EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As I stated earlier, Inuit don’t just want to be given handouts.
They want to be self-sustained.
In Pond Inlet, for example, and I’m sure it’s like that in other communities, they want to get a fish plant.
The minister mentioned the fisheries in 0A.
Sometimes they go and unload in Nuuk and Pangnirtung very rarely, and also to Clyde River, which is very close to that fishing zone.
Although I will be asking questions, but to elaborate further, the Arctic islands belong to the government and for sovereignty purposes, they will be putting in an army training program in the High Arctic in Resolute Bay and also in Nanisivik. It seems like the Americans are just laughing at this, even though they are trying to bark at the little ships.
I believe that and they believe and show other countries, such as Norway, Denmark, Americans, and Russians that the Arctic Archipelago… to show them how you provide support to arctic islands for sovereignty purposes?
There is only $42 million that has been allocated. I think they had so many billions that were in surplus, whereas the Nunavut budget, perhaps $908 million.
Once the federal government makes their budget report, they will just put asterisks because this is too miniscule.
Perhaps, you should tell the Department of Environment that this has been approved already by the government. If they want to be a good government as they say, then please go ahead with the programs that the Liberal Government was supposed to do.
My question is; Mr. Chairman, although you had mentioned it earlier that last month in Baker Lake that you met with the minister: how many times within the last two years, who have you met with in order to negotiate the Small Craft Harbour and Port Program?
Hon. David Simailak (interpretation): Our officials within the Department of Economic Development and Transportation have been meeting with the officials of DFO many times. Our Premier has been corresponding with the Prime Minister of Canada and also to the Minister of Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
I met with the Minister of DIAND when he was in Baker Lake.
Every time we met with various federal ministers, we continually spoke about these to make sure that they provided more support to this program.
It is being provided but the funding that has been identified for this use has not been implemented yet. That’s the only thing that’s holding us back at this time.
That $42.6 million is extremely small in the government’s budget or the federal government’s coffers.
As you stated already, Mr. Minister, that all of the ports that are important to economy and safety in the Maritime Provinces are provided for by the federal government.
You also stated that that’s why Nunavut is being neglected from that.
Isn’t that against the constitution by neglecting one part of the country and favouring the other?
Is it not against the equal rights?
What seems to be the reason why they don’t want to fund that very small amount?
Hon. David Simailak: I can’t answer for the federal government but they have been telling us that the hold-up right now is that they have not found that $40 million plus to fund these seven harbours within the DFO budget.
The federal minister has not found the $40 million plus that we need yet. So that’s where the hold-up is.
I’m sure there was a huge surplus that the federal government announced, but he hasn’t found the money yet and that’s where the problem lies.
Mr. Arvaluk: I have a last quick question, last one.
Mr. Chairman, the funding to rebuild Afghanistan, this money was found very easily, it’s probably in the billions by now.
It’s more important, I guess, for the Canadian Government because it’s not Canada, in the same way that North America was discovered but the people who always lived here never did discover it.
Mr. Chairman, there’s no indication at all whatsoever from them of what seems to be the stumbling block from there, from their point of view.
For example, the Indian Affairs Minister, who spoke to you, did not indicate anything at all what the stumbling block is in making the money available.
Yes, we will keep lobbying the federal government to fund these seven projects. That’s all I can do, or that’s all I can say at the moment.
We will keep lobbying whenever, however, and wherever we can.
We are on page K-7.
I wonder, just for the record, if the minister could provide the names of the seven communities that we’re talking about.
Chairman(interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
In March of 2004, the Deputy Minister of Fisheries and Oceans set up an Intergovernmental Nunavut Harbour Working Committee.
It was that committee that did the Nunavut Small Craft Harbour Report and identified seven communities earliest to benefit from a commercial fishery.
In the Baffin, there’s Pangnirtung, Qikiqtarjuaq, Clyde River, and Pond Inlet. In the Kivalliq, there’s Repulse Bay and Chesterfield Inlet. In the Kitikmeot, there’s Kugaaruk.
Total Headquarters Region. $1.5 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: Total Grants and Contributions. $1.5 million. (interpretation) Do you agree?
Chairman: I am sorry, Mr. Peterson.
That’s my favourite part of the page here. We’re on the Kitikmeot region now.
There’s a reference to the Bathurst Inlet in there and there’s no funding mentioned. I recall in the standing committee and our chairman mentioned it as well, you indicated that the Government of Nunavut supports the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project.
So I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if there’s no funding identified on the capital plan, could the minister give us an indication of how the Government of Nunavut supports this particular project?
It is a high priority project for the Kitikmeot.
A draft Environmental Impact Statement is being prepared by the Management Committee and we, the department, are contributing $326,000 towards that statement being prepared.
The budget for the Environmental Impact Statement is $1.85 million and we have contributed $326,000 to that work. The remainder of the money required is coming from the industry.
We have provided funding, organizational support, and advice to the work of the Management Committee and we will also be contributing $75,000 to support the permitting stage of the project scheduled for 2008.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that information. It’s good information to know.
Can the minister tell me what level of support you are going to provide to the project in your five-year capital plan? Is there any information you can shed on that?
The next stage is going to be the funding issue.
There are two development models that have been discussed. The project was initially envisioned as a P3, a Public Private Partnership. The second model is similar to the one that was used for the Lupin Ice Road.
So there are options being discussed right now as to how the project will be funded, and once that’s been determined, then we will look at our contribution towards those costs. So until that happens, we have nothing in the five-year capital plan right now.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for that update.
Mr. Chairman, I recall, I think it was in August, reading the Hansard from the Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, where the NWT MLAs were urging their Minister of Transportation to hurry up and build a road from outside of Yellowknife into the Lac de Gras area before those guys from Nunavut build their road from the Bathurst Inlet.
I wonder, Mr. Chairman, I know the ministers and their counterparts have meetings from time to time but there are probably chances that you haven’t yet, did you talk to the former Minister of Transportation for the NWT to get an understanding of where they’re going and where their interest is in getting into the area versus Nunavut’s interest in building a port and road into that area.
There was supposed to be a Federal/Provincial/Territorial Transportation Ministers’ Meeting earlier this month, but that got cancelled or postponed because of the Throne Speech that was coming down.
But no, I have not discussed it personally with the previous Transportation Minister about the Bathurst Inlet Road and Port, that is.
I wonder if the minister could confirm for the record if the Bathurst Inlet Port Road Project is still one of the two Nunavut priority transportation projects that you submitted to the National Transportation Policy. Can you confirm that for me, please?
Yes, that is still the case.
I thank the minister for confirming that information.
In the Kitikmeot region, I’ve been lobbying for several years, previously as the mayor and now as MLA, for upgrades to our airport in Cambridge Bay.
I read a news paper story last week in News North. They talked about the increase in usage of airports in Nunavut and they presented some statistics.
They mentioned that the Cambridge Bay Airport is increasing, which we know from data that’s being collected.
I know that in the past the minister’s department has submitted funding proposals to the Airport Capital Assistance Program in Ottawa without any success, in fact, for the Kitikmeot, or the Cambridge Bay Airport proposal.
I wonder if the minister could give me and my constituents an update on where his department is in terms of making the case and lobbying for funding from the federal government to expand our airport runway in Cambridge Bay.
The problem we’ve been running into to date is that Transport Canada has not accepted that the correction of the deviation stanzas at the Cambridge Bay Airport is eligible under the Airport Capital Assistance program. That’s the problem we’ve been running into.
Cambridge Bay is a gateway airport, and those are very much a priority, and the necessary expansion and improvements to the Cambridge Bay Airport will be identified to the federal government as a department of priority for other federal infrastructure funding.
So that’s where we are at now. We are now looking for other federal infrastructure funding that we can access to do the necessary work at the Cambridge Bay Airport.
I recall from, I think it was around the year 2000, the estimate to upgrade the airport runway was $6 million, or roughly in that neighbourhood. I believe from the information I read during the standing committee that the estimated costs now are $18 million, or close to $18 million. So they’re climbing substantially as each year goes by.
I’m getting a little concerned that at some point there that it’s going to become prohibitive to upgrade that airport and that’ll be the next reason why we can’t get an upgrade because it costs too much. So I’m a little worried about that.
You mentioned other federal funding. I’m aware of a new program called, I think it’s called, “Infrastructure Advantage,” and I think it was your own department that provided that information to us during the standing committee that in that program, I think they mentioned funding that’s available for priority transportation type projects.
I wonder if the minister could tell me if the Cambridge Bay Airport might qualify as a gateway project under that Infrastructure Advantage Program, which is a federal government program.
The latest estimates that we have are that the cost to widen the graded areas is now $8 million, and the cost to lengthen and pave the runway is $12 million. So we’re already up to $20 million just for that work.
The Federal Budget 2007 identified their new Building Canada Fund, which is $25 million a year over seven years, and that’s to assist in infrastructure spending on gateways, roads, highways, and other transportation facilities which are listed as national priorities in Budget 2007.
So we’re hoping that airports would qualify for that funding but that’s the sort of information that we’re still trying to clarify with Canada.
So it’s already gone up $2 million in two or three months?
I guess that really is inflation and this time next year it could be $40 million?
Can the minister tell me, this Infrastructure Advantage Program, or Building Canada program, how much money is available to each territory and province and over what length of time it is? Can he confirm that for me?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, as I mentioned earlier, it’s $25 million a year over seven years.
So it’s $175 million in total.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the minister for confirming that information.
Could you tell me, have your officials met with federal government officials?
Are there some terms of agreement that you’re negotiating to put in place that would govern the $25 million flowing into Nunavut?
Regardless of what the federal government says, the money should be used for… we have some Nunavut specific types of projects that need to be funded. Is something like the Cambridge Bay Airport something you would envision the funding being used for?
The Department of Community and Government Services is actually the lead department on that file. We have been working very closely with Finance, CLEY, and ED&T.
The Framework Agreement is being worked on now, between the Government of Nunavut and Canada, and the list of projects is also being developed.
I recall from our meeting with the Minister of Community and Government Services the other day and her officials, they mentioned the Framework Agreement as well. I think the deputy minister mentioned that the $25 million funding could be used in the current fiscal year.
Are you hopeful that this Framework Agreement, that you can use $25 million in the first year, in the current fiscal year of which being the year 2007-08, and the projects, that might be on your books right now, to be developed?
Deputy Minister Keenainak has the latest current information on that.
Ms. Keenainak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) As the CGS Deputy Minister has indicated, the way the agreement is done right now, or the way the federal government announced it, the funding is supposed to be rolling out effective this year for the next seven years.
However, the Framework Agreement is still not finalized. I think Nunavut is actually one of the first ones that may be in the position to sign.
All the other jurisdictions are behind as well. There is the Treasury Board issue for the feds as well.
Even if the money is given to us this year, there’s no way that we’ll be able to do any constructions. We haven’t agreed on any of the projects or what’s going to be brought forward.
One of the other things that we have been talking about with the feds about is rolling over to see if that could be done in future years.
So that’s yet to be finalized and that’s still being discussed.
I thank the minister and Ms. Keenainak for that answer.
Actually, that was one of my concerns being that it’s already November and you’re still negotiating the Framework Agreement. It gets a little tricky because when they say seven years, but then you lose the first year because you’re getting caught up in negotiating and they don’t allow you to roll it over.
You know $25 million is a lot of money. So hopefully, you can roll it over and still use it for seven years.
I wish I could help you down there in Ottawa. If you need my help, I’ll bring a proposal with me as well for the airport.
My question for the minister; when I go back to my Cambridge Bay riding, the mayor and I are going to be sitting down at some point: what can I tell her about the situation or the prospect of this airport funding application being approved and funded at some time in the near future?
Can you give me any level of comfort that it’s a priority and funding will, at some point in the next year or two, be available?
As mentioned a couple of times, the Framework Agreement is still being worked on. CGS has the lead on this file.
The list of priorities is still to be drawn up.
Hopefully, because this money has been identified to be spent on gateways, roads, highways, and other transportation facilities, I would hope that that airport would qualify for that funding, especially our gateway airports of which Cambridge Bay is one. The Cambridge Bay Airport affects the entire Kitikmeot region by being a gateway airport.
So I would hope that the airports will be a high priority once that priorities list is drawn up. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I don’t have any more names on my list. We are on (interpretation ends) Economic Development and Transportation.
Detail of Capital. Transportation. Total Grants and Contributions. $1.5 million.
Chairman: Now, go to page K-8. Economic Development and Transportation. Detail of Capital.
Headquarters Region. Total Headquarters Region. $1.2 million. Does the committee agree?
Chairman: Qikiqtaaluk Region. Total Qikiqtaaluk Region. $6,770,000.
I have no real objection to this because I guess we can be charged by the contractors now in any amount they want. I know we have lost control of our budget.
You have prior year cost for $12.4 million for Airport Redevelopment in Arctic Bay, and in 2008-09, you want another $6.4 million.
Is that because it also includes an actual air terminal along with everything included?
Hon. David Simailak: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, that is the case.
This is for a complete airport.
It’s really too bad that you were thinking about Arctic Bay before Mr. Harper did.
Did you hear anything about when he reconstructs the docking facilities there or the port that he will also upgrade the Nanisivik Airport and start reusing it again, because they will need to have an airport, presumably, or will they use the Arctic Bay Airport when they are carrying out the facility in Nanisivik?
Initial discussions between the Department of National Defence officials and officials in my department indicate that DND is requesting very modest improvements to the existing port facility, that DND does not expect to keep the Nanisivik Airport operational, and that they would be using the Arctic Bay Airport.
Mr. Arvaluk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hear that the Arctic Bay Airport is relatively close to Arctic Bay down near the shoreline.
I guess my question is: who is willing to keep the road open then from the Nanisivik Sea Port to the Arctic Bay Airport in order for Defence to have access to the Arctic Bay Airport?
We plan to keep the road open until the Arctic Bay Airport becomes operational because we have to use the Nanisivik Airport, naturally.
DND is not interested in keeping the Nanisivik Airport open but they may have an interest in keeping the road open between Arctic Bay and the port during the summer only.
So, naturally, those negotiations will have to take place and that will include who will maintain the road, whether we would do that, or whether DND would do that. Those negotiations are yet to take place.
On this page here, somewhere, I’m not sure if it’s the right spot, but it’s just dealing with...
I know I see the Airport Redevelopment, the rehab on the runway/apron in Kimmirut, and I know it’s something I had mentioned in the past that there was, at one point, a master plan or study for the international airport here in Iqaluit. I’m just wondering if I could get an update from the minister or his officials of where things are at with that project.
Mr. Kunuk can answer that question in detail.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Simailak. Mr. Kunuk.
Yes, the development we did this summer and last year in Iqaluit is part of the implementation of the Iqaluit Master Plan.
That one is now done. The next step would probably be trying to get the airport terminal in the future place.
Does the minister or his officials have any indication... I know a lot of it is linked to federal dollars, however, is there any indication of when they would be looking at that moving ahead?
Transport Canada has told us, under the ACAP program, the Airports Capital Assistance Program, that they are not prepared to entertain any more applications until we bring our current projects to near completion before they consider any new major projects.
Then, we would actually submit an application to Transport Canada for the new Iqaluit Airport. I don’t have the date at the moment.
The minister indicated that they weren’t going to entertain any more applications until the current applications are completed. Did he indicate the ones for the airport here or all the ones throughout the territory?
That’s the projects for the territory.
Then, would the minister give us an indication of when that may happen?
Some could be on hold for quite some time. Does that mean that we’re, until those projects are complete, not going to be able to pursue any other projects?
If I could just get an idea or get an indication from the minister of when do they anticipate having those projects completed so that new applications for other needed projects will be able to be submitted to the federal government?
We are probably looking at another three years.
There are a lot of other things needing to get done that won’t be able to even get looked at for another three years. So, hopefully, we can move forward on those projects.
I’m just wondering, in the delays, was it always anticipated it would be in three years that those would get done, or are they delayed, and if they are, for what reason?
No, it’s three years to complete the projects that we have right now.
With respect to Iqaluit, this could be one of the projects that we could propose under the Building Canada Fund, or it could also be done possibly as a P3 project. There are other options out there that we are looking at for the various airports.
If there are other options out there to look at, does the department have a prioritized listing of projects that they would look under instead of building or funding infrastructure, under the fund that you just mentioned, the Building Canada Fund, or whatever fund that you just mentioned?
Do they have a listing of projects that they would like to submit for funding under that program?
As mentioned earlier on, that was the priorities for the Building Canada Fund specifically, that would have to be done GN-wide. As mentioned earlier, CGS is the lead on that file, working with CLEY, Finance, and ED&T.
So the list of priorities for the Building Canada Fund money itself has not been done yet.
I’m just wondering if the minister can give us an indication of, if that work hasn’t been done yet, when they will start the process on that to be able to develop that list.
We, as a department, are working on our own priorities list and that would have to be integrated into the work that the working committee is doing.
We’ll see where we go from there. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Simailak.
I’m just wondering, if the department is looking at putting priorities on that list, if they would consider looking at something that Mr. Harper promised us that would get here, and that’s the deep sea port and a small craft harbour integrated facility in Iqaluit on that list, as well as potentially, if they’re looking at a hydro electric project here that would require a road to get to that facility.
Would those types of projects be considered to be inputted onto that list?
Our position has been, for small craft harbours, for example, is and has been a DFO responsibility. So that kind of project should be done outside of the Building Canada Fund.
The Building Canada Fund itself is, again, to assist in infrastructure funding on gateways, roads, highways, and other transportation facilities. As I mentioned, as a department, we are currently drawing up our priorities list and we will try to integrate that into the work that CGS is doing as a lead department on that file.
I think my colleague, Mr. Arvaluk, got some of the information that I was looking for on the status of the Nanisivik Airport.
I was a little concerned there that, with the announcement of the deep sea port up there, that what was going to happen with that airport. I heard, related to Nanisivik, an announcement that there was a deep sea port there in the federal government announcement a couple of months ago.
I wonder if the minister could comment on whether he thinks that was a good decision by the federal government to place a deep sea port there, and secondly, if he could comment on whether he feels that there’s a need for a second and third deep sea port elsewhere in Nunavut.