EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) If it’s $200,000 for the bridge, how come, on the other capital projects for parks like the $150,000 for the Resolute Bay park, $150,000 for the Sanikiluaq park development, they are a lot less but they’re not buried in that box?
Could the minister explain why that’s the case, why the $200,000, which is a lot more than $150,000, is not clearly stated in there?
I just want a clarification on that. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, thanks for the question.
The reasoning why is this is a much bigger development, this bridge project, and the site development is going to be more extensive than these other smaller projects that include trail signs and whatnot. This is going to be a much bigger project.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) That’s puzzling because it’s listed as small capital and it’s buried inside.
So if it’s a bigger project, I would think that it would be more prominent than being buried in a line item with all of the other minor projects. So I just find that puzzling.
Could the minister confirm that it’s still the position that it will be a footbridge as opposed to a multi-purpose bridge?
Yes, I can confirm it is planned to be a pedestrian footbridge.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Can the minister confirm that he received a letter from the hunters and trappers organization asking that they be able to use it like everybody else, that they want the bridge to be able to be for Tamapta, for everyone, not just pedestrians, that hunters want to be able to use the bridge so that they can feed their families as well and for safety reasons they wrote the minister?
Can the minister confirm that he received this letter?
Yes, I can confirm that I have received that letter at noon today from the HTO.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Can the minister reconsider the purpose of this bridge? The good people of Iqaluit who have been deprived of many wonderful opportunities want to be able to use and expand their hunting activities throughout the community and elsewhere.
Can he reconsider the purpose of this bridge, that it be multi-purpose as opposed to a footbridge?
I would like to advise the member no, we would not reconsider that at this time. However, we would consider other options to deal with the request made by the hunters and trappers organization of Iqaluit.
Committee Motion 002 – 3(2): Deletion of $200,000 from the 2010-2011 Capital Estimates of the Department of Environment (Okalik)
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In that case, I find it difficult to support this project as I had been asked by the hunters association to deny this project in the interests of the overall community.
So therefore, I would like to move the following motion, Mr. Chairman:
I move that the $200,000 in proposed funding for the “Sylvia Grinnell Park Development Project” (Project 500084) be deleted from the small capital budget of the 2010-11 Capital Estimates of the Department of Environment.
The motion is in order. Before we proceed with the debate on the motion, I have a few comments to make as to the procedures.
Each member has the right to speak once to the motion for a total time of 20 minutes. The mover of the motion speaks first. The mover of the motion has the right to the last reply, which closes the debate.
Could you bring that motion forward to the table.
Alright, we will take a moment here to pass the motion to everybody.
I guess we will start it all over again.
Before we proceed with the debate on the motion, I have few comments to make as to procedures.
Each member has the right to speak once to a motion for a total time of 20 minutes.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I bring this forward with much regret because we all need infrastructure throughout our territory, but at the same time, we need infrastructure that everyone can use.
When the federal government first approached the government I was a part of in the last term, you were asking me to approve a project to build a bridge across our river, a bridge that has been the hope of many Inuit in this community.
When I heard that it was going to be a pedestrian-only bridge, I said that I could not take part in such a press release or an event, and they asked why.
Well, I want a bridge to be able to be used by everyone, not just by people who can walk and who don’t really need to feed their families.
So I convinced the government of the day that “Okay, we will accommodate that request,” and we did a joint press release in February of 2008 to that effect.
I did that because the hunters in this community have been deprived of many opportunities. They’re no different than Inuit and other hunters throughout Nunavut.
I have built many bridges while I was part of government because I wanted to open up more opportunities for families to feed themselves. The hunters here want a bridge so that they can cross that river during the most dangerous periods of the year, early in the fall and late in the spring, and they also want to be able to use it in other times, in the summer months.
As you know, our terrain here in our community, on this side of the community, is somewhat hilly and dangerous for ATVs to use.
If you look across the river, it’s nice and flat, just like the minister’s home community of Arviat.
It’s a lot safer for ATVs to be able to be used on that side of the river so that the families can hunt for caribou, which is always in short supply in this community.
I have heard those concerns.
That’s why I’m bringing this motion forward.
In the spirit of Tamapta, I hope that my colleagues will understand that I want a bridge for everyone, not a bridge for just some people.
I want everyone to be able to benefit from our basic infrastructure that we all badly need. I hope that the rest of my colleagues will understand that and carry the day.
At the end of this, I would request a recorded vote. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Based on the comments, it seems noticeable that this will just be a footbridge.
Is the terrain too rough on the other side of the river or is there an access problem? That is what came to mind for people who have lived here previously with regard to that idea. The land on the other side is quite scenic and people and families would want to cross the bridge across the river, either on a four-wheeler or for people who do not have a boat.
Here in Iqaluit, when we returned, I saw all of these sharp protruding pieces of wood on the sides of the roads and it made me wonder what would need to be skewered, and then I find out that they were for protecting pedestrians from traffic.
The hunters who don’t live near the shore have to navigate through the middle of town trying to reach the sea ice. You have to go hunting with a hitch on your sled and it’s very dangerous and hard, especially if you live on the top of the hill in the city of Iqaluit. The hunters who are travelling by skidoo work very hard to reach the places.
It is obviously harder for hunters. When the town was planning the city, there were no plans and there were no designs and no consideration for the hunters of Iqaluit.
Now we heard that this is going to be a footbridge.
If I were to insert the people of Pond Inlet in the place of Iqalummiut, based on my knowledge, if the people of Pond Inlet were told that they would just get a place to anchor their boats, their middle finger would be extended quite high to the government.
They would never approve that type of design.
A footbridge in Iqaluit, from the perspective of the residents of Iqaluit, would only serve tourists and visitors.
If I was from Iqaluit, a footbridge is something that the residents would not want because it would be useless and only utilized by certain people.
That much is obvious already.
With that, I will be for the motion.
You seem to be in the hot seat whenever these issues come. Maybe we should change the Chairman. That’s the problem.
Mr. Chairman, as Minister of Finance, I simply can’t support this motion. I have read the information and the chronology of events of this particular initiative going back to the early ‘90s and pretty much everything I have read… .
There have been extensive consultations. There have been master plans. There has been support from the city and conditions placed in developers permit by the city called for a footbridge, a pedestrian footbridge.
The Department of National Defence and the Trans-Canada Trail and their order club, they have all offered their support to the project by providing over $1 million and specifically for a pedestrian bridge.
I know the Minister of Environment and his staff worked very hard to talk to everybody in the City of Iqaluit and they had to get all sides of the argument.
I know there was a petition earlier this year signed by a lot of people in Iqaluit calling for a pedestrian bridge and I just feel Mr. Cherry in his time limited financial resources, and if we were to support this motion today would put that $1 million funding and support in jeopardy.
As I said, it was initiated as a pedestrian bridge and I’m not sure how it became an ATV bridge. I appreciate the comments from the Member for Iqaluit for his constituents. I’m familiar with bridges.
In my home riding of Cambridge Bay, we have two bridges. Both cross two rivers, but they’re not pedestrian bridges per se. However, I know that when you mix pedestrians and ATVs and vehicles on a bridge, it gets quite dangerous.
I have seen that particularly in one bridge in Cambridge Bay. It’s just not safe and I would be concerned about that.
I did hear the Minister of Environment say in his response to Mr. Okalik that they would consider another option or look at other options down in the planning process to accommodate Mr. Okalik’s constituents that he’s concerned about.
I don’t think we should put this project on hold. I think we should proceed with it.
I believe that a pedestrian bridge in the city of Iqaluit would appeal to a large number of people. We have to be concerned about the safety of families who go for walks and children.
Elders in Cambridge Bay told me many times when I would talk to them that their main concern was they wanted me, as mayor, for example, to slow down the ATVs and snowmobiles so that they feel safe when they’re walking. So that would be the concern I would have.
Of course, Iqaluit is a very beautiful city.
We entertain and host quite a few people who visit the city every year. I think it would allow tourists to see a larger area of the city. I think the schools could participate in this and take their school children out on school trips.
So I would hate to see this project cancelled. I think it’s badly needed infrastructure in the city of Iqaluit and it would benefit Nunavut immensely. It’s great to see other parties contribute to our infrastructure.
Mr. Chairman, with that, I’ll reiterate what I said: I will not support the motion.
Comments to the motion. Mr. Komoartok.
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also like to thank everyone here.
As an individual from outside of Iqaluit we see it from a different perspective. As people from smaller communities we have our own lifestyle and those of us who were born in outpost camps and anyone usually in the smaller communities try to make it more accessible to go out there in the environment where we could go hunting outside of the city proper, or the municipal proper.
So we tend to think of it like that because this is the culture of the Inuit and I can say that last year we utilized three bridges.
One that’s new and the other two, one that was destroyed and then the second one, but these three bridges that we had utilized in Pangnirtung, the people of Pangnirtung were given the options of what types of bridge they would like.
There has been no debate over this matter.
In my opinion, a bridge has to be useful for all users and not just a singular purpose.
From our perspective, watching this from Pangnirtung, none of our residents have opposed this as we understand the reasoning behind the request of the locals.
Further, in our case, although it was an emergency bridge replacement, it has a small walkway on the side and this allows people to walk across without hindering vehicle access. This side walkway works in our case and the community here ought to be able to deliberate on their options for this bridge, both with respect to the bridge as well as allowing multiple users to have their needs met.
From our view, a multi-purpose bridge would serve a larger audience and that would be much more inline with the locals’ needs.
There are certain parts I still have not wrapped my head around, such as the process that was used for choosing this type of bridge.
In our community, the general process runs like this: when we request funding for a facility and are allocated funds to initiate the project, the council then start debating over what type of facility will be built with these funds.
The hamlet council generally does this part of the process, and in looking at how this bridge decision was arrived at, it looks as if they totally bypassed the local council and why that is, I do not understand.
Further, the other important local organization, the HTO also seems to have been sloughed off, even though they are usually one of the bodies that approve of these projects. Their needs have to be accommodated.
However, in reviewing this matter, the usual consultation followed in outlying communities seems to be missing in this case.
The whole consultation process to decide on the type of infrastructure was not followed for reasons that are unknown to me. If all parties had been properly consulted and brought onboard, we would not be in the circumstances we find ourselves in today. These two important local bodies were not included.
My particular practice, which I have followed for most of my lifetime as an Inuk, is to approve of projects that in anyway assist our local hunters in lessening their workload, and as a community we try to help out our hunters at every opportunity.
In looking at this debacle, if the wishes of the local hunters are ignored, then the capital costs of building this singular purpose bridge would be money flushed down the drain.
So, based on those reasons, I will be supporting this motion as drafted.
Member from Nanulik.
I also have questions in mind on the process. Whenever a community has identified a project that they wish to pursue, then community members debate the issue, negotiate amongst themselves and come to a consensus and that is a practice generally followed in these cases.
Further, when discussing a project for Iqaluit only and not for all Nunavummiut, if Coral Harbour residents were asked for their perspective on an Iqaluit only project; I imagine the majority of residents would not wish to interfere in a local matter, although I am representing them as their MLA.
Just as the case would be, if Iqaluit residents were asked for their perspective on a project for Coral Harbour, they would not want to meddle in the local municipal affairs. They have a city council here in Iqaluit, who seemingly was involved in this process to build a bridge.
Although I did not partake in any of the local consultations when they were choosing the type of bridge, I imagine that they were involved in the process.
However, I have noted that this project would be entirely funded by federal dollars.
Additionally, based on the comments made by Minister Shewchuk where he stated that this type of bridge could be looked at down the road, my immediate response to that statement, Mr. Chairman, was that the House and its members are being asked to look at an issue that ought to have been chosen by Iqaluit residents.
I would have preferred that this project go through the local channels, and once a consensus was reached on the design, then it should it have gone to the territorial level. It seems like the process was not followed through, Mr. Chairman, therefore I can’t approve the motion.
As all of the regular Members of the Legislative Assembly have stated, it’s very difficult for us Members of the Legislative Assembly that don’t live in Iqaluit.
It seems like it’s an issue that pertains to the city of Iqaluit and it kind of puts us in a difficult situation, being from outside the city.
Some of us talk about having bridges in our communities that are multi-purpose, but I’m not sure how many of them involved being within park boundaries. So there might be slightly different issues. For me, it’s made this kind of difficult.
We got a letter from the hunters and trappers organization expressing their concerns, but I have no idea how the City of Iqaluit feels. I haven’t seen any information on them.
Because it’s in a park, I can see the point where maybe they want vehicles in the park.
That being the case, what plans does the government have to accommodate hunters that want their own bridge?
It would be interesting to find out from the minister.
It kind of puts me in a situation where I don’t really want to vote for it or against it because it’s an issue that the City of Iqaluit has to deal through the members that are from Iqaluit.
With that, I would just say that I am undecided as of right now which way I will vote.
Mr. Shewchuk, comments to the motion.
It’s interesting to hear all of the views on this and I will explain it from my point of view.
I will try and clarify the information we have about this bridge to everybody in the House today. The whole process of developing the Sylvia Grinnell Park started in November of 1990.
The Municipality of Iqaluit provided a letter of support at that time.
In January of 1991, a master plan for the Sylvia Grinnell Park completed based on consultations with at that time the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, community lands identification negotiation team, the hunters and trappers association, the Baffin Regional Inuit Association, the Iqaluit Chamber of Commerce, the hamlet, and the Council, and the Baffin Tourism Association.
The Sylvia Grinnell Park Master Plan was then completed in 1995 with all of those organizations involved.
At that time it was recommended expanding the Sylvia Grinnell Park across the Sylvia Grinnell River, the Qaummaarviit Territorial Park with a pedestrian footbridge. The footbridge will provide passive recreational use to the western portion of the park and act as detraction for residents and tourists.
On May 29, 2002, the city approved a development permit with conditions that it be a footbridge. In 2002, a partnership comprised of the GN, Department of National Defence, Iqaluit Rotary Club, and the Trans Canada Trail Foundation was established to realize the goal of a pedestrian bridge over the Sylvia Grinnell River in the park.
In 2004, the Department of National Defence engineers completed a design for a pedestrian bridge as their contribution to the partnership agreed to in significant in-kind contributions towards construction and project management of the pedestrian bridge.
The Iqaluit Rotary Club donated $25,000 toward construction costs and is committed to additional fundraising. In addition, the Trans Canada Trail Foundation has confirmed its contribution of approximately $162,000 for a pedestrian bridge.
November 14, 2006, the City of Iqaluit reaffirms the development permit for a footbridge pedestrian bridge in the Sylvia Grinnell. On February 8, 2008, INAC approved $839,000 towards material towards the pedestrian bridge.
The budget has since lapsed. A new proposal will be submitted during the 2009 once a program has been identified.
On the March 18, 2008, a petition was circulated by Rhoda Ungalak and John Maurice requesting that consistent with the original master plan of the park, that the GN restrict the new bridge to a footbridge.
On March 5, 2009, cabinet directed me to proceed with a pedestrian bridge over Sylvia Grinnell River.
On March 12, 2009, in a meeting with my Deputy Minister, Simon Awa, the Regional Director of INAC, they reaffirmed commitment to fund materials for the pedestrian bridge. On March 23, 2009, Deputy Minister Simon Awa sent the letter to Brigadier General Millar requesting DND’s continued support and a meeting to discuss schedules, budgets, and work plans for a pedestrian bridge.
March 25, 2009, the Trans Canada Trail reaffirmed its support for the pedestrian bridge and agreed to fund up to 20 percent of the construction costs. April 5, 2009, the Trans Canada Trail reaffirmed its commitment as a priority to developing a greenway trail that promotes non-motorized users in the summer.
May 12, 2009, the Rotary Club confirms its support if it was only a pedestrian bridge. On June 1 of this year, I and my department officials met with Brigadier General Millar of DND and INAC’s Regional Director General Michael Nadler. Both DND and INAC reaffirmed their commitment of a pedestrian bridge at that time.
Mr. Chairman, while it is easy for the hon. member from Iqaluit West to seek approval to remove the capital budget for the Sylvia Grinnell Park, he should be reminded that when the master plan for the park was being developed, the government made a commitment to the City of Iqaluit and its residents that it would implement its recommendations.
That commitment included the development of new facilities, parking, camping areas, roads, trails, signage, and the expansion of the park.
Mr. Chairman, to now dismiss that this commitment is both inappropriate and disrespectful to the community and puts the credibility of the government in question, I don’t believe we want to see that happen.
According to the 2008 exit survey, the Sylvia Grinnell Park is the most visited park in Nunavut and is one of the best features that Iqaluit has to offer. To its numbers, 2,221 are doubled of that combined total of all Canada’s national parks in Nunavut.
Visitation by residents to the park is increased from 6,750 in 1999 to 14,625 in 2005.
There has been a 50 percent increase in pavilion rentals since 1999.
Mr. Chairman, as one can appreciate, with this increase in visitation, there have been challenges that my department has had to address and will continue to address. Significant among these has been our ability to provide the facilities and to focus activities in the park in such a way as to allow visitors, residents, elders, and school children to enjoy their park experience, be it camping, berry picking, IQ days, fishing, or just relaxing but to do so not at the expense of the environment that we are trying to protect.
The $200,000 that the hon. member is seeking to remove from my budget will severely prevent my department from its ability to control impacts and to implement that commitment we made to the city and its residents to have a park that we can showcase nationally and internationally, a park that will provide economic benefits through tourism, and the park will provide residents with opportunities for recreation and healthy living.
Mr. Chairman, the Sylvia Grinnell Park is Nunavut’s oldest park. It is the most visited park and it is located in the capital of Nunavut.
The population of Iqaluit has almost doubled since 1999 and the need for recreational facilities has increased concurrently. Mr. Chairman, with this in mind and consistent with the agreement we made with the city and its residents, I believe the park deserves to be looked after and supported and should be a park we can all be proud of.
The estimated cost of the pedestrian bridge was $2.7 million to $3 million; an estimated cost of an ATV bridge would be $8 million to $10 million.
If we do not move forward with this pedestrian bridge, we will have all of our funding partners and probably have no bridge.
They will leave us. This would be a real bad thing to happen for our people who use our parks for recreation and experience to all of Nunavut’s residents and the visiting people to this wonderful territory.
Therefore, I strongly urge all of my colleagues to fully support the continued funding for improvements to the Sylvia Grinnell Park and I will not support this motion.