EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
However, in the event that federal support does not materialize, the department will need to examine what it can achieve with its own resources.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Chairman, the standing committee notes with approval that the department continues to include funding in its annual capital estimates for community access roads. The planned amount in 2008-09 is $500,000.
Members remain concerned about the implementation status of long-term plans to achieve necessary airport improvements across the territory. Members recall that the government’s 2003 Nunavut Air Services Study outlined several infrastructure priorities that are necessary for improving the level of service from airlines. Current runway lengths and their composition reduce the level of service that airlines can provide and can also increase the cost of providing services.
Members encourage the minister to work towards implementing airport upgrades that enhance service opportunities for Nunavut’s airlines.
Members also stress the importance of taking into account the benefit of investing in projects with the potential to support economic development in other sectors, especially natural resource development in regions where exploration and extraction are rapidly moving forward.
Mr. Chairman, on August 10, 2007, the federal government announced a number of major investments in the High Arctic, including a docking and refuelling facility in Nanisivik.
It is unclear what plans the federal government has with respect to the Nanisivik airstrip.
The Department of Economic Development and Transportation is budgeting $6.4 million in 2008-09 to substantially complete the Arctic Bay/Nanisivik Airport Redevelopment project. $70,000 is also being budgeted for ongoing highway upgrades between Arctic Bay and Nanisivik.
The standing committee urges the GN to work closely with the federal government and the local community to maximize the benefits of this sovereignty initiative.
The standing committee also encourages the GN to continue lobbying the federal government to achieve progress in developing other deep water port facilities in the territory.
Mr. Chairman, $75,000 was budgeted in 2007-08 for the GN’s support to the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project.
The substantiation sheet for this project indicated that 2007-08 would be the final year of GN funding.
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, he confirmed that the GN remains supportive of BIPAR and continues to be involved in the project’s management committee.
The standing committee encourages the minister to provide regular updates to the House on the progress of this important initiative and the ways in which the GN is helping to move it forward.
In June of this year, $66,000 in funding for the Manitoba-Nunavut Road study was carried over in a supplementary appropriation.
The department’s draft five-year capital plan includes $5.0 million in funding for this project.
However, a specific starting date for actual construction has not been determined and funding has not been confirmed.
The standing committee recognizes that this nation-building initiative will likely cost more than a billion dollars and will require a significant commitment from Ottawa in order to achieve substantial progress.
Members encourage the minister to continue his lobbying efforts in this area in partnership with his Manitoba counterparts and local Nunavut stakeholders, such as the Kivalliq Inuit Association.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2008-09 Capital Estimates of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation. (interpretation)Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley. (interpretation ends) Before we proceed, I would like to remind members of the following: according to Rule 77(1), you have 10 minutes to speak, and according to Rule 77(2), subject to the discretion of the Chair, members may speak more than once to a matter under discussion but not until every member wishing to speak has spoken.
As for the comments of the chairman of the standing committee, I just wanted to point out that back then, when we were young, it cost $500,000 for the construction of access roads.
It still remains the same today, $500,000.
What Inuit seems to be put at the back burner for development? It seems like they go forward more with what the government wants and not what the Inuit want.
That $500,000 that was mentioned but we haven’t seen an increase in this section.
Inuit know that we’re trying to revive our culture and our language. They don’t just want to stay in their communities, especially in spring and summer time.
They go out hunting to get food for the winter, whether it’s fish or caribou, and to also pass on their knowledge to their children.
They use up all of their holidays being out on the land.
There hasn’t been an increase for the funding of access roads, especially in the eastern coast of Baffin Island. It is almost impossible to try and develop access roads because of all the hills.
I want this to be considered.
It takes longer now for the ice to form and it melts earlier now in the spring time. For example, even though we can go down to the flow edge, it’s almost impossible to go anywhere else on the ice.
Because there are inlets, the ice melts faster in those areas.
Mr. Chairman, what I’m trying to say is that the word “access road” also means putting a bridge over a river.
In all of Nunavut, we know there are a lot of rivers.
I want this to be considered. These things should reflect what the community wants, especially the access roads.
The second thing I wanted to mention are the ports just as the chair mentioned before. Do they know that the territorial government is working really hard? They might have to lobby somewhere else so that they can come up with an agreement.
The federal government will be utilizing quite a bit of money for admitting and recognizing the mistake they made of sending students to residential schools.
It should be included in the agreement that its purpose is to promote and become more self reliant.
That should be the goal for encouraging the communities to be self reliant.
They want to develop, whether it’s in businesses or development cooperation.
They want to be able to be self reliant and not just getting handouts from the government.
I know what I’m saying because when we were encouraged to purchase our own homes, a lot of people applied. They were quite eager.
I think the territorial and the federal governments have to be shown. If you read it in the preamble, it says the mission is to promote self reliance.
Having a port should be included in there.
Towards the conclusion of his remarks, the minister mentioned the licensing project.
It’s not funny but sometimes it sounds funny.
Sometimes it takes six months to get a driver’s licence.
I thought it was just in Pond Inlet but apparently it’s like that in other communities.
Because you can only work if you have a driver’s licence, once they get a job, they have to wait for their licence.
I want this to be worked on, so I’m happy that it’s included in there.
Lastly, I want say to the Department of Economic Development that the Mary River Mine, where there will be royalties gained by Nunavut Tunngavik because it’s 100 percent Inuit owned.
However, the surrounding communities of Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, Clyde River, Hall Beach, and Igloolik will be bypassed.
Maybe there will be a few jobs they could take but they won’t really benefit from that.
So I’m urging the GN that the Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement should be included in the negotiation process.
How will they get things directly?
As the Chair mentioned, the ports and the runways should also be included in there.
We’re still on comments by the members.
We’re on Capital Estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
Starting with K-7. (interpretation ends) Economic Development and Transportation. Detail of Capital. Grants and Contributions.
Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $1.5 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
I welcome the minister to COW today.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could provide us a list of the projects that were funded on the Small Craft Harbour Program for the current fiscal year.
Hon. David Simailak: The project that was funded this year was the engineering stage for the Pangnirtung Harbour design.
Am I correct that we’re on page K-7? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Yes, Mr. Peterson, we’re on K-7. Mr. Peterson.
I thank the minister for that answer. I wonder if the minister could give us a bit more detail.
I’m referring to the Small Craft Harbour Contribution, there’s $1 million. I think there’s $1 million set aside for that work. What projects were financed through that $1 million?
We have requested funding for these small craft harbours. I think you are asking for the prior year’s estimates.
We were going to use this $1 million to assist the project but we haven’t started this project yet.
We will want to use this funding from the estimate for the Small Craft Harbour Contribution.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for clarifying that.
For the $500,000 for the access roads, could the minister provide some detail on what those funds will be used for? Do you have any projects in mind?
An example of what we did in this current fiscal year, 2007-08; there were ten applications received from ten communities and they were all funded anywhere from $20,000 to $60,000 at various levels.
For the 2008-09 capital estimates again, $500,000, we will accept applications, probably by April 30 of next year.
Could the minister indicate whether it feels that $500,000 is a sufficient amount to meet the demand from all the communities in Nunavut?  He mentioned ten applications but there are 25 communities in Nunavut.
So I would assume that most communities would want some funding. Could he give us an indication; he funded ten applications but did he get 25 applications?
No, it is not nearly enough at all. In fact, for the ten applications that we received for this summer’s Access Road Program that we had, just those ten applications alone totalled $1.6 million. That’s only ten applications - ten communities.
In the five-year capital plan, we were hoping that the Access Road funding will increase to $1 million in 2010-11.
I thank Minister Simailak for that answer.
It certainly seems like a program that’s in great demand in Nunavut.
I wonder, could you give us a sense or an outline of how you receive the applications from the communities? How do you prioritize which community gets a level of funding and how do you deal with communities that don’t get any funding?
How do you go through the applications and determine who should be funded?
Hon. David Simailak: We did not come across that problem this past summer.
There were 10 applications received from 10 communities, although our funding is only $500,000 and the applications totalled $1.6 million.
For every community that applied this past spring, I received some funding for the Access Roads Programs.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Minister Simailak for that.
I realize there’s no shortage of applications that I know of, so I guess you’re short $1.1 million in my calculator.
So that sends a large message to us that the access roads, at least in those 10 communities, need repairs. I’m assuming that the estimates that they got for them for the repair and upgrading of those roads are probably fairly accurate.
It does send a message to us. We know and the people in the communities know that there are more and more vehicle traffic with four wheelers, trucks, and motorcycles; I’m not sure what vehicles might be on the road.
How do you, when you receive that application for a project, let’s say that’s for $150,000 and you can only fund $40,000, how does the community fund the balance?
Where do they get the funding from, or do they have to cut back their projects a little bit, or would they endeavour to try and fund the remaining from the following year from the same program? Can the minister give me a sense of how that works with when they’re dealing with the hamlets?
What some of the communities have done is they have accessed some funding through a couple of our other programs, the Strategic Investments Program and the Small Communities Initiatives Fund.
That has helped.
Other communities have just simply cut back their project for the summer and plan to apply again in the next fiscal year.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Minister Simailak for that information.
I know, with the Department of Community and Government Services, they work closely with the Nunavut Advisory Committee, which is made up of three departmental officials and three mayors. So they receive the applications and prioritize what they can fund and then repeat the process the following year.
So I’m wondering, do you have people within your department that will work with the hamlet, or work with the hamlet to help them develop a prioritization process to review the applications or determine which roads should be funded and which can be put off for the future year?
As I said, we received 10 applications for this past summer’s Access Road Program and all 10 were funded to a certain extent and a lot less then what they originally asked for. We do have a couple of the programs within the department that the communities can access.
At the moment, there’s an internal process within our department. We do work with the hamlets that do apply to try to work something out that would be agreeable because there’s no way that we could have funded the $1.6 million request this past summer.
Yes, we do work with the hamlets.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank Minister Simailak.
If you had a situation where you had all of the communities in Nunavut apply for funding, I’m assuming that they’re all aware...
It always seems inconceivable that there’s this funding there and only ten communities apply because every community has roads, and every mayor and council has constituents who always complain about the roads.
So it would be worth the mayors’ and councils’ time to access the funding.
So if you had all of the communities apply for $500,000, how would you sort through them? How would you help them out?
How would your officials work with the Public Works people in the communities to develop their funding proposals and access the other... I think it’s called ‘Piggy Backing,’ so you go to the Strategic Infrastructure Program or get a bit of money from every pot.
How does your department help the communities, first of all, to become aware of all the programs that are available and exactly how you put them all together so that you can fund the projects or improvements to the loans from two to three sources within your department? Can you give us an overview of how that works?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In terms of keeping the hamlets informed, I have mentioned it a couple times at the NAM AGMs, and every spring, every hamlet receives a letter reminding them of the Access Road Program and how they can apply, etcetera.
And, those that do apply, our regional offices work very closely with them in developing their proposal and then our people over here, again, also through the regional offices, try to come up with an amount that would be agreeable to both parties because there’s no way we can fund every projected total.
I think our hamlet got some money this summer for the road to Mount Elia Uviak. It was certainly a lot smoother during the summer.
So if he did fund this, I appreciate it. That was good to know.
I’ve been to a few communities in Nunavut and most roads are in very rough conditions. I’m just trying to get a sense here of how you get the applications and how you work with the hamlets. Most hamlets don’t have the expertise to fix up roads but you could get proposals to get it.
So who in your department, who can they contact, or what people do you have that would go work with the hamlet to put their proposals together to access all your funding?
People at our regional offices are usually the first point of contact for communities. All of our regional offices have said that they know about the program very well and if they can’t answer any questions, then they are referred to our people over here.
You’ve got to remember, too, these are basically trails, these are access roads or trails; they’re not necessarily built to road standards, if you want to call them that.
A lot of these are basically ATV trails to various sites around the communities.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. I would like to thank the minister for giving us the information. I also have questions in regard to access roads.
I would like to ask the minister about how they differ from Community and Government Services monies. Is there a difference between the two pots of money?
Some communities get funding for access roads through CGS and then there are the access roads funding from your department. Do you have different conditions, or is it open to all communities?
Community and Government Services have funds for roads within the hamlet.
What we have here is access roads that go outside of the community proper, and usually, these access roads are used for four wheelers and so on, and usually they lead to camp sites, fishing lakes, and popular areas.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, very much, for that information.
I have another question with regard to the conditions that are set by your department.  If it’s for access roads, I’m sure it would have to go through the Hunters and Trappers Organization.
Would they be the ones making the proposal, or could individuals apply, or does it have to be a recognized entity?
It usually goes through the hamlet council and there has to be a motion supporting the proposal. We usually go through the hamlet.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Why is it that it’s more open to the hamlet councils than to other entities? Nowadays, a lot of the hamlet councillors are not full-time hunters and they’re not contributing as much as they should in some communities.
In Levinia’s and my riding, we have two rivers on each side of the community and I think they’re about a mile or a mile and a half in distance.
Just from October to December, usually during freeze-up, the flow of the river slows down.
There’s usually flooding, especially in windy conditions. Usually, there is an overflow that reaches up to the level of the bridge.
I wonder if it’s possible to make a proposal because we know some of the conditions that the hamlet doesn’t know. Some of the access roads that are used go right through soft terrain.
For instance, just recently we heard on the radio that an elder got his ATV stuck and he had to work for three hours to get it out of the trail.
It’s not that steep over there but because of the soft conditions, I think it would be an excellent idea to put gravel in that area.
Is it possible to include other individuals other than the hamlet? There are some people who just say, “Even if I make the proposal, they’re not going to approve it.”
So I think it’s better if we use other entities or other individuals than the hamlet.
It’s at the discretion of the community but it has to be supported by the hamlet council by a motion.
If they want to do any projects in the community, it’s up to them. It’s within their jurisdiction.
I think that it was last year, when we were dealing with the operations and maintenance, we were talking about the operations and maintenance but it doesn’t apply in this case.
At times we hear about too much red tape preventing some of the individuals or entities from accessing the grants and contributions and other pots of money. I’ll just leave it at that.
The other question I have is in regard to the small craft harbours.
Mr. Minister, when we’re talking about the small craft harbours, does it just apply for small craft harbours?
There are also breakwaters and other types of wharfs.
Where does the Small Crafts Harbours Contribution apply?
I will have Mr. Methuselah Kunuk respond to that question.
In regard to the small craft harbours, there were seven harbours and they are not just breakwater. They can also be used for unloading of ships.
Some of them are breakwaters and some of them are docks.
During the standing committee, we were told that, even if we just wait for the federal government to start building these harbours, we’re going to be waiting for a very long time.
I think it doesn’t take very long if you work with a technician or engineers but you have to look at the tides and other conditions of where you want to build.
Isn’t it possible for your department to build whatever is required instead of just waiting for the federal government?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Thank you Mr. Chair. (interpretation ends) We’re not just waiting for the federal government.
We are finishing projects that are required. We had done the fish habitat studies and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been informed that we would like to get the specs for Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Broughton Island, and Pangnirtung from the federal government and we will be using that $1 million to start the projects.
In regard to actually building docks and so on, it’s the responsibility of the federal government. They look at all of the docks and breakwaters right across Canada, including Nunavut.
So that’s where we are at.
Thank you, very much, for that information.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to say, I think it’s true what I say, that we’re going to be waiting forever if we are going to be waiting for that pot of money from the federal government that you believe is going to be $1 million.
Even in Iqaluit, I’m sure it’s about $1 million but I hear that it’s approximately $400,000.
With some of the communities that absolutely need breakwaters, why is it that we have to wait for the federal government?
Can we not increase this pot of money?
For example, if we have to build a school on an emergency basis, some funds are taken from various departments’ budgets in order to build the school.
We can do that by splitting that pot of money into two by paying half of it and getting the federal government to pay the other half.
Is it not possible to do that?
We have $1 million that we use currently to build the necessary facilities.
We’re looking at Arviat and Cape Dorset and what type of breakwater or facility it would be.
We’re currently doing two studies on those two companies using that $1 million.
We have to constantly lobby the federal government to access those funds but some of the communities are doing really well in building whatever is required as an infrastructure, but Rankin Inlet hasn’t accessed any of those funds.
It’s kind of like a sheltered cove and they just push some gravel in there in order to facilitate the docks a little more.
We’re giving you full support, Mr. Minister, and the consultation report was really good.
I just want to thank you and we would just like you to keep going and doing your excellent job.
I’ll leave it at that, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I’m very pleased to get that advice.
Yes, we have been lobbying.
Last month I met with the DIAND Minister in Baker Lake when he was there to see the mining company.
He had seen it, so therefore, he was in support. He is now encouraging and lobbying the Department of Fisheries Minister to start dealing with this as soon as possible.
He is now in support and our Premier has been writing a letter to the Prime Minister with regard to this issues.
Yes, we will continue to work on this issue.
Just to supplement.
Some communities have made their designs already and Pond Inlet even paid for their own designs for a small craft harbour.
Sometimes it’s very difficult to understand the tides in the communities and the ebbing of the water.
For example, in Pond Inlet, after a big gale force wind, when the wind is going 60 miles an hour, sometimes it goes beyond that.
When there are gale force winds during high tide, the waves are very huge.
An elder who is a very capable hunter had died in the water by falling in. Even last summer, there were two boats that were damaged and they were covered by waves.
The gale force winds are getting stronger every year due to climate change.