EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) Member for Chesterfield Inlet, Mr. Tom Sammurtok.
Tabled Document 185 – 4(3): Photographs of Nipissar Lake (Sammurtok, T)
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I wish to table a set of photographs of Nipissar Lake which were taken earlier this year.
These photographs illustrate the low level of water in the lake.
Mr. Speaker, I will have questions for the appropriate minister at a later date during this sitting.
I encourage all members to review these items with care. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 186 – 4(3): Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s response to the “Honouring the Truth, Reconciling for the Future” Final Report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation ends) The Hon. Minister of the Nunavut Housing Corporation, Mr. Kuksuk.
Tabled Document 187 – 4(3): Blueprint for Action on Housing (Kuksuk)
Hon. George Kuksuk (interpretation): Thank you very much again, Mr. Speaker.
I have the document that is now available today.
(interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table today the Blueprint for Action on Housing – Implementation Plan for the GN Long-term Comprehensive Housing and Homelessness Strategy.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) I have no more names on my list. Moving on.
>>House recessed at 15:21 and Committee resumed at 15:46
Chairman (Mr. Akoak): Good afternoon, everyone.
Mr. Chairman, we wish to continue with the review of the capital estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the Department of Community and Government Services.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Yes.
For the record, Minister Ell-Kanayuk, please introduce your officials.
To my right and your left is Sherri Rowe, Deputy Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, and to my right and your left is John Hawkins, Manager of (interpretation ends) Iqaluit Airport Operations. (interpretation) Thank you.
Yesterday we started our review of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation on page K-3.
Today we are still on page K-3.
I just have a few questions that I wanted to ask you today.
I will start with your department’s Community Transportation Initiative Program Policy that was recently updated in August of 2015.
Schedule A of the policy details departmental support for “Access Roads and Community Marine Infrastructure” while Schedule B details departmental support for “Small Craft Harbour Capital Contributions.”
The policy provides that the “Minister will table annually in the Legislative Assembly a summary of contributions detailing the amount of each contribution, the type of initiative being supported, and community.”
Why have you not yet tabled any annual reports on your department’s spending under these programs?
We will be tabling them.
It’s good to hear that you will be tabling them. Could you enlighten us today as to when you will be tabling them?
I’ll be tabling them at the upcoming winter sitting.
Now a bit of a different topic, during the Legislative Assembly’s consideration of your department’s 2016-17 capital estimates, concerns were raised by MLAs about your department’s practice of providing contributions under its Small Craft Harbours Program to the greatest possible number of applicants rather than focusing on fully funding a smaller number of projects during each fiscal year.
How will your department address this concern?
The concerns will be reviewed in detail and in consideration of the recommendations of the members.
It was quite some time ago when we suggested this.
I’m not quite sure of the timetable, but how long will this review take before there’s a decision made on the next steps in this process?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Before April 1 next year.
Mr. Rumbolt: I know there was some talk on airports the other day, yesterday, and I just have another question and I’m hoping I’m not asking a question that may have been asked already and, if I do, I apologize.
On March 11, 2016 you tabled the Nunavut Airports 20-year Infrastructure Needs Assessment: 2014-2034.
This document indicates that “Most airports in Nunavut have trained weather observers onsite operating a Community Aerodrome Radio Station (CARS). Funded by Nav Canada, these services are relatively high cost and only available during the hours when air services are planned and scheduled.
Nav Canada is currently considering introduction of Automated Weather Reporting Systems (AWOS) at community airports, which will operate on a 24-hour per day basis.
At an approximate equipment cost of $1 million per site, upgrading weather services will also require capital investments for site preparation, utilities and services to support the new Nav Canada equipment.”
Which communities are currently being considered to have the new automated weather reporting systems installed?
I’ll have John Hawkins respond to the question.
NAV CANADA operates that program and we don’t actually have a lot of input into that.
Their main clients are the air carriers and the air carriers are the ones that request the sites they want additional services in.
NAV CANADA, in consultation with us, has identified that their priorities for the weather observations... .
It’s all part of how the actual weather forecast is developed. They believe there should be a choice between whether there is one type of system, whether there is a person there actually providing the weather observations, or whether there will be an AWOS.
They don’t believe in most cases that they need to have both systems in one community.
On that subject you said that NAV CANADA has identified their priorities.
Can you share with us what the priorities are and which communities they feel need the 24-hour service and which ones the manned services?
Through you, Mr. Chairman, we can provide that information since we don’t have that information in front of us.
We’re on Economic Development and Transportation. Transportation.
Total Capital Expenditures. $59,332,000.
I have few questions to pose.
I would also like to welcome the minister and her officials.
I’ll have questions in regard to Taloyoak’s airport terminal building.
What’s the status of that?
That’s my first question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Taloyoak is the only community with the “freezer” style airport terminal building in the [Kitikmeot].
As the member knows, this building is over 25 years old and it’s not big enough for the community.
In July 2016 we sent out an RFP for the concrete slab to be poured in fiscal year 2016-17.
The construction would start May 2017 and the completion target date is November 2017.
At this time the concrete slab is being worked on. Will they be working on it continually starting from now until completion?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank you for requesting that information.
Construction will start in May 2017.
I would like to ask: now that the concrete slab has been completed, why does it take so long to construct a building, starting only in May?
What’s the reason for starting it so late?
It’s better to start working on it during the spring than if they start construction in winter. We do it this way in order to have efficiency.
Yes, at least I have a better understanding in regard to this issue.
My other question is last spring you spoke to the airport terminal building renovation for Kugaaruk. Did the material arrive in Kugaaruk for the renovation of the ATB there?
Regarding the community of Kugaaruk, I don’t have the information in front of me for the capital estimates. It’s not included here, so I will look into that.
Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): She will look into that and I’m sure she will get back to me once she gets the information.
I don’t have any other questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to ask the questions.
Next name on my list, Mr. Alex Sammurtok.
I have a question related to the offloading of ship cargo in Rankin Inlet. When they offload cargo on the other side of the peninsula, the cargo area becomes congested.
At this time the limited space is more noticeable with the (interpretation ends) mine (interpretation) infrastructure cargo that arrived, and the mine will be opening soon.
The hamlet council has continually requested improvements on the sealift cargo area for many years.
I wonder why this hasn’t been taken into consideration. That is all I want to get clarified.
Perhaps the member can elaborate further on what he is talking about regarding Rankin Inlet.
The sealift offloading area is situated on the other side. At least that is what it is called locally.
The ships offload the barges and they drop off the sealift in that area.
The area is becoming too small to accommodate the sealift materials at the (interpretation ends) loading dock and unloading dock.
(interpretation) The mine will be opened soon in that area. This will result in more cargo being offloaded, exacerbating the situation. This is obviously an issue.
Just last week there were two cargo ships that arrived in Rankin Inlet at the same time. The other ship had to wait for the first ship to offload before the cargo on their ship can be offloaded.
That happened due to the lack of sealift landing area for (interpretation ends) unloading and loading of the dock.
The Municipality of Rankin Inlet (interpretation) has continually requested that this site be enlarged for many years.
I was wondering when this issue will be considered (interpretation ends) by your department. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
This issue has been discussed previously to be identified as a priority project as there are many needs on that front.
For Rankin Inlet specifically, it would not qualify under the Small Craft Harbours Program but for larger projects that we call a port.
We know that this type of facility was estimated to cost $48 million.
At this time the government and the Department of Transportation have discussed these issues. However, in order to move this project forward, we would have to negotiate with the federal government for funding. This has been identified as a priority.
Mr. Tom Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I don’t have a lot of questions. However, there are a couple of items I would like clarification on.
Yesterday Mr. Rumbolt referred to the Nunavut Airports 20-year infrastructure needs assessment.
This document referenced the urgent need for new airport terminal buildings for Chesterfield Inlet as one of the items there.
As I indicated before, this is a much-needed facility.
The current airport terminal building that is in Chesterfield Inlet is the old “freezer” type that was built in the 1980s.
Yesterday the Minister of CGS kindly provided the regular MLAs with an update on the planning projects.
The airport terminal building for Chesterfield Inlet is one of the items identified for the 2017-18 planning cycle.
Can the minister or her officials provide me and the House an update as to what type of air terminal building is going to be planned for Chesterfield Inlet?
It would be the same as the Taloyoak Air Terminal Building, which is 250 square metres. It would be the same as that ATB.
It looks like the terminal building for Chesterfield Inlet is in the horizon now.
As part of the preparation for the building of this new terminal building, would the department be prepared to include a GPS landing system as an upgrade to the new airport terminal building?
We would have to negotiate that with NAV CANADA about the type of (interpretation ends) terrain (interpretation) or type of land that needs to be reviewed.
We would have to first negotiate with them and deliberate on how to resolve this issue prior to this matter being addressed in detail.
On another subject, and this is something that I have brought up before, Chesterfield Inlet needs an upgrade to their existing docking facility.
The current facility is too small and it’s very inefficient when a number of boats try to use the facility at the same time.
Chesterfield Inlet is one of the communities that provide arctic char to Kivalliq Arctic Foods in Rankin Inlet.
Consequently there are a lot of people who are fishing in Chesterfield Inlet over the summer and they all try to use the docking facility at the same time to offload the fish that they have caught.
However, because of the size and condition of the docking facility, it makes for a very inefficient operating system at the community level.
Can Economic Development and Transportation look into upgrading the existing docking facility in Chesterfield Inlet?
The details of what we want are in our business plan, which has been announced, and Chesterfield Inlet was included in the list.
Yes, we would have to look for funding for this part of the plan and we know it has been estimated to be around $22 million to complete that project.
On to another subject and this will be my last item that I want to ask the minister at this time.
Actually I would like to express my appreciation to the Department of Economic Development and Transportation for finally providing what I think would be the appropriate equipment to help maintain the runway in Rankin Inlet.
I am personally aware of how often the jet services are cancelled due to runway and weather conditions in Rankin Inlet.
This piece of equipment will go a long way to help to ensure that regular, scheduled services are provided on a daily basis and weekly basis.
I know that my colleagues are going to be very enthusiastic to help me approve this particular unit.
I just want to express my appreciation to the department.
The next name on the list, Mr. Joanasie.
I would like to start with this, perhaps by using the previous questions as a basis. However, it includes many issues that were raised earlier, I believe, in the spring session when we reviewed the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s 20-year needs assessment report. The report was quite legible and easy to understand, with references to many details.
To start off, I am grateful to the department for tabling that information as it helps members to understand the situation Nunavut airports are in and this includes air terminals.
With that being said, page 2-6 speaks to that.
We are aware that the capital estimates include the Taloyoak Airport Terminal Building. However, other communities also require the infrastructure.
We heard the responses from Ms. Rowe yesterday that some airport terminals are dilapidated and on their last legs. I wonder which will be prioritized and I wonder if the department has any plans on the other communities that have terminals that are no longer feasible for usage. In the short-term future, which project will be the priority?
As an example, on page 2-6, it lists Chesterfield Inlet, Whale Cove, Naujaat, Taloyoak, and Kimmirut.
Where do they go from there?
Will Taloyoak be after that?
Have you made a decision as to which community goes next or will that decision be made later?
I also thank the member. Out of the communities the member mentioned on that page, one of the communities was approved and we are pleased to hear that this project will now move forward.
The other communities of Whale Cove, Chesterfield Inlet, Naujaat, and Kimmirut have been identified for follow-up work, where we will work with the communities to submit more capital project funding requests.
Which community will be next in line after Taloyoak? Have you made that decision yet or will you be making that decision at a later time?
I think it is Chesterfield Inlet, but I will have to check into that before I definitively answer that. I will provide the information through you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for saying you will check into that, so I will be expecting it.
With regard to the three other communities listed in the report where the local airstrip needs to be relocated, it includes Kimmirut. On page 4-3 it speaks to the situation that is faced, which we are all aware of, by the community of Pangnirtung as funding was set aside for further studies.
In listening to the responses yesterday, as an example, new funding from the (interpretation ends) Building Canada Fund (interpretation) amongst others and ACAP was mentioned as well.
Will you send correspondence to the federal government regarding the communities where the airstrip has to be relocated to access more funding in the coming years?
Will you be writing to the federal government to request money for that?
I apologize for not hearing you, Mr. Chairman.
It is an ongoing challenge. As the member knows, we developed a (interpretation ends) siting study (interpretation) as well as the photographic records, which we now have. These are called the (interpretation ends) photogrammetry work. (interpretation) We have that information now.
It is to be included in the Nunavut government plans for the next (interpretation ends) five-year capital plan (interpretation) prior to submitting our request.
We will resubmit the application as it was not approved the first time we submitted it.
I believe, last year, I accompanied the minister to Kimmirut specifically on the airstrip, so I thank the minister for her trip.
She probably recalls our landing, as it sometimes is daunting in trying to land in Kimmirut due to the terrain.
Kimmirut is classified as one of the most dangerous airports in all of Canada and this is actually referenced in the report.
Due to that reason, for many years the community of Kimmirut has pushed hard to try to relocate the airstrip, even back to the days where we were still under the NWT prior to the creation of Nunavut during the first attempts to relocate the airstrip.
Not a whole lot of progress has been made, except for the photographs of the terrain, including mapping alternatives. I am grateful to the people who have worked on this, as it has now resulted in a survey. Further, I will continue to push for this for my constituents.
With respect to the report, I really noticed when Ms. Angnakak was talking about (interpretation ends) aerodrome deviations. (interpretation) Perhaps I can refer to them as problems for simplicity’s sake and I am unsure where it is, but it is listed on page 4-3.
I also noted clearly that Cape Dorset is faced with a similar challenge based on the local terrain restrictions either adjacent to the airstrip or landing angles.
Due to these issues, under (interpretation ends) Mitigation (interpretation) it is listed as (interpretation ends) “Do Nothing.” (interpretation) I assume this means the department will not do anything related to the public safety concerns or problems even when faced with those challenges. Will nothing be done?
Is that it? What is the position of the Department of Transportation on the matter? Are you just going to do nothing?
I would like to refer this to John Hawkins.
Mr. Hawkins: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The capital needs assessment that we’re referring to does say to “Do Nothing.” That is in a capital manner.
There are other mitigations. It’s required that an exemption brings measures forward that provide an equivalent level of safety to the standards. All of those are analyzed by us and by Transport Canada before any exemption is granted.
From a capital perspective or from an improvement perspective, Cape Dorset says “Do Nothing,” but there are other mitigation measures which include sometimes publications. Sometimes they include lighting or obstacles.
There are other ways to mitigate that just weren’t included in here.
It may be that the mitigation that says “Do Nothing” could have been phrased differently. For the purpose of this report, where it’s capital needs, then that suffices.
It states that the Cape Dorset Airport has adjacent terrain that is quite hilly. I wonder if consideration has been given to removing these hilltops, perhaps by using explosives to level them.
Would this be too expensive to undertake?
This concern has been raised for several years. It can become problematic wherever hilly terrain exists, especially when low visibility or bad weather causes delays in the flights landing, or it is considered dangerous by the pilots.
Has the department considered this idea at all?
I will refer this question to Mr. Hawkins once again.
I don’t believe that we have undertaken a cost analysis of the hills specifically in Cape Dorset. We have looked them in other locations, including here.
It is extremely expensive. I think the cost here to do them was somewhere in the magnitude of $60 million just to remove one hill.
As I said, there are other mitigations and the danger of it is mitigated by not allowing the approach to be designed onto a very low level.
There is a loss of efficiency and availability at the airport, but the safety is actually not compromised by the hills in any great manner. As for removing rock, it is an extremely expensive operation.
I’ll move on to another subject and talk about marine infrastructure.
With the written question that was asked by you, Mr. Chairman, (interpretation ends) RTWQ 13 – 4(3) (interpretation) was tabled in the House two days ago.
With respect to the Small Craft Harbours Program, in reviewing the figures for 2015-16, a fund totalling $500,000 has been used by various communities.
Some of the requests submitted were not approved for funding and it states that problems existed with the applications or the lack of resources.
Nonetheless, I wonder if the minister can provide further details.
The report indicates that Kimmirut and Sanikiluaq didn’t receive any funding, or (interpretation ends) zero (interpretation) dollars.
I will stop there for now as I have run out of time.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t think he finished his question.
He indicated that there’s zero dollars for Kimmirut, I believe.
Mr. Chairman, can you ask the member to clarify his question?
Mr. Joanasie, can you clarify your question? Mr. Joanasie.
Yes, I am trying to get clarification. Perhaps I can segregate my question into two parts.
I wonder why the communities didn’t receive any funding from this fund. Although it states that an agreement was struck with the hamlets, two communities had to reimburse the funds due to problems or lack of resources.
This is related to the Small Craft Harbours Program. Work couldn’t proceed, so they had to return the funds.
What were the requirements to expend the funds? I imagine that their resources were no longer available.
What was the reason for not moving forward, resulting in the returning of the funds?
Not every community is listed here, so that is part of my question. There’s $500,000 available here. Why is it that the other communities have not applied for these funds under the Small Craft Harbours Program?
The fund is set at $500,000 that communities can apply for and the funds are available to the hamlets that applied for the funding. In 2015-16 the requests totalled $996,500. This was the total funding requested by the communities.
However, due to the limited funds, not all applications were approved.
In some cases we deliberated with the communities by slashing the overall amounts they requested. We also know some communities did not submit an application for this funding.
I would like to ask the same question that I bring up every time regarding capital budgeting for the Iqaluit airport project.
Every year you ask for approval for larger amounts of money to be used for this project.
Maybe firstly, when do you plan on opening the new terminal?
It is planned to be open in August 2017.
This fund currently requested totalling $48,472,000 is specific to this project. Funding requests seem to rise higher every year, with some funds a bit lower.
I previously asked about this issue when the project started and it is still ongoing. I asked whether this project would impact other communities that wanted an air terminal building throughout Nunavut.
I recall the response I received that no, it would not have an effect on delaying other community projects if the requests were approved to do so here in Nunavut.