards that area.
Then the tourism, you know when you’re taking tourists out there; you have to drive right by it.
It’s quite a mess.
If you’re flying over head, it’s not very attractive.
I’m hopeful that your department can do something with bulky waste; not only in Cambridge Bay but, right across Nunavut, in terms of repatriating some vehicles and other materials. That was a comment on that Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to ask about, not specifically Gjoa Haven, but about community halls in general. The community hall on the page here is in Gjoa Haven.
I read in the 2005 Nunavut Economic Outlook where the author said that 50 percent of the community halls are past their useful lives.
Has your department done any assessments by community, to determine which communities’ halls are past their useful lives; why is that?
And, have you done any work, in terms of which communities should have their community halls increased or upgraded, over the next five years?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation ends) Madame Minister.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would like Mr. Rich to respond to that regarding the community halls.
One of the things that we do to capture information on facilities in communities is to work through our regional offices with each hamlet to gather information into an overall capital database and that capital database is filled with information not only on the age of the facility, but the current status of the facility, what sort of quality it is, or what sort of construction status it is.
The second thing we are doing, as part of the work with the Infrastructure Advisory Committee that was recently established, is to develop a rating scale with the Infrastructure Advisory Committee that will be able to look at those facilities and look, in particular, for the three main factors; the age of the facility, the capacity of the facility, in terms of the size of the community and planning for future size of the community, and the intended purpose of the facility in how well it meets those needs. So that will unfold as the work of the Infrastructure Advisory Committee does so that we will have a good picture of all of the community facilities.
I would say that the Gas Tax funding is one we are particularly aiming at addressing issues such as community hall facilities in communities.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and thank you, Mr. Rich, for that response.
I know that community halls are very important to communities. It’s important that we plan carefully to provide communities with community halls.
I know our community hall looked like it was going up in flames last May and I had visions of the two to three-year turnaround before we would have a new community hall. They use it for so many functions in our communities. It’s important that we have community halls in all communities that are up to the size and standards that we require.
So, I’m glad to hear that you are working on that kind of stuff.
The other question on that page, again, it’s not very specific to Kugaaruk, but I will go back to the same report, the 2005 Nunavut Economic Outlook. The report said that there’s a 65 percent failure rate for sewage lagoons in Nunavut. I’m not quite sure what they mean by failure rate; does that mean that, every year, 65 percent of sewage lagoons in Nunavut are failing?
What exactly were they saying when they made that statement?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will let Mr. Sitland respond.
Sewage lagoons, a lot of them are very outdated, a lot of these things were built in the 1970s as people moved into communities, they simply found a place to dump waste water somewhere out on the tundra. They haven’t received much attention for the last 15, 20, 30 years. And so, as communities have grown, these facilities are now undersized.
When we say failure, it doesn’t necessarily mean that the thing falls apart and it’s gone; it relates to inadequate treatment. A lot of communities have water licenses and as part of the water license, the effluent from the lagoon has to meet a certain standard.
In some cases, it’s not meeting that standard. It can mean things like undersized rather than having capacity for the community for one year’s generation of sewage, it’s undersized and they may have to decant twice.
There are all sorts of different problems with these.
We are, though, investing significant amounts of money from our own funding, as well as from the Strategic Infrastructure Fund, and we will continue to invest infrastructure funds into sewage treatment infrastructure and we hope that over time we can close that gap.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Sitland and Madam Minister.
I guess when it comes to allocating scarce capital infrastructure funds the top priority I guess would be for water and sewage systems because the federal government have their regulations and criteria and they have their system for fining mayors, fining governments, municipal governments.
We are basically in a situation of upgrading and building new facilities for water and sewer and it is going to leave less money for other things like community halls and fire halls and things like that. Would that be a correct take on what I am hearing?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Water and sewage services are usually given a priority because that they pose safety hazards and I’ll let Mr. Rich add onto the response.
We actually are in a much better position this year than we are in a year ago because of the signing of the Gas Tax agreements and the municipal role infrastructure fund agreements and also because of a year ago the strategic infrastructure fund agreement.
So over a five-year period of time between the Strategic Infrastructure Fund, the Gas Tax fund and the Government of Nunavut’s own funding, we will be investing approximately $75 plus million in sewage and water and solid waste sites. And that’s quite considerably more than we planned two years ago to invest. I should also say we then have access to funding through the Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund where we are particularly targeting community halls and recreational facilities in other communities.
I apologize I misspoke of Gas Tax for that.
I got reversed in my mind. That Municipal Rural Infrastructure Fund is $16 million plus the matching contribution of the Government of Nunavut is $16 million so that gives us $32 million to invest in those other non water and waste facilities in communities. That is something that we didn’t have at all a year ago, because as you suggested all of our funding was diverted to the high priority health and safety issues of sewage and water.
I thank the minister and Mr. Rich for that explanation.
Will that continue? Will we be able to in the next five years get back to providing basic needs in the communities, fire halls, and municipal infrastructure and not put 100 percent of our money into water and sewer and solid waste?
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) It is going to be on-going with the MRIF funding with that in mind and it will be on-going.
I know that this is probably a tough question to answer for the minister and staff, depending on the federal election. Are there any initiatives underway in Ottawa, with your department and federal officials in terms of negotiating and lobbying for additional municipal infrastructure funds? I know last year you had that document prepared that you were using in Ottawa for lobbying purposes.
Is there anything happening in Ottawa that you can tell us about that we might bring some good news? Or perhaps it is all on hold until after the federal election?
Yes, everything is pretty well on hold at this point because of the upcoming election.
I suppose that will be something that every one of us, as MLAs, ministers, when the candidates come knocking on our doors, we could sit down and talk about our infrastructure deficit in Nunavut, and quote them the numbers, $650 million, and a few other scary numbers like that.
That is just a comment, Mr. Chairman; I still have some other questions in that area.
I have questions from J-15.
On sewage lagoons and water treatment plants, I am pleased to see the funding for the sewage lagoon and the water treatment plant in my community.
On Tuesday I tabled some pictures that were taken inside the pump house in Kugluktuk. As the minister knows, the hamlet has been having some difficulty keeping one of the pumps in line.
I would like to ask the minister, or her staff, if the repairs to the pump house will be included as a part of the water treatment plant’s project?
The CGS is aware that the pump house is the oldest component of the system when they do some repairs on it. A few minor projects that CGS has engaged some consulting to look at is minor repairs for 2005. Major upgrades need to be addressed as part of a larger problem to address in the salt water.
Thanks, Minister. Can the minister tell me how her department is working with the hamlet of Kugluktuk to address this situation?
I would let Mr. Sitland respond.
On what I will call the smaller issue of the pump house, we are working with the community to address the problem with the pump house. We hope to have it at least fixed in the interim this year.
As the member likely knows, there’s a larger problem with the water in Kugluktuk. In the springtime the water is very cloudy, and then in the fall, salt water comes and affects the quality. The water problem in Kugluktuk is likely our most challenging problem for water supply across Nunavut.
A number of consultants have looked at different solutions, but so far, we haven’t got it completely right.