EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
In June of 2009, the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans released its report titled “Nunavut Marine Fisheries: Quotas and Harbours.” It listed eight recommendations, the first being that “The Committee recommends that the Government of Canada move forward to develop and implement, in collaboration with the Government of Nunavut, the harbour development plan recommended by the DFO–Nunavut Harbours Working Committee in its 2005 Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report.”
The committee notes that the response indicated that “There are no immediate plans to construct additional commercial fishing harbours in Nunavut at this time. However, discussions continue with the Government of Nunavut regarding infrastructure needs to further support local fisheries.”
During the June 2011 sitting of the House, the Legislative Assembly approved $376,000 in capital carryovers for the department’s small craft harbours project. The standing committee continues to encourage the minister to table an annual report in the Legislative Assembly concerning the department’s actual expenditures in this area, including a detailed list of which communities have received funding.
Mr. Chairman, members engaged in a comprehensive dialogue with the minister concerning the issue of small craft harbours during his recent appearance before the standing committee. Although members are supportive of efforts to obtain federal support for investments in this area, it is recognized that construction costs for major marine facilities can be in the millions of dollars.
For example, the 2009 federal budget provided $17.0 million towards the construction of the new harbour in Pangnirtung.
The standing committee encourages the department to examine options for feasible and affordable improvements to existing community infrastructure that focus on the safety of boaters and protection of equipment, and which can be undertaken with available resources.
I would note that the 2005 Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report indicates that “Lack of Nunavut harbour infrastructure has resulted in at least 2 documented cases of loss of life in recent years. In 2002 a Pond Inlet fisher drowned while paddling his dinghy from shore to his fishing vessel moored offshore. A Rankin Inlet fisher died under similar circumstances in 2005.”
In June of 2009, the Legislative Assembly approved $925,000 in capital funding for the planning and design of the Iqaluit Regional Marine Facility to “meet the needs of marine re-supply as well as local boat owners and operators.” In June of 2010, the Legislative Assembly approved a $532,000 capital carryover for this project. Members look forward to ongoing updates on the status of this project.
Mr. Chairman, some of the objectives of the updated Nunavut Transportation Strategy are to “Assure the integrity of the Nunavut transportation system by ensuring every community has infrastructure adequate for its needs within that system” and to “Enhance the current airport systems.” Other objectives are to “Rationalize government use of the transportation system” and “revisit the government Air Services Study.”
Members are supportive of initiatives that will achieve necessary airport improvements across the territory. Members recall that the government’s 2003 Nunavut Air Services Study outlined several infrastructure priorities that are necessary for improving the level of service from airlines. Current runway lengths and their composition reduce the level of service that airlines can provide and can also increase the cost of providing services.
Members note that the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates include $11.4 million in funding for six significant airport projects, including the relocation of the Pangnirtung Airport and planning for a new Iqaluit International Airport, which is to be undertaken as a public-private partnership.
Members look forward to ongoing updates on the status of these projects.
Members also encourage the department to be mindful of the potential impact of major economic development projects, such as the Mary River mine, on the development of new regional hub airports.
Mr. Chairman, a major transportation infrastructure project with which the GN has been involved is the development of a Manitoba-Nunavut Road.
On September 1, 2010, the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Manitoba jointly announced that the two jurisdictions would be undertaking “initial consultations on a cost-benefit study on a Manitoba-Nunavut all-weather road.” Members look forward to ongoing updates on this important initiative.
The department’s 2010-11 capital estimates included $700,000 in funding for a new Kivalliq Regional Visitor Centre.
In June of 2011, the Legislative Assembly approved a $697,000 capital carryover for this project. The department has indicated that “the design of the visitor centre is anticipated to be complete in July 2012” and that “the project is expected to be built adjacent to or attached to the Rankin Inlet Air Terminal Building.”
Members also note that the department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates include $100,000 in funding for renovations to existing visitor centres.
The department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates include approximately $2.25 million in funding for the acquisition of mobile equipment for Nunavut airports, including runway inspection vehicles, loaders, and a vibratory packer.
The standing committee emphasizes the importance of ensuring that the standards and criteria for such equipment are appropriate for our jurisdiction’s conditions in relation to such matters as ease of maintenance and repair.
Mr. Chairman, in June of 2011, the Legislative Assembly approved $10,456,000 in capital carryovers for the department, including projects for new airport equipment shelters and airport improvements.
The standing committee emphasizes the importance of the department keeping Members of the Legislative Assembly and municipalities fully informed on an ongoing basis of the status of capital projects that are carried over and/or delayed.
The department’s proposed 2012-13 capital estimates do not include any funding for projects such as new meat or fish processing plants.
While members recognize that federal investments may be essential for realizing a number of long-term capital projects, the department is encouraged to not lose sight of its economic development responsibilities.
The standing committee also recognizes the role of the Nunavut Development Corporation in this area.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2012-13 Capital Estimates of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation.
I suggest to members that wherever possible you ask your detailed questions during the page-by-page review.
Are there any general comments? You have your opportunity at this time.
While we were at the standing committee meeting, we were talking about small craft harbours. We were told that they would be considered, including breakwaters, only if they were financially feasible.
I could use an example where, in Newfoundland, they have breakwaters, docks, and so on. I know that many of them are financially able to stand on their own and, in fact, are commercially valuable. There’s a connection with economic development and a lot of support for the private sector.
We also have to look at the Nunavut communities where the demand isn’t for commercial gain as much. We do have hunters and trappers up here who need those kinds of infrastructure, and I have wanted to make these comments.
Privately owned boats, snowmobiles, and other modes of transportation, especially boats, are very expensive to purchase.
Our government should be more sensitive, even though the boat or snowmobile owners are not looking at venture development or something.
It seems like if you’re using those for recreational purposes, hunting and trapping, then they are deemed to be of no value.
We have to consider a provision of service of these types to the residents of Nunavut. They use a large amount of money to purchase those vehicles and they provide food to the community.
This is no small thing in the communities and that should be considered.
That is why I wanted to speak to this issue.
When the minister appeared before the committee, we spoke about an issue and in particular, I spoke to the complete lack of infrastructure in the community of Pond Inlet.
With the details in the minister’s notes, it mentions funds of approximately $500,000 that are used for repairs.
When can Pond Inlet expect assistance?
Pond Inlet has absolutely nothing.
I believe that you are aware, Mr. Chairman, that we lost a resident of Pond Inlet who was trying to reach his boat. We have nothing to use in Pond Inlet for boats.
We don’t have a dock, breakwaters, floating docks, or even a place for sheltering boats and we don’t even have a long peninsula either. We have absolutely nothing in Pond Inlet.
This results in people having to rush whenever a storm breaks or when the winds pick up to drive their boats to the mouth of Salmon River, which is perhaps two miles and that distance is very long when the waves are breaking.
My colleague’s comments seem to have included a reference to the ability of communities receiving this infrastructure if there is a commercial opportunity.
It seems to me that the minister is insinuating that economic development is the priority and that safety is secondary to the department.
That seems to be the underlying message, at least to me.
It is very hurtful when a community has absolutely no infrastructure and we are stuck with it.
In looking at these reports and specifically the November 18, 2009 Senate report that is specific to the fisheries, it states that there is a need for small craft harbours. Here in Nunavut, there was a June 5, 2009 report titled “Let’s Get Moving” and it states that we also need harbours in the communities.
I am unsure of the exact Inuktitut term, but the November 2005 Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report speaks to the need for small craft harbours here in Nunavut, especially for offshore fisheries. This is also included in the Senate’s report on fisheries, which was presented in June 2009. It speaks to the need for these small craft harbours.
When will the minister be able to report to the residents of Pond Inlet that progress has been made with respect to the Small Craft Harbours Program? It indicates here that there is $500,000 available per fiscal year.
We have absolutely no marine infrastructure in Pond Inlet.
You still have an opportunity to ask your questions during the line-by-line review.
You will note that we will begin with page I-5. I-3 and I-4 don’t have figures.
The figures start on I-5. (interpretation ends) Transportation. Economic Development and Transportation. Branch Summary. (interpretation) The details for I-5 are on I-6. $13,400,000.
I want clarification on this one item as it is noticeable that planning will be undertaken for the Taloyoak Air Terminal Building.
I want to ask the minister whether or not the line item in I-6 refers to the planning cycle. I first want to know how long the planning cycle is in terms of years from when they initiate the planning to when they initiate the construction, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the member for that question. At this time, Taloyoak is one of the communities with the old freezer-style ATB, or air terminal building, and the process of planning and design is going to be taking place throughout this fiscal year that we’re in, 2011-12.
For a smaller community like that, the planning usually takes about a year and another year to design.
After that, the design and the plan determine the overall cost and that’s usually in the third year.
Even though it is not listed here, I believe the minister understands that I was referring to Chesterfield Inlet when I raised that question to him.
I want to raise this question first and it’s regarding the $500,000 fund for small craft harbours.
I believe it refers to docks in Inuktitut.
The terminology used for these facilities are all so different, so it becomes difficult to determine which term I should use in raising questions.
Now, with respect to this $500,000 small craft harbour fund, I believe that it’s available every fiscal year.
Can the minister report on what these funds were used for last year or outline what are eligible for this $500,000 fund?
I fully understand his frustrations and the people of Pond Inlet. It’s very difficult to get marine infrastructure such as that with only a small line item of $500,000.
We use this line item of $500,000 to prepare our geotechnical work on subsurface for potential breakwaters or even docking facilities.
We conduct fish habitat studies, which is a requirement to do any kind of work, and preliminary site selection and engineering.
That also includes identifying construction sources and quarry sources for building such infrastructure like that.
Perhaps if my question was not clear, I will rephrase it.
This $500,000 fund, as per the page, is allocated for small craft harbours. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the terminology used in English. I seem to understand that it is geared towards these small craft harbours, but the response seems to be referring to another matter.
Can the minister clarify or let me understand exactly what this is referring to?
Minister Taptuna, please provide a clarification.
I’ll try and do that.
For that purpose, we also use the $500,000 line item for proposals and actual site landing cleanups and that’s usually based on community proposals that we get and whatever the community wants to do.
For the definition of a small craft harbour, we know that one is being built in Pangnirtung and when we say “small craft harbour,” that is a large project.
That is for boats up to 30 metres, I believe.
I’m going to let my policy planner elaborate more on the definitions of small craft harbour, port, and wharves.
The Small Craft Harbours program that some of the members have been talking about is a program that DFO runs and it is specifically for commercial fisheries’ harbours, so there is a bit of confusion.
Obviously we would like to see a harbour.
A harbour is a safe place for boats. We would like to see those in every community. There is an opportunity, through the Small Craft Harbours Program, through the federal Small Craft Harbours program, and through the Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report, which some of the members have also spoken about, to potentially access funding under that Small Craft Harbours program, the federal one, and those would be commercial harbours.
We do recognize the need for a harbour of some description, a safe place to put boats, in every community and I think we have tried to make some of the funding available in the small craft harbours funding that we are speaking about in our capital plan.
We have tried and will continue to try and make some of that available to the communities on a proposal basis.
So if they have a good plan and wish to propose it and bring it forward, we would certainly consider them under that program, but it’s quite a small harbour compared to the one that the Small Craft Harbours program, such as the one that’s being built in Pangnirtung, is supporting.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Hawkins.
In Pond Inlet, we’re very proud of Pangnirtung’s commercial fisheries harbour.
We envy them as Nunavummiut and at the same time, we’re very proud of them.
The issue at hand that I have been trying to raise is that in Pond Inlet, there is nothing.
How can we get some support in order to get some kind of marine facility so that it will be safer for the public to go out to their boats when the water is so rough? How can we reach that following the process laid out in here?
Mr. Chairman, we’re told that we have to write a proposal. At the same time, the proposal would have to be acceptable. If Pond Inlet requests it and it is deemed not to be a good plan, then they would not be approved.
Who decides if a plan is good or not?
The responsibility of building harbours is under DFO.
I envy Pangnirtung; they’re getting a small craft harbour.
In the east coast, there are over 300 marine facilities: docks, harbours, and small craft harbours. Some of them were negotiated through the land claims that some of these organizations have, but in Nunavut, we don’t. We have 26 communities that want a small craft harbour.
Even for Iqaluit, we don’t have that.
We’ve got four hours of offloading time, which is unacceptable. We all know that. It drives the costs up of our community members for getting resupplied.
For Pond Inlet, although some of the work has been complete in the fish habitat study and the geotechnical work, the overall cost is going to be about $40 million just for the small safe harbour in there, including a breakwater.
It’s very difficult with this government. We don’t have the resources, so we continue to lobby the government.
We do have a file that we’re working on. We understand community food security is critical for our poverty reduction file, country food harvesting, and we aim to push that forward to Ottawa to actually allocate more money for such marine infrastructure in Nunavut.
Do you have any additional questions, Mr. Enook?
In regard to the question that I just posed, perhaps I missed it and the minister didn’t seem to respond to my question.
Who decides a proposal is good if there is a request from Pond Inlet for a harbour?
On what basis is a proposal considered acceptable?
As I had stated, they did a study in Pond Inlet where the dock would be and it would cost $40 million to construct a harbour.
As I stated before, Mr. Chairman, we don’t mind getting a facility that costs way less than $40 million since we have nothing at all.
If it’s $35 million, we would like it. If it costs $55 million, we will be satisfied with it because we have completely nothing in Pond Inlet.
My question is: who says the plan is good if they’re requesting for such and who decides the plan is good?
I probably misunderstood the question, but at the end of the day, our department helps the communities in developing proposals.
Not only that, but we help in doing the fish habitat studies, fund that, and geotechnical studies as required.
At the end of the day, it’s DFO that approves the overall construction and funding for marine facilities.
That clarifies my question.
I also would like to ask: is the Department of Fisheries and Oceans the one who decides on proposals or denies a request for a harbour or small craft harbour?
Tulattarvik is the Inuktitut term I use for a small craft harbour or dock.
The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is responsible for making decisions. All the correspondence from the Nunavut government, all the correspondence from the federal government, all the studies, all the correspondence, and the reports have said that Pond Inlet requires some marine infrastructure.
I know that there has to be commercial viability prior to any commercial fisheries being developed, for example, turbot fishing.
Does that mean the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will never approve the request if there are no commercial fisheries in our community?
That is what I’m asking the minister.
How difficult is it to get an approval for a facility if it’s not a commercial fishery or harbour so that we can lead safe lives?
It will be great if we can get the safety marine facilities in every community, but at the end of the day, DFO just funds some of these programs, especially the small craft harbours, for a specific value for money.
They make a business case to the politicians in Ottawa so they can fund a marine facility.
It’s very difficult at times to talk about some of these marine infrastructures when it’s not necessarily based on a business case or a fishery. We all know that safety is a number one priority and we talk about tourism too.
We want to expand our tourism activities with better economics for our communities through cruise ships, and whatnot.
Again, I’ve got to say that we continue to talk with Ottawa. We do have these reports and recommendations from the Senate and the parliamentary standing committee on infrastructure.
We continue to talk with these folks to actually build more infrastructures for Nunavummiut, especially marine infrastructure.
We need to have a commercial component in order to construct marine facilities, but I honestly believe that we would be eligible for a marine facility if a commercial component wasn’t a requirement.
Since 1999, my predecessors kept talking about the safety of the boat owners in Pond Inlet and that they need to have safe marine infrastructure or facilities.
About 11 years have passed and nothing has been done for Pond Inlet. No one cares that we boat owners are subject to dangerous conditions.
As my predecessor kept saying in the House, we should at least get concrete on the beach so that we can bring our boats in safely. We don’t want anything more or anything less because it’s so difficult to try and obtain that marine facility through this.
Therefore, we’re requesting a concrete form. If I try to pull my 21-foot boat, I need two trucks to pull my boat in because the beach is all sandy.
We are required to have a commercial aspect in order for us to get a marine facility.
In spite of that, perhaps the minister and the people of Pond Inlet can work together to resolve this situation so that we can at least make another proposal.
We know that in Pond Inlet, there is a glacier where tourists go. It’s a national park and during the summer, more than one cruise ship arrives to that park. We’re not looking for a big docking facility.
I’ll know we will never see such in our community. This can enhance our lives because there’s an opportunity for economic development. I didn’t want to talk about commercial opportunities, but I believe safety is a priority for us.
Perhaps we can discuss this matter with the minister and his officials and try to come up with a solution. Could the minister commit to discussing this matter to see if we need commercial activities in order to have harbours?
We should start the discussion because we need that and it’s a priority. Could the minister commit to that?
We continually try and improve our marine infrastructure. It’s up to Ottawa and DFO to fund these projects and we continually ask for more funding. As you know, to build some of these marine infrastructure, it is well over $20 million and $40 million, and even for Iqaluit, it goes on up higher.
I totally agree that we should have marine facilities in every community, not just in eastern Canada or southern Canada.
We should have that too up north here. For the most part, I totally agree with the member’s opinion that safety matters too.
But for the most part, we do have to come up with a business case to DFO, which in turn do have to come up with a feasibility plan and value for money to the funders in Ottawa.
It’s a very difficult situation to be in at times. I agree 100 percent that we need more marine infrastructure in Nunavut, which is, for the most part, all coastal communities.
We’re going to continue to do that, we’re going to continue lobbying, but for the smaller communities where they put in proposals for such a cemented drive-in, drive-out ramp, that may be feasible for boat safety.
That’s more than likely better than nothing.
So if any community that puts in a proposal like that, with a small $500,000 budget, we will have to see if it’s doable, which will actually benefit the communities. That’s a start and we intend to do that.
Joe Enook, your time is up. Once the members on my list have had the opportunity to speak, I will consider your request at that time.
Firstly, I would like an update on the proposed Iqaluit airport project and what stage it is at.
It is very gratifying to see this project identified in the capital plans.
It becomes quite overcrowded at the existing air terminal as people arrive and depart on the various flights, but it is also problematic for the airplanes as they have to jockey for position taxiing for landing and take-off.
This may become a bigger issue as we are starting to get larger planes arriving in Iqaluit. Sometimes they have to change the regulations in order to accommodate the number of planes.
Can the minister explain where this project is at?