EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So it is very important to me and I will commit to looking into the situation. I would like to have more specifics if the member has specific situations, but I commit to working with my colleague, the Minister of Education, to make this process and acquire the FANS funding more readily to students.
Question 437 – 3(2): Funding for Landfill Incinerators (Okalik)
I would now like to pose a question to the Minister of Community and Government Services.
Here in Iqaluit, our dump has been burning for almost a month and we have heard that the Department of Community and Government Services had requested the government to plan for some kind of a proper incinerator for the dump in Iqaluit.
I would like to ask the minister if he can update us on this.
My name seems to be getting longer today.
I thank Mr. Okalik for that good question.
As I stated earlier, the government is now doing a study as to how we can better operate the dumps in Nunavut and what kind of incinerators we would be using.
We’re looking into cleaning up the communities’ dumps to make them safer in Nunavut.
As we all know, some communities outside of Iqaluit usually burn their garbage using incinerators so that they won’t be a fire hazard to the communities.
We have seen that in the communities and they can use that incinerator as residual heating for the homes.
They can also use the heat for electricity.
As the minister stated that they’re now looking into it or studying it, is he looking into these other kinds of things?
They can be very beneficial to Nunavut if we use the incinerators properly in Nunavut.
Yes, last summer, we went to look at an incinerator and they can even burn soft metal.
There are many pros and cons to this.
I don’t know if there is an incinerator being used in Canada because they are quite new and there are not too many in Canada.
The idea of incinerating garbage… since the incinerator is so hot and creates so much heat that it melts and disintegrates everything, if the incinerator is huge enough, they can heat homes.
Yes, we’re looking into these, and I can tell you that we are working with the Iqaluit city council in regard to that. We’re looking into that. We’re consulting with the hamlet councils to make sure that we work out all the problems.
In Iqaluit, all of the offices are being impacted by the burning of the garbage dump. It’s not just in Iqaluit; it’s in all the other communities of Nunavut that they burn the garbage.
I am sure it’s health hazardous to the communities. It’s evident that we need to improve the situation here.
As the minister stated that they’re looking into that, can the minister tell me when the review can be completed so that the public won’t just wait forever for the results of the study?
I cannot tell you exactly when the study will be completed, but in the upcoming months, I will make that information available in regard to the burning of the dumps.
We will now go back to our orders of the day. (interpretation ends) Item 7. Written Questions.
Return to Written Question 018 – 3(2): Attendance Rates in Nunavut (Clerk)
*See Appendix for full text of Returns to Written Questions 18 – 3(2), 19 – 3(2), 20 – 3(2), and 21 – 3(2) filed with the Clerk.
Return to Written Question 019 – 3(2): Department of EIA’s Contract for Work Related to the Suicide Prevention Strategy (Clerk)
Return to Written Question 020 – 3(2): Spousal Violence in Nunavut and Traditional Counselling Under the Family Abuse Intervention Act (Clerk)
Return to Written Question 021 – 3(2): Apprenticeship Programs Under the Nunavut Housing Trust (Clerk)
I am tabling four returns to the following written questions that were asked during the June 2010 sitting of the legislature: Written Questions No. 18, 19, 20, and 21.
Tabled Document 196 – 3(2): Photographs of Baker Lake Municipal Landfill (Aupaluktuq)
I wish to table today two photographs of the Baker Lake Municipal Landfill.
I was horrified when I saw these pictures. Mr. Speaker, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. I believe these pictures accurately show the appalling state of the Baker Lake landfill.
I encourage Nunavummiut to voice their concerns regarding community landfills to their local governments and to the Department of Community and Government Services. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 197 – 3(2): Submission from the Canadian Medical Protective Association on Bill 15, Legal Treatment of Apologies Act (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I would like to table a submission received by the Standing Committee on Legislation during its review of Bill 15, the Legal Treatment of Apologies Act.
The Canadian Medical Protective Association submitted very comprehensive comments on Bill 15, which received assent of this House on June 10, 2010.
On behalf of the committee, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly thank the Canadian Medical Protective Association for its submission. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 198 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Public Accounts (Peterson)
I am pleased to table the 2008-09 Public Accounts.
Tabled Document 199 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Public Service Annual Report (Shewchuk)
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the 2008-09 Public Service Annual Report.
Tabled Document 200 – 3(2): Return to Oral Question 399 – 3(2) Status of Decentralized GN Positions in Pangnirtung (Clerk)
Tabled Document 201 – 3(2): Return to Oral Question 416 – 3(2) Suicide Alertness and Intervention (Clerk)
Tabled Document 202 – 3(2): Response to Petition 4 – 3(2) Petition to Hold a Public Inquiry (Clerk)
Tabled Document 203 – 3(2): Response to Petition 5 – 3(2) Petition to Hold a Public Inquiry into the Wisdom of Allowing Uranium Mining in Nunavut (Clerk)
I have a number of items to table today. The first items are two returns to Oral Questions No. 399 and 416.
The second items are two returns to Petitions No. 4 and No. 5.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Notice
Bill 39 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2009-2010 – Notice
Bill 40 – Supplementary Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011 – Notice
Bill 41 – Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011 – Notice
Bill 42 – Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2 – Notice
Bill 43 – Write-Off of Assets and Debts Act, 2010-2011 – Notice
I have six notices of motions for first reading of bills. Rather than be a jack in the box, I’ll just read them all out.
I give notice that on Thursday, October 21, 2010, that Bill 38, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012, be read for the first time.
Second, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, October 21, 2010, that Bill 39, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2009-2010, be read for the first time.
No. 3, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, October 21,2010, that Bill 40, Supplementary Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
No. 4, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, October 21, 2010, that Bill 41, Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 3, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
No. 5, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, October 21, 2010, that Bill 42, Forgiveness of Debts Act, 2010, No. 2, be read for the first time.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I give notice that on Thursday, October 21, 2010, that Bill 43, Write-Off of Assets Act, 2010-2011, be read for the first time.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for the first reading of Bill 38, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012.
The minister is seeking consent to waive the two-day waiting rule so that Bill 38 can be read today for the first time.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – First Reading
Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Hon. Member of Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 38, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012, be read for the first time.
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet and Whale Cove, that Bill 38, Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012, be read for the second time.
The motion is carried. The motion has been passed and Bill 38 has been referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 38, Tabled Documents 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2) with Mr. Schell in the Chair.
(interpretation ends) I am sorry.
I will recognize Mr. Curley.
Hon. Tagak Curley: Mr. Speaker, I just want to announce to the House, on this side, that we don’t have a completed list of the House’s duties, so I would like to ask my colleagues to try and be patient.
It may be available… to support to have a quorum in the House. The duty list was not quite completed.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Curley, for bringing that issue up.
Sergeant-at-Arms, can you please lower the mace.
>>House recessed at 15:29 and Committee resumed at 15:59
In the Committee of the Whole, we have the following items to deal with: Tabled Documents 66 – 3(2), 99 – 3(2), and 100 – 3(2), and Bill 38.
We would like to confirm that we are in agreement that we have concluded our review of Tabled Documents 66, 99, and 100. We would like to commence with Bill 38 and start with the review of the Department of Community and Government Services’ capital estimates for the fiscal year 2011-12. If we complete the department prior to 6:00 p.m., we will report progress at that time.
Chairman: Thank you. Do members agree to proceed with Bill 38?
Bill 38 – Appropriation (Capital) Act, 2011-2012 – Community and Government Services – Consideration in Committee
Chairman: Thank you. I would now like to ask Minister Kusugak, responsible for the Department of Community and Government Services, to make his opening remarks.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will update you on the 2011-16 five-year capital plan and in particular, the 2011-12 Capital Estimates for the Department of Community and Government Services.
(interpretation ends) As we have indicated before, CGS provides a critical role in the capital process. Our technical and project management staff continue to provide a wide range of services to all departments in developing their capital plans.
The types of services and support range from initial project identification to final technical reviews and actual project management.
In addition to assisting government departments, we are also directly responsible for accessing and securing funding for specific types of community infrastructure.
These efforts require strong partnerships between our government, hamlets, and other involved stakeholders.
CGS recognizes the expectations we face and the trust put in us to deliver essential capital infrastructure as fairly and as equitably as possible. We use the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee to try and achieve that balance.
The Nunavut [Community] Infrastructure Advisory Committee (NCIAC) has a balanced government and hamlet membership and continues to work on the development of integrated community infrastructure sustainability plans, also referred to as ICISPs, in order to create and measure long-term comprehensive plans for each Nunavut community.
These plans are developed in consultation with each community and will help us work towards environmental, cultural, social, and economic goals.
They will also identify the types of infrastructure investments over the next 5 to 20 years that will best help each community achieve their sustainability objectives and needs.
The draft sustainability plans, which are scheduled for completion by December 31 of 2010, will provide the communities with a vision for community development over the long term.
Mr. Chairman, once completed, the plans will be owned by the communities and will provide community administrators with tools to plan infrastructure for future generations.
We firmly believe that this approach will improve our planning process and improve transparency in the prioritization and allocation of limited infrastructure funding across Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, CGS staff are also working with officials from the Department of Finance to change the existing approach to the GN capital planning process. This would be done by introducing a more vigorous pre-planning phase where client departments gather additional information to ensure that all initiatives can be properly analyzed before introducing capital projects for consideration.
This would include the introduction of a business case model to better define and support consideration of projects for inclusion in the five-year capital plan.
The business case would include the following main elements to help with the overall evaluation process:
Program needs analysis;
Operational/functional program assessment; and
A feasibility study.
We are also currently working on a project management maturity initiative. This initiative includes improvements to our existing capital project management practices, including our client guide, project management manual, and project monitoring tools.
The objective is to achieve consistent project management practices and outcomes resulting in on time and on budget project delivery.
Mr. Chairman, in responding to the issue of depleted granular stocks, CGS staff undertook an extensive review of all granular stocks. The pilot project we undertook in the Kitikmeot where CGS purchased a gravel crusher for Gjoa Haven is resulting in the crushing of granular materials this summer.
The department will continue to evaluate the success of this project and try to secure adequate funding before proceeding to other Kitikmeot communities.
We are also developing a comprehensive management strategy to ensure there is sufficient capacity at the community level to sustain the granular program over the long term. The strategy will address program delivery, commitment from other GN departments, security requirements, and user fees in order to generate revenues for municipalities so they can sustain the program.
It will also include a cost-benefit analysis to determine the potential cost savings to the GN. It is expected that the review will be completed by the end of the fiscal year 2010-11.
In response to community requests for gasification technology for managing municipal solid waste sites, the department has also issued a request for proposals for the development of a long-term strategy for managing municipal solid waste sites in Nunavut. This process has a completion date of December of 2010.
The consultant will visit key communities to gather a clearer understanding of the range of existing community solid waste sites. The consultant will assist the department to develop a practical strategy, including gasification technology, to best deal with disposing of garbage, hazardous and metal waste materials that are harmful to the environment.
Once the recommendations of the study are analyzed, the department will include management and construction of new solid waste sites in the capital planning process for consideration by the GN.
The Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent has established new and far more stringent effluent quality expectations than were previously applied in Nunavut. These include ammonia and oxygen-demanding matter and water, as well as suspended solids.
While these tighter standards are designed to protect aquatic wildlife, the cost to implement the proposed standards could result in significant financial implications to the GN.
In response to the new proposed tighter standards outlined by the strategy, the department hired Dalhousie University to conduct the science and research component of the CCME municipal water and wastewater effluent.
An intensive research and development program will provide Nunavut with the knowledge to define and meet northern wastewater discharge quality objectives.
The university will perform their northern wastewater research over a period of four to seven years.
Mr. Chairman, some significant water and waste projects are already underway, including upgrades to the Arctic Bay and Cambridge Bay, as well as Kimmirut’s rehabilitation of lagoons and roads, and the Baker Lake Intake Pump House. We are utilizing a combination of GN and federal dollars for these projects in order to supplement our limited resources.
We continue to try and meet new and evolving regulations for storage facilities, which increase pressure on us to modernize and ensure code compliance.
The demand for petroleum products storage capacity continues to increase. We are currently working to meet these demands within the GN’s limited resources.
With respect to our department’s five-year capital plan, we recognize that we will be facing many challenges over the next five years. These include the deterioration in our aging community infrastructure. Facilities, such as community halls, fire halls, hamlet offices, parking garages, and water works will need attention.
We recognize the collective pressure on the GN capital plan for infrastructure and the expectations of Nunavummiut. With continued funding from federal programs, such as the Building Canada Fund and extension of the Gas Tax Program, we are confident that we can continue to be effective in trying to meet the needs of our communities as they arise.
Another project we currently have underway is the Real Estate Capital Asset Planning Program, or RECAPP, as it’s referred to, the RECAPP database, which will capture life cycle building and facility information for all GN and hamlet infrastructure.
We are currently gathering and entering the required information in the database. Once complete, this will provide CGS and other departments with current and reliable information on their maintenance requirements for each building.
This project will assist in ensuring that our facilities are better maintained and last longer.
Mr. Chairman, we recognize that the timeline for repairs, renovations, retrofits, and replacements requested by the communities sometimes exceeds what can be accomplished in our individual yearly budgets. It is always a difficult balancing act to live within our means. Reliable data and information sharing is essential for analyzing and prioritizing our limited resources.
Some of our departmental initiatives are directed to improving this area of information maintenance and sharing.
Mr. Chairman, I hope that these comments give an appreciation for the extensive demands CGS faces for capital funding and the challenges associated with prioritizing projects.
Our awareness of the needs and the challenges communities face helps us chart our course during the capital planning process. Our intention is to support communities and try to address the needs of all Nunavummiut to the best of our ability and resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to any questions my colleagues may have.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
With me today are to my left, Ms. Kathleen Lausman, Deputy Minister of the department, and to my right, Mr. Roy Green, Director of Community Infrastructure.
Chairman: Thank you. Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development have comments?
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development as the Committee of the Whole begins its consideration of the proposed 2011-12 Capital Estimates of the Department of Community and Government Services.
Members note that the department is proposing to spend $34,022,000 for the 2011-12 fiscal year.
The department’s capital budget was $35,954,000 for the 2010-11 fiscal year and its budget was $36,194,000 for the 2009-2010 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, this department’s operations have a significant impact on the success of the GN’s overall capital planning process.
In recent years, Members of the Legislative Assembly have repeatedly expressed their concerns with respect to the issues of project management and capital carryovers.
On June 7, 2010, the Minister of Finance appeared before the Committee of the Whole on the occasion of its consideration of Supplementary Appropriation (Capital) Act, No. 1, 2010-2011.
In his opening comments, the minister stated that “The 2009-2010 departmental capital carryover request of $96.5 million represents an increase for the second year in a row and is $13.8 million higher than the prior year.
In order to reduce capital carryovers, the government needs to be conservative with upcoming capital plans, thus allowing for the backlog of projects to be completed.”
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were advised that the department is “working with officials from the Department of Finance to change the existing approach to the GN’s capital planning process by introducing a more rigorous pre-planning phase where client departments gather additional information to ensure that all initiatives can be properly analyzed before introducing capital projects for their consideration.”
The standing committee looks forward to ongoing updates on the department’s efforts concerning this important initiative and encourages the Nunavut Community Infrastructure Advisory Committee to continue its work on the development of the integrated community infrastructure sustainability plans which create and measure long-term comprehensive plans for each Nunavut community.
Mr. Chairman, the January 2009 federal budget announced the creation of a recreational infrastructure fund to provide $500 million over two years to “support construction of new community recreational facilities and upgrades to existing facilities across Canada.”
Members are supportive of initiatives to improve the quality of recreational facilities in Nunavut given their important role in fostering health and wellness in our communities.
Members look forward to being kept informed of the GN’s success in accessing our territory’s share of this federal funding.
The standing committee is pleased to see that the department has included arena upgrades for the communities of Coral Harbour and Arviat in its 2011-12 draft capital estimates.
These upgrades will give the communities the ability to have artificial ice which will provide a longer playing season.
Members also recommend that the department explore opportunities for all Nunavut communities to undertake improvements to existing recreational facilities in order to increase the number of months that they can be used during the year.
The standing committee notes that an additional $100,000 has been allocated in the department’s proposed 2011-12 capital estimates towards planning for a new recreational complex in Rankin Inlet.
The department’s 2010-11 capital estimates also included $100,000 for this project.
The department’s substantiation sheet for the project indicates that the scope of this project has changed from a basic arena to a complex that will include an indoor games area, curling rink, exercise/weight area, meeting or convention area with a kitchen and canteen area, and an Olympic-sized swimming pool.
Members note that the substantiation sheet does not include total projected costs for this new recreational complex.
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members were advised that the department is waiting for a needs assessment for this project and that the cost of this project will depend on the size of this complex.
Members also note that the department recently issued a request for proposals for a feasibility study for an indoor sports facility in Rankin Inlet.
Although the standing committee is supportive of new recreational facilities in the territory, it is essential that projects be reasonable and affordable.
It is also important that all communities enjoy a basic level of recreational infrastructure.
The standing committee will be considering these factors carefully as the project moves forward and its total costs become clear.