EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
My question was: what is CGS doing to assist hamlets and our City of Iqaluit in addressing the growing amounts of plastic, batteries, and other toxic waste in our communities?
Hon. Minister, you have deferred this to Mr. Green. I will go ahead and ask him directly. Mr. Green.
At this point in time, we are in the process of developing a waste management operations strategy in terms of looking at ways that we can divert some wastes from our landfill sites. We are looking at some recycling options.
Actually, we have undertaken a pilot project in Cambridge Bay where we have been taking recyclable plastic, aluminium cans, and some other materials out of the landfill site.
We’re also looking at burn options for materials that don’t pose any risk to the environment, such as cardboard, paper, and wood.
What we’re trying to do is to come up with a strategy to help municipalities with best practice and managing those solid waste programs so that we can divert as much waste out of those landfill sites. Not only with that, it will reduce the issue we have of open burning within our municipalities, but at the same time, allow us to extend the useful lifecycle of the solid waste sites.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you for that answer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am just wondering how much time you spent with our City of Iqaluit to discuss the growing mountain of garbage that we have here. What are the plans in the near future to address that issue?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’ll defer that to Mr. Green. (interpretation) Thank you.
CGS officials, including myself, meet with the City of Iqaluit on a quarterly basis with the mayor, CEO, and some of the staff.
We do have ongoing discussions regarding the solid waste site here in Iqaluit.
The City of Iqaluit gets approximately 2.5 percent of the annual gas tax allocation for water and waste management.
I do know that they are in the process of looking at design and development to address their solid waste site, and they’re looking at some technology that they can use to implement a new solid waste site.
There are ongoing discussions with the city on this issue. The city certainly does have a consultant hired that is working towards them to try to come up with the design and location for the long-term solutions to the waste management practices and programs here in Iqaluit.
Ms. Angnakak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your answer too, Mr. Green.
Switching gears, what is the long-term plan for the old residence here in Iqaluit?
Again I’ll defer the response to my deputy minister. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Mr. Green, go ahead.
We’re in discussion with Nunavut Arctic College to take a look at what are the long-term plans for Nunavut Arctic College. Right now, we’re in the preliminary stages, so I get to see what our options are in terms of with the existing programs that are in that building or whether they could be best suited in another program.
We know that the building is nearing its useful life while it’s structurally sound, but the cost to renovate that building would cost the GN, whether we were to convert it to office space or some other program need, we’re looking at it probably costing about $70 million.
We’re really looking at options as how we deal with this facility going forward.
Once we do have more information, we certainly wouldn’t have any issue providing you with an update on which direction we would like to go with that particular facility.
Ms. Angnakak, maybe that question would be better suited for the Minister of Education to see what their answer is.
I think that’s it for you, Ms. Angnakak.
I wanted to ask a question with respect to pre-planning studies that they will be doing on capital projects. (interpretation ends) Do I understand that these pre-planning studies for each project that are built from now on, we can say that we saved this amount of money based on the pre-planning study? Is that correct?
I will ask Mr. Green to answer that question.
We believe that with the pre-planning phase, if we develop the proper scope of work and we look at the critical cost estimates, what we believe is that we would be in a better position to deliver those projects on time and on cost. I think that what we’re saying is that we would have to understand the scope of work before introducing it into the capital plan, thus it would give us an opportunity then to be able to at least deliver those projects on time and on budget.
I noted that a couple of projects in the pre-planning studies are in two of my communities and these are much needed infrastructure. Well, I wanted to also find out… . There’s a list of 20 projects here before us in the pre-planning study.
As a result, all 20 projects receiving funding will be determined if they are viable projects that should move ahead. Can you explain how projects will be considered unviable?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Joanasie. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister Sammurtok.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Mr. Green has that information.
The whole idea of the pre-planning study is not necessarily saying that they won’t be feasible.
What we’re looking at with the planning study is to take a look at what the problem is with delivering a particular program within a department and what types of infrastructure that we need to be able to deliver those.
So what the pre-planning study would do is identify whether we need to do an expansion, retrofit, or we need to do a new building, or if there are some other options. Basically the whole idea is to come forward in the capital planning process with the most cost-effective approach to address the problem with programs and services.
Just for the record, these studies will be conducted by the department.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Pardon me. I’ll hand it back to Mr. Green. (interpretation) Thank you.
The client departments certainly do take the lead and identify what their infrastructure requirements are.
Through the pre-planning study, CGS would work with the client department to work with them on their needs analysis and their functional and operational review of their programs.
So it’s going to be a collaborative effort between the client departments and CGS to develop the planning phase. In some situations, we may engage the services of a consultant in order to go into a geotechnical site assessment as part of the planning initiative.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green. (interpretation) Moving on.
My question goes with capital planning.
During the previous government, MLAs had raised concerns in the House with respect to Nunavut municipalities not complying with their water use licences.
During last year’s appearance before the Committee of the Whole on its review of the 2013-14 capital estimates, your predecessor indicated that your department was continuing, with the cooperation and assistance of Dalhousie University, to conduct a science and research component of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s document Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent. What is the status if this work?
I will ask Mr. Bu Lam answer that question if it’s okay with you.
Mr. Lam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The current research that’s being conducted by Dalhousie University under the mandate of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment’s municipal wastewater effluent strategy is baseline information gathering.
We’re trying to establish how effective the current technology that we’re using for wastewater treatment in the communities is operating, and whether or not we can meet the more rigorous and stringent standards that are being proposed by Environment Canada for the nation.
Currently, for our water licences, the regulations are established by the Nunavut Water Board.
Under the new federal regulations, these standards would be far more stringent. At this point in time, the Dalhousie research information gathering is helping to establish an understanding of how well our systems can treat effluent. That research will be used to help inform Environment Canada on the appropriate regulations for Nunavut as well as the other northern territories.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lam.
Thank you for that answer. (interpretation ends) My additional question to this is: how many communities in Nunavut are being studied for wastewater effluent or how many communities in Nunavut are taken into consideration for this?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Again I’ll defer it to Mr. Bu Lam.
Chairman: Mr. Lam.  Mr. Lam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Currently, Dalhousie University is studying six communities in Nunavut. We chose six communities to have a representation of different types of technologies as well as different climates and different regions.
The information that’s being gathered by Dalhousie University will benefit all communities because it will help us define what appropriate standards for effluent regulation are going to be. That’s going to be applicable right across the territory.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My follow-up question is: can we be privy to information as to which communities are receiving the municipal wastewater effluent study?
We would be happy to share that information.
In reference to this, once the studies are done, will this impact the following year’s capital planning and future planning for capital?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Mr. Green will be able to provide a response to that.
It’s too early at this point in the research that Dalhousie is doing to determine whether new infrastructure will be required for wastewater treatment.
It depends on the acceptable standards that Environment Canada places for the north.
Through the Dalhousie study, if the existing water treatment system meets an acceptable standard, which means that there’s no risk to the environment or human health, then there’s quite a possibility that there would be very little impact in Nunavut, but it’s all going to come down to, once we get the baseline data and then the research is done, if they’re satisfied with the way that the existing systems are treating our waste.
In reference to the study, after the results have been determined and in remembering the minister’s opening remarks, “To ensure projects are appropriately identified and prioritized for the capital plan, NCIAC utilizes standard ranking criteria,” will this research impact the standard ranking criteria that the department currently is using?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) No. (interpretation) Thank you.
Chairman: Thank you. (interpretation) He said, “No.”
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you very much.
So if I understand the minister correctly, he has indicated that NCIAC’s utilizing standard ranking criteria will not be affected. With the Dalhousie University research study, what is the purpose and how long is this research study going to continue in the capital planning?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) For a proper response to that, I’ll defer it to Bu Lam.
Again we thank the member for his question. In regard to the standards and criteria that the NCIAC committee uses to rank and prioritize projects, the outcome of the Dalhousie research will not affect the standards and criteria.
Those criteria will remain intact.
In regard to the question from the member about how long the research will continue on, the initial contract was issued to Dalhousie University in 2010.
The contract was for five years. We are currently entering into our last year to collect that information and that information will be compiled over the course of this year and a report should be available in 2015.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lam. Mr. Mikkungwak.
Thank you to the official for answering that question.
My question, in reference to the municipal wastewater effluent, is Baker Lake also in this research study, considering the fact that it’s the only inland community in Nunavut?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. He said, “No.” Mr. Mikkungwak.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): Thank you very much. I completely understand this issue, as in recent years, Baker Lake residents have expressed many concerns about this issue, and upon completion of this latest study, I want to know if another study will be undertaken?
That is what I would like clarified is whether or not any research will be conducted when this current study is completed.
Will any studies be initiated in the immediate future?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) I’ll defer it to Mr. Bu Lam, please.
There were six communities that were captured originally under the scope of the Dalhousie research.
Those communities are Kugaaruk, Pangnirtung, Clyde River, Pond Inlet, Grise Fiord, and Coral Harbour.
Baker Lake was not one of the six communities that were captured.
The reason why we chose these six communities is because communities have different types of technologies that are treating wastewater.
It gives us an opportunity to look at the effectiveness of all the different types of technologies that are employed in Nunavut.
The communities were also chosen because they span a good geographic region within Nunavut as well, which allows us to take a look at the effects of temperature, terrain, climate, the amount of sun exposure each year; a whole bunch of different factors.
Now, again, because the communities aren’t captured in this specific research doesn’t mean that they won’t benefit from the results.
This gives us a good indication of what factors are going to affect the wastewater treatment, which we can then use to apply to all communities in Nunavut.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you very much and thank you for the communities that have been identified for the research study.
I make my case as a resident of Baker Lake and for my constituents of Baker Lake, seeing that in the last three or four years, we have seen forced growth with the mining industry and at the same time, with the amount of wastewater effluent that could have been taken into consideration. Forced growth and the amount of wastewater effluent should be seriously taken into consideration, especially when a mine has opened in a community.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Thank you.
With the information that I have just recently provided with the forced growth and influx of people within my community from the mining industry and with all the exploration companies, will that be taken into consideration if they will continue for a research study, being the only inland community?
I will let your question be responded to. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I will defer it to Mr. Bu Lam for an answer.
Thank you to the member for his question.
When we look at the pressures on the existing infrastructure from every community, we look at things like economic development, population growth, a whole range of factors.
What we do when we go in and identify problems in each of the communities is we do separate studies specific to those communities.
Baker Lake isn’t captured as part of this Dalhousie research, but if there are additional problems that are identified with particular infrastructure, we will do community-specific studies to ensure we properly identify what the problem is.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lam. (interpretation) Moving on.
My question is on a granular project.
There is a $2.5 million slated for the Kitikmeot and it also states that once that is done, the two other regions are going to benefit from the pilot project.
I’m just wondering what the minister has in plan for the Kivalliq and specifically for Arviat for granular projects.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you.
Yes, we discussed this matter in the past, but I can tell the member that the granular project will start this summer in Arviat and all the heavy equipment will be moved to that community.
I thank the minister for a very positive and quick response. On another subject, I don’t see it in the capital plan. I’ll just ask if there is any plan for it.
As the minister is well aware, our dump in Arviat is pretty near at capacity now and it cannot be expanded due to its location because it’s on the flight path of the runway.
The hamlet there has been lobbying the government to have an incinerator as part of the whole solid waste management plan.
If the minister can tell me if there are any plans to put that in budget soon because I don’t see it there now.
In order for it to be responded to correctly, I’ll defer this question to Mr. Green.
We had some funds approved in the previous gas tax for a plan and design for a new solid waste site in Arviat. It has been a number of years that we have been trying to find the appropriate site for the new solid waste site.
During the past summer, as a first approach to looking at the type of solution to the solid waste site in Arviat, we did a solid waste audit.
That really tells us the types of domestic waste that are being deposited into landfill sites, and what are the potential solutions in terms of technologies that exist that can be used to either help reduce the amount of waste that’s being deposited into the landfill site.
Once we finalize the analysis of the audit with solid waste, we will determine the type of facility that will be required, but to be able to fund this, it would have to be something that we would have to consider in the new gas tax program or probably the new Building Canada Fund. At this point in time, it’s too early to determine what costs will be required to replace the landfill site.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Green. (interpretation) I still have names on my list.
Before we proceed, we will take a five-minute break.
I have to take a short break, so we will be back here in five minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 17:18 and resumed at 17:26
It’s great to see you back.
At this time, I’m just going to proceed to questions.
Mr. Hickes: I appreciate the Chair’s indulgence to let me revisit the questions.
Mr. Green mentioned earlier gas tax funds and allocation to communities. How are these funds identified? How are these amounts identified, and what is Iqaluit’s allocation?
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Hickes. Hon. Minister.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to defer the question to Mr. Green.
Under the annual gas tax contribution that we get from the federal government, 2.5 percent of the annual allocation goes to the City of Iqaluit for their water and waste management programs, and the remaining annual funding that we receive from the gas tax, we get a list of projects from the municipalities.
The NCIAC committee then takes those lists of community water and waste management infrastructure needs, and then they’re ranked and prioritized by this committee in terms of allocating the funding for the communities.
Is that the same criteria used for the Building Canada Fund?
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe Mr. Green can respond to the question.
The standard ranking criteria that have been approved by the GN is used to ranking part of those gas tax projects.
During your answer to my colleague from Baker Lake, it was mentioned that the effluent waste information would not be material in ranking or rating, yet the GN capital planning process lists 40 percent of the criteria as health and safety. Can the minister clarify?
I’ll defer it to Mr. Green.
The standard ranking criteria the GN uses as a tool is used to rank and prioritize projects based on the criteria. Basically the outcome of the Dalhousie study… .
For example, if the outcome indicates that there’s risk to human health and to the environment, then this would be considered on the health and safety side of the GN’s standard ranking criteria. If the outcome of the Dalhousie study indicates that it’s lower risk to human health and the environment, then likely we wouldn’t have to do anything, so it wouldn’t be an impact and it wouldn’t be brought forward for consideration in the various infrastructure plans.
I believe you’re done, Mr. Hickes.
I just want to go back to one thing that I forgot to ask. $7 million is budgeted for the water system upgrades for the community of Kugluktuk in the 2011-12 capital estimates. The substantiation sheet for the project indicated that in May of 2010, FMB approved to temporarily reduce the Kugluktuk Water Supply System budget by $6.5 million to assist with the funding shortfall of the Nunavut Housing Trust.
I am just wondering: what is the status on the Kugluktuk Water Treatment System today?
To answer that properly, I’ll defer it to Mr. Bu Lam.
Mr. Lam: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the member for her question.
In regard to the Kugluktuk Water Treatment Facility, the current status is that we are currently finishing up design and we’re hoping to move forward with construction in 2014 this summer.
The reason why the project dates back to the date that the member had originally mentioned is because we have been dealing with a turbidity issue in the water supply there that has made it very difficult to come up with a system that can handle that type of water.
Over the last five or six years, we have been looking at several different technology options.
About two years ago, we isolated a technology that we think is very successful for treating the water in Kugluktuk.
We have used a pilot project over the last two years to verify that information.
That pilot did bring back some positive results, which is what we’re moving forward with in the design and construction this year.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Lam. (interpretation) General questions.
I have a few questions regarding the sewage lagoon project for Sanikiluaq.
The sewage lagoon project was supposed to start in 2012 and was put off due to geotechnical problems or equipment failure.
As of five or six weeks ago, I was informed that the project was on schedule and would go ahead this summer. In the last couple of days, I have been hearing that maybe it’s not going to go ahead.
I am wondering if the minister can give us an update today on the status on the sewage lagoon project for Sanikiluaq.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. Hon. Minister.
Hon. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I will defer it to Mr. Green.
We got the results back from the geo-tech that was done during the summer of 2013 just a few weeks ago.
Based on the outcome of that geo-tech assessment, the current location is high risk to failure if we were to build a sewage lagoon on that site.
We’ve had some discussions with the mayor and council regarding the existing site that was proposed. Council is in agreement that the best approach would be to identify a new site so that we can construct the new sewage treatment plant.
So this is where we’re really back at the planning and discussions with the municipality to identify a suitable site other than the one that was previously identified.
Unfortunately, that’s probably going to delay the project for about at least a year or longer.
I thank the minister and his officials for their update.
On a different issue, it is no secret that there is an urgent need for office space in my community for GN workers. I have been bringing this to the attention of the GN for the past several years.
Bringing it to your attention over several years, you know there is an issue and there isn’t any office space available.
What is your department doing to obtain office space in the community of Sanikiluaq?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Rumbolt. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister.
Again I will defer the response to Mr. Green.
We did issue an RFP a couple of years ago for office space in the community of Sanikiluaq, but we didn’t get any response to the RFP. There were a couple of buildings within the community that we investigated to see if they were suitable for office space, but once we talked to the landlords and looked at the buildings ourselves, they were not desirable for an office space leasing.