EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The federal minister, when he gets sued by the environmentalist groups, the Sierra Club, or Canadian Arctic Resource Committee, and all that, and he loses, when it happens down south, it’s a 4 to$5,000,000 settlement, and that they have to pay those groups and those groups turn around and use the funds to launch other law suits.
So it’s only a matter of time before those departmental groups start launching law suits against the Government of Canada that is applicable in Nunavut, and it will tie in with us and put more pressure on the limited funds that you have.
It’s quite conceivable.
A lot of it that concur with capital estimates, the funds that the Government of Nunavut has available, could go to waste water and solid waste dumps, there would be more money available for tank farms, or any other infrastructure.
This can’t happen because there are huge demands from all municipalities for community halls, ice arenas, hamlet buildings, and so on, and so forth.
I think we are going to have to, as a group, Members of the Legislative Assembly and ministers have acted collectively, put all our energy, strength into working together to lobby the powers that be in Ottawa.
And it creates problems, the reality up here is we need help.
We don’t have the capability of our own to raise that money.
Ninety percent of our funds come from the federal government as it is until we get our economy going.
I think that’s going to continue and that could be continued for the next five to ten years, as well.
So it’s a serious, serious matter, but I think we are going to have to keep that in mind.
Those are my opening comments, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
Mr. Alagalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and welcome.
I would like to see you go back to the witness table.
Usually what happens is some of the capital projects are built in the middle of the year and what usually happens is that they don’t expend the total amount that was allotted for that program, or a project, and then the portion that they didn’t use is sent back to the general pot.
There are some communities that don’t have gravel pits anymore and of course they do need capital to have those gravel pits, and to have the equipment, and so on.
Those requests that are made by the hamlets are extremely important and essential to the operations of the municipality.
It takes careful consideration by the hamlets to make sure that the equipment are appropriate for their communities.
When you’re setting up your capital budget, as a government, the recommendations that were sent by the hamlets are not factored in, when the government is setting up their capital estimates.
It’s not a very happy experience for the hamlets in those cases, and the municipal government starts saying that the government is not listening to the needs identified by the communities.
When we’re setting up the capital estimates, I think that we should place the community needs on a priority basis.
Just this past winter, we lost some equipment.
For example, in the Keewatin region, we have absolutely no idea what we’re going to do this summer.
We’re working with the Manitoba private businesses, and we use a lot of businesses in the south to order in food, equipment, supplies and so on.
So, it’s very hard to know which would have the most competitive price.
The consumers are having a hard time these last few years because they have to order all the way from Montreal instead of ordering from Manitoba.
I think it’s very important that your department seriously think about the kinds of impacts that your decisions make on these issues.
We should be totally working for the government.
We should think about the individuals out there, the businesses that are out there that are impacted by the decisions.
It is something that we’re not doing anymore, when we don’t factor in the needs that are identified.
When we start reviewing these page by page, we’ll identify where they should be.
Turning to page J-6.
Do you have any questions on page J-6.
I have a question on the Government of Nunavut-Iqaluit contribution agreement, $4 million.
I understand there is a long term agreement in place with the City of Iqaluit.
I don’t believe there are similar agreements in place with any other municipality in Nunavut.
To my knowledge, all the other communities have to go through an annual capital planning exercise at the community level, and then compete with each other more or less to receive funds, whereas the City of Iqaluit automatically gets $4 million.
Could the minister explain how that system or process works?
Yes, the member is correct so far as to say that Iqaluit is handled differently because the City of Iqaluit is the only tax based community in Nunavut.
I’ll also remind the members that the funding we provide also is dependant on the capital project list, approved, also by the Minister of the Department of Community and Government Services.
I guess the logical question to ask would any other municipality, once they become a municipal taxing authority, would they be able to, for the similar funding agreements?
Chairman: Minister Kilabuk.
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: That is correct, but I’ll also remind you, which I should have said in my first comments that the projects for Iqaluit are cost-shared with the City.
Could the minister tell us for the record how that annual funding has been working so far?
I think it’s two years, three years since it’s gone in place.
Could the minister explain how it’s been working since then?
Right now the Department of Community and Government Services contribution is based over six years for the City of Iqaluit.
I was asking for more information on what is your experience in terms of City of Iqaluit receiving that $4 million and utilizing it to the best possible purposes?
Hon. Peter Kilabuk: If I did understand my colleague correctly, this has produced some very positive results, as first you saw that it cost-shared like I said.
Originally in the startup of the delivery of this plan it was a bit slower than what we are seeing today, with experience and a time of trial and error, things have really improved, and we are very pleased with the delivery of these projects at this time.
We are following, with great interest, in Kitikmeot the troubles with the Sewage Treatment Plant that the City of Iqaluit has.
I don’t know if that was part and before this came into place, or since it came into place, but it seems an ongoing problem.
Could the minister if there are improvements to the sewage plant or if money coming from the annual $4 million to put that sewage plant into operation?
For the new one, there is money assigned from this block of funding, so if that suffices his question to this one, if not, he can further question if he pleases.
Would the minister tell us what happened to the old one.
What is the current situation with the old one, I think 7 or $8 million cost us or so.
To my immediate right, Mr. Sitland who has been around further than both me, and Mr. Rich, will probably be in the best position to share more along this line of questioning.
The sewage treatment plant, as it’s out there right now, was constructed in 1998 and 1999.
At that time it was also a cost shared project between both the City and the Government of Nunavut.
The total amount that the Government of Nunavut put in was approximately $5 million, at the time, and the remainder, $7 million you had mentioned was the city’s responsibility.
We are now in the process of retrofitting, essentially retrofitting that sewage treatment plant.
The building will be reused.
There are additional improvements that have to be made to the building but the funding that was spent on that building has not been for naught.
I believe the tender for the construction for the new mechanical treatment plant is supposed to go out in early January, if my memory serves me correctly.
Thank you, Mr. Sitland for that explanation.
I’m not an expert in water and sewer but over in the Kitikmeot we just have sewer trucks, water trucks back and forth, so we don’t have plants there, but could the minister or his official explain what are the best types of sewer systems for the structure or operation in the high arctic, in Iqaluit, for example, perhaps if they install some more in other parts of Nunavut.
Has it been tested by your engineers or studied.
Has there been background detail work done on that sort of mechanical sewer systems.
That is a very hard question to answer.
It is because first of all, there are different types that have been tried in Nunavut, and also there are still many different types that have not been tried in Nunavut.
If you look at the history of our sewage lagoons in Nunavut, because a lot of these are just open pits in the ground, given time to settle, and then the cleaner part of the sewage pumped into the water, and what have you.
As of today, I don’t think we really have one system that we can say is the best proven facility other than to say that the most used in Nunavut has been the open pit lagoons, pretty much throughout all of Nunavut except for, I believe Pangnirtung is the only operational facility now, that handles it’s sewage through the treatment facility.
Mr. Peterson: Not on this page, but when we get to J-8, I’ll ask some questions on Cape Dorset.
We’re on page J-6.
Are there anymore questions on page J-6?
J-6, Community and Government Services.
Total, Qikiqtaaluk region, $4,503,000.
Total, Kivalliq region, $372,000.
Chairman: Page J-7.
Total Kitikmeot region, $398,000.
Chairman: Total Grants and Contributions, $5,273,000.
Chairman: Page J-8, Community and Government Services.
Details of Capital. Details of Capital.
I wanted to ask the minister and his officials about the status of the Cape Dorset sewage lagoon repairs.
We have been hearing for years that they have been having some difficulties; they have had breeches in their barns.
They have been receiving threats from the federal government up to $100,000 fines, or a year in jail.
I am sure that and thought about it, considering you have got to come up with 300 to $400,000, it might be easier going to jail.
If the minister and his officials can explain how the repair to the lagoon are going, but also I think you have received an unsolicited proposal for a mechanical sewage treatment plant and have you been considering that seriously, or not, maybe if you could update us on that.
Currently, for the community of Cape Dorset, there are two options being reviewed and one of them is a mechanical facility, as my colleague just mentioned.
Also, further to this, the request for proposal for the lagoon has now closed.
So, at the immediate time, the options are being reviewed and they will continue to be reviewed until such time they are comfortable to decide as to which option to go with.
I am not altogether familiar with the geography of the Baffin.
The Kitikmeot is a little bit flatter and it’s probably more adaptable to the sewage lagoons whereas over here you have got lots of mountains and hills.
We have a mountain in Cambridge Bay, it is called Mount Pelly, and it’s 650 feet high.
So it’s not quite the same as mountains that you have over here.
Is that a problem for the Baffin to have terrain that is not suitable for sewage lagoons?
Yes, especially in some communities where the cliffs are a couple of thousand feet high, but the wetland area in the Baffin is really a problem.
So, as a result, it has really forced the department and officials to look at different options and also consider other means of handling this ongoing problem.
So, to answer your question, it is a big problem in the Baffin.
So, I take it that because of the increasing pressure from the federal government, in terms of fines, and other threats, that this is a matter that is under serious review by your department to whether the goal is the basic sewage lagoon versus the mechanical system.
So, you will probably be doing a lot of testing and studying and reviewing of this system for Cape Dorset, and probably using that Pangnirtung experience, as well and the Iqaluit system.
I take it that you are going to be doing that and this may lead to, over time, heavier investment in mechanical sewage systems.
Yes, and from what my colleague has mentioned the federal government because this is certainly one that we have thrown back at them because of the assistance we need to go with the green plans.
In Nunavut, the best examples we have ongoing today, as challenges, are water and sewage projects and the extra dollars we need in support to be able to deliver on these very important projects.
Yes, I agree with the minister, the difference between the community hall and the fire hall and the three bay garage, if you can put them up in the future years.
When it comes to water and sewer systems, you can’t put them out there.
They’re basic system is that every community needs but more importantly the federal government says thou shall repair, thou shall fix, thou shall replace.
And you have to do that, comply with federal laws.
They do it, you applying, appliance amount to quite a significant amount and that is taking money away from these other infrastructure that we need.
So, we’re spending tens of millions of dollars now to fix up our systems.
We’re not going to be able to pay for community halls, or ice arenas or all those other important things that every community needs.
That’s my comment Mr. Chairman.
No, I just want to agree with the member’s comments because those are right along with some of the discussions that we have had at the departmental level because we realize the importance of community halls, recreational facilities in Nunavut are being undermined by the urgent requirements of new codes and the facilities, water and sewage facilities we are challenged with here in Nunavut right now.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, we are really in a deficit situation when we look at our overall needs in Nunavut.
Some of the questions that I wanted to pose have been asked by my colleagues but I will ask another question.
The sewage lagoons, every year it seems, they need improvement annually, especially in the north.
When our climate gets really cold and when the weather gets cold and its starts to, when the weather starts to warm up, I’m sure that if we have that kind of a lagoon, they will always require some work on it annually.
As I have stated before, as Kugaaruk is one of my communities and they are concerned about these sewage lagoons, too.
The communities in the Baffin and Keewatin regions, I’m sure, have the same concerns.
As the minister stated they’ve been threatened by the federal government with fines and imprisonment because the sewage lagoons are leaking to the ocean and contaminating the environment.
The community and municipalities are going to be fined and when they are fined, they are fined with huge sums of money.
The main question that I wanted to ask was that if the municipality is fined, I’m sure that it would not be cheap.
The municipalities are always in shortage of their funds and some municipalities are running in deficit situations.
When they’re not given some funds to do the repairs and when they are being fined, I know their fine would not be a small sum.
Who would pay the fine?
Would that community by given some assistance by the Government of Nunavut?
If there was a fine, I’m sure the community and our department would be charged.
As the member stated, the communities’ municipalities are not given any funding to do any improvement work because our resources are limited and we’re unable to give additional funds because of limited funds, if there was to be a fine.
I’ll have my Deputy Minister respond.
Since I received some of the letters too that the SAO’s or mayor’s receive I get to share in the responsibility.
We would certainly discuss the situation, you are certainly right that there is a shared responsibility between the Government of Nunavut and the community for it.
We are fortunate in that we’ve not had to in fact, specifically in the last couple of years, pay a fine but as the minister said we would sit down with that and work out an arrangement with the hamlet.
Certainly though all of our efforts are to avoid that.
We’ve had constant communications with the federal officials and in those communications with the officials they have been understanding and they are working with us.
We are also planning to have, later in the winter, a conference involving the federal officials and the Government of Nunavut officials, so that we can talk about those regulations for water and wastewater facilities and find a better way to address that and hopefully find a way so that the hamlets don’t receive those letters anymore, so that we work more in a spirit of cooperation with the federal government.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rich. (interpretation): Mr. Mapsalak.
Although this question was posed earlier on, have you looked at better solutions, although it would be very expensive, have you looked at better sewage lagoons.
The mining companies do use different techniques, have you looked at alternatives for sewage lagoons.
The problem that we encounter is serious, especially in the Baffin Region, although we had mentioned it, it becomes a challenge.
First of all, we’ve done a pilot project in Pond Inlet and they did some kind of a protector for the sewage lagoon.
When the sewage lagoon was filled to capacity it overflows.
Yes we are still considering these.
As I have stated these, we have not found one sewage treatment or sewage containment that is the most economical.
I’m finished with my questions.
I would like to ask a question under page J-8.
If the municipality was in a different situation there are huge chunks of money and I need clarification on municipal services and evaluation.
I know that within the next six years there’s $829,000 and this year $627,000 and the 2006-10 estimates, we don’t know if we are going spend the money but there’s $1,817,000 in there.
What is the municipal services evaluation for?
It’s for three issues; municipal services evaluation; for water and sewage lagoons; and municipal dumps.
Chairman: Thank you, minister Mr. Alagalak.
Are these for making improvements or are these just for evaluations for the communities.
It’s from the evaluation all the way up to just before the work is done.
It’s to do evaluations from the initial stage up to the time when they’re supposed to do work on it.
Back to Community and Government Services.
Total of tangible assets.
Total for Qikiqtaaluk region, $4,689,000.
Chairman: Page J-9.
Are there any questions on page J-9?
For Arviat, tangible assets, although I don’t have any questions here, but I found something missing here.
Last year the municipality starting having concerns in regards to the water reservoir.
We’ve got a water reservoir that’s been built and it’s not close to the community.
There are potential water reservoirs, but they’re quite far.
The community of Arviat has been looking for the best possible water reservoir and they’re taking water samples to make sure the water is good in the lakes where they are accessible.
There is nothing mentioned on this until 2010 and the water reservoir is experiencing problems because of the freezing.
I was wondering what the minister has planned for the community of Arviat.
The community of Arviat has been running into problems continuously due to the water reservoir.
There doesn’t seem to be any funding for this.
There doesn’t seem to be any funding for consultants to do any evaluation or reviews.
I was wondering if you can update me, Mr. Minister.
I was very pleased to have gone to Arviat in the fall and I had a meeting with the mayor.
This issue was placed as a concern and we’re pleased that there is a water reservoir, but it’s been an ongoing concern to the community of Arviat.
So, we had a consultant do a review of the whole water system in Arviat.
Once we have compiled the findings in a report, and once they are available, I will review the documents with the member for Arviat.
Thank you, very much, Mr. Minister.
Once all the information is compiled into a document, I would be more than pleased to review them with you and I will have to give an update to the residents of Arviat.
I think this is kind of urgent.
I’m out of questions.
Once all the information is compiled, I will review it with the member.
My question to the minister is in regards to the Coral Harbour water reservoir.
I am sure the minister has talked to some of the employees.
Could he give us an update on what’s happening with the water reservoir in Coral Harbour?
I would like to apologize to the member.
I was asking that same question to Mr. Sitland.
We don’t have the information available at this point and I apologize to the member for that.
Chairman: Mr. Netser.
I think it’s Mr. Purdy, who is responsible for that part.
If you could direct him to get that information?
I am sure our employees are listening to the proceedings of the House.
We will do so.
Chairman: Are there further questions on J-9?
I think in Rankin Inlet they have sewage treatment plants and I used to live there.
Is this an addition to the plant that there is already an extension to it or is it a new one?
I have been led to believe that it’s a reuse of the existing building with a new system.
What happened to the old one?
The old one can’t keep up with the growth of the community.
Chairman: J-9, Department of Community and Government Services.
Total for the Kivalliq region. $328,000.
Chairman: Page J-10, any questions on J-10?
I would like to ask the minister about the solid waste facilities in Cambridge Bay.
Have they had a chance to clarify with legal counsel on who exactly owns the dump in Cambridge Bay?
I am going to direct that Mr. Sitland respond to that question.
Mr. Sitland: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The ownership of solid waste facilities across Nunavut is a very complex issue.
Under the Land Claims Agreement, we are supposed to transfer ownership of those facilities to communities, but as everyone will know, they are contaminated sites.
We certainly don’t want to place that incremental burden upon communities without some assurances that, when it comes time to abandon and restore these facilities that its done in the proper form.
In Cambridge Bay’s particular case, we haven’t clarified exactly who owns it, but as the Deputy Minister has previously eluded to, responsibility for these facilities, not just sewage lagoons, to solve these facilities it a shared responsibility.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr.Sitland.
When hamlets do their annual audits, the auditors, I think I mentioned this before, from the bullets in the audited statement said, that these contingent liabilities is what is on the statements for hamlets and a fiduciary duty for hamlets rests with the mayor and council.
So, when the letters come from the Federal Government, threatening hefty fines and/or jail time, they usually are directed to the hamlets.
But for some reason, I like to at least argue this because we don’t own the dump.
So, why should we be contingent to liability on audited financial statements.
The audit that I received from Department of Community and Government Services because we use the dump, we kind of own it.
Even though we get funding from the department to maintain it and keep it contained.
So, its been, I’ve been trying to find out for at least going on five years.
Who owns the dump in Cambridge Bay?
To this day, I still don’t know and I don’t think you guys know as well.
So, I think they may, or hamlet mayor council would like an answer to that.
If the minister could comment on it please.
The member is right. I’d say yes, we still don’t know either and that is why our discussions with the federal government is ongoing to try and put the case to rest.
As it is to date, the discussions are ongoing; until such time they have been concluded, until such decision has been made.
I really don’t have concrete answer to that other than to say that these discussions are still ongoing.
It says here that there is a summer waste management facility budget at $250,000 for this plant in Cambridge Bay, I think to move or relocate the dump to a new sites.
So what would happen to the old dump site?
Who would be responsible for reclaiming that area?
Very quickly, the current plans now are to build a new one.