EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The reason for that, the reason I asked that question is because the 85 million it could have to be set down on the capital plan that we have in place for that department.
That is why I'm asking that question but I'd like to continue with that if I could because it can happen in fact on some other things that might be already here, it might be that we have some projects that might be for 2002/2003.
I know what the minister is saying when they say if they identify the project within that year, they add it to the list.
That's what I understood from the minister before, so I guess maybe that's the answer I was looking for.
These additional projects for the 85 million dollars will be added to that year once they're identified.
I just want to make sure I'm clear on this before we can proceed on Community Government & Transportation projects.
I didn't really hear a question.
More or less a comment.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): Yes, I know that we will be working with the other departments.
We have to work with the communities, like I said yesterday and I really believe that in the communities, they know what their needs are.
We might not agree with them though if they don't consider the health and safety aspects of what they want.
We have to look at their priorities and look at the amount of capital dollars that are to be allocated to them, as long as they address the health and safety aspects.
Under the capital estimates, I'd like to clarify under page 9-8.
Five-year capital plan under the 85 million dollars, you can get further details of the capital plan on page 8-9.
So you're saying that 85 million dollars worth of projects are here in the appendix.
Is that what you're saying.
They're further described under the A9. Can you see A9 in the appendix A. There's some further details to the five-year capital plan under that page.
I'm not trying to stop the questioning but I just want to explain further.
Mr. Havioyak do you have any further questions or comments.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I have some questions that follow up on some my colleagues were asking and that's the pending boat regulations that were mentioned.
I'm just wondering, I know I brought it up last year when it was passed.
It’s federal legislation, these regulations that are coming into place, they're going to require, basically force requirements upon the small watercraft owners and boat owners throughout Canada and Nunavut.
If memory serves me correctly and I'm sure the minister or his staff could correct me if I'm wrong, Nunavut has, I believe it's a two-year grace period in order to comply.
Then we do have to fully comply with these new regulations.
Some of the concerns raised here, I guess and I don't know if it could be something that is looked at in the transportation strategy that the department is looking at.
I'm just wondering if there are any plans in assisting and making sure that Nunavummiut that are boat owners are able to comply with these regulations when the time comes for us to have to comply with them.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I just want to say that yes, we do have a three-year grace period.
But the thing that I keep pushing is that we have to understand the need to do what we can to promote safety.
Whether it's the, let's say having a personal floatation device for every person on board, I don't know whether we are going to be getting into the whole personal locator device or whatever the particular term is, flares.
But I'm sure the fact is, as I pointed out earlier to one of the questions, when we get to that level of having to enforce those certain regulations as it relates to small boats, a lot of the majority of the small boat owners are usually hunters with a minimum of wages if any.
Therefore I would think that before we fully get into that whole issue of enforcement we would make sure that those hunters or those people who can't afford to will be able to apply to us, either an assistance program such as Sustainable Development under Hunter Support Program.
Maybe I'd like to have Mike explain a bit further.
Mr. Ferris, please.
There are two things that are happening at the same time.
The first is that we did get from the federal government an agreement that there would be a two-year grace period to allow us to take all the material that the federal government has related to either the small boats or what they would call a commercial vessel such as the Peterheads.
We are in the process of having all of that material translated so that we can then go out and consult with the boat owners to review what is the requirement.
The federal government has said that they are prepared to look at some exemptions or variations to those given the conditions in the north.
At the same time as our minister has said we are very concerned with some of the tragic deaths we've had.
So, we are very active in boat safety, and that’s got nothing to do with the regulations per se, but we do have people that are out in the communities delivering talks on boat safety and talking about personal floatation devices, having paddles, having flares, the types of things that would make it much safer for boating in the north.
But we will, before we get into actually implementing any of the new regulations, there will be a good opportunity for review of what the federal requirements will be and how we can address making sure that all our boats and our owners are ready.
We have had very preliminary discussions with NTI, I flew with one of the Vice Presidents once on a trip and they’re prepared as well to look at the issue with us, in terms of beneficiaries money to help in equipping the Peterhead boats and what not with some of the equipment that some of these would require.
So we're just getting started in that but we are very active as the minister has indicated and he's provided direction to the staff to push boat safety right from day one and eventually as the regulations come in, that's probably going to be enhanced.
But we are doing a lot of boat safety in the short term and here for example, we've had a formation of a Coast Guard Auxiliary and they’re undertaking a boat safety program and the Coast Guard is providing funding for that.
We're hoping that same type of program can be expanded in other communities so we are moving forward in a co-operative way with the federal government but also to put a package in place so that all the boat owners in Nunavut are clear on what may or may not be the requirements in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I'm very pleased to hear that the department is taking a proactive approach to this. You don’t want to run into the same predicament like we did with people having at the last minute to fill out forms for their gun license and they’re thinking we have federal legislation coming down the line that we have to be ready for and I applaud the department on being proactive to help ensure that the people that will be effected will be ready for it.
I know that it's probably a sad fact, that most accidents that happen out there, in the water are preventable you know given the certain safety equipment or devices out there.
It’s unfortunate that nine times out of ten they probably aren't there for whatever reason, I think, I'm glad to hear that they’re really pursuing this.
Mr. Ferris indicated that they are translating all the material related to these regulations and I know how much it costs to get things translated.
Are we getting assistance from the federal government in regards to this or is it something we have to bear upon ourselves.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I don’t think we're into any last minute things or we would be because we're now advertising the same way as the gun control bill was advertised way ahead of time to fill out the forms.
So I don’t think it would be a last minute thing.
We just make sure that the people know that they have to do certain things before the regulations come into effect.
But if there are ways to get funding from the Federal Government to ensure that regulations are translated into Inuktitut, we will try and do so.
However if there isn’t we still have to do the translations anyway and we will ensure we do.
Chairperson (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Anawak. Mr. Tootoo.
I'll move onto another topic.
I'll just go onto something else then.
Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, one of the ministers indicated out of the percentages of their capital budget for this year, roughly 26% of it wouldn't normally be considered a priority by the government.
I'm just wondering if the minister or his staff could indicate what types of criteria were used in priorizing this 26% of their capital as far as which projects they received were turned into ink on the plan and which ones weren’t.
Hon. Jack Anawak: We get to a point where we use too loosely priorities because in terms of planning for capital projects for each of the communities, of course if there was money around it would necessarily be a priority to put something in that we're putting in because we just happen to have money.
But we're short of money and everything that we've put into the communities as far as we're concerned is a need by that community and we will ensure that in terms of ensuring that the communities do get to meet the minimum requirements of safety and having to deal with accidents, we will ensure that those come first.
But it's only when we get to the level of let’s say if we were going to try to build a 3 million dollar facility but we may not necessarily have that for that year but we do have some other monies but not in that neighbourhood then we will do smaller jobs maybe in different communities.
I don't want to even if the term priority is used, to me, it's the need that we will deal with in all the communities with the understanding that there are limited dollars to spread around into all the communities.
But we will do what we can to ensure that we meet the minimum requirements for safety but also if there are any smaller amounts of money that we can put to good use in a community then we will do that.
Mr. Chairman, I still never got an answer.
What types of criteria were used in determining what those projects were.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): As I have stated earlier on, that once we are starting to work on the capital items, we use our priorities because we look at the needs.
If we have already started it from the previous fiscal year and if they're not completed or for safety and health reasons and if we have additional dollars and if we can put some funding into them because we do have limited financial resources, yes we can start on some of the items.
But health and safety hazards are our number one concern and if the project has already been started then it needs completion.
I guess, is the minister now saying today that 100 percent of this capital budget is made up of things that are ongoing commitments and health and safety and statutory requirement projects.
Is that what he is stating today.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I don't want to get into a word argument here. (interpretation) We don't want to use a word argument that’s not what I'm trying to say.
I'm not trying to say that all of these stem from that, what I'm trying to say is that's how we based our criteria when if it's a health hazard if it's a safety hazard yes, we'll do that first.
Or the previous programs that are still ongoing if they're incomplete then we will try and complete them within the next fiscal year.
Even, because of our limited resources we are looking for other sources of funding to help the other communities.
If there was a surplus or if there was funding available and if it was too small for capital items we could use it for smaller items to assist the communities.
For example, I apologize, the member for Baker Lake isn't here he had asked me a question last year, in regards to access roads.
What would happen if they wanted to pave the roads and if the community, would we be assisting the community if the community puts in some dollars for the pavement of the road even though we don't support that community 100 percent.
But if the community wanted to initiate something it's up to the community and if they want to, if they need it they can initiate any kind of project in the community, we look at the communities initiation and then we can assist them.
Mr. Chairman, that was kind of what I thought I understood yesterday anyway and today my question I was asking is of the portion of the capital that isn't in those three areas what criteria was used in determining what projects were selected to put into the capital plan.
That was outside of those three areas that he just mentioned.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): Yes, as I have clearly stated that if the community requires it we are not going to tell the community at all we are going to give you this even though you don't want the item.
We can't say that to the communities even if the community requested it or if they want to initiate a project, for example in Arviat, last year that community wanted to enlarge their recreational facility.
They wanted to put in an addition but last year prior to the budget session they asked me, the community came to me and asked me what would happen if we initiate that project at our local level.
But the capital dollars have to be used by all the communities of Nunavut we can't say that we are going to put this capital item there even though the communities don't want it without thinking of the communities’ priorities.
Mr. Chairman, I understand what the minister is trying to say and I don't know if he understands the question I'm trying to ask.
I know and I'm sure and can imagine like he had indicated yesterday, the wish list was well over 30 million dollars from all the communities.
Now given that they say okay that roughly 74% of the capital budget is gone towards the health and safety regulatory and ongoing commitments portion is how all that got allocated.
Of the portion that falls outside of that 30 million dollar list, what criteria was used in determining which projects were picked.
That's what I'm getting and I'm not saying that that's something you can force things on the communities.
The minister said he got roughly a 30 million dollar list.
Out of the stuff that didn't get picked off the list, because of those three areas, what criteria was used to determine which ones were.
Hon. Jack Anawak: I don't recall using the word wish list for the communities because it is the type of thing that when you say wish list, it makes you think well they're just dreaming.
The amounts of capital dollars that are needed to go into the communities is very high but again when the member keeps asking what criteria, I said it, priority need.
Because those communities need those things.
There are other communities that need more things but sometimes the need of a community exceeds the ability of the government to put that need in, such as an arena in Grise Fiord or Resolute Bay.
But there are some other areas where we can do things for other communities and we will make sure that if a community comes into the government and says we're prepared to put in however much amount of money into a first year project, providing we get assistance from the government, we will do that.
Those are the kinds of things especially if a community has a surplus, we will do those kinds of things because in the end we will save money by working together with a community.
So it's a case of knowing that the need sometimes, as long as the minimum standards are met in terms of safety and other health concerns but need because everything we put into the community is needed in some way or another.
It may not necessarily be always critical but the need is always there so we don't want to get into a situation of determining well we put this stuff here because they are more important than the other community.
We don't want to get into a situation of communities thinking that they're not as important as others because we didn't happen to put something in that community.
I guess it was based on the community's need and I guess well then what the question I basically asked is, who determines whose needs are more of a priority than another's needs because I'm sure that every community for everything that they send in and for anything, any community will be able to justify why they need it.
So maybe, how was it determined what community need was more of a priority than another community's need as far as those projects go.
Hon. Jack Anawak: As I pointed out sometimes the need exceeds the ability of the government to put that need in and if it doesn't necessarily need to be done because of safety and health concerns then maybe that need doesn't necessarily get met that year.
But again, I pointed out that, let's say I'll use an example, it wasn't necessarily needed that we go into Arviat and put an extra addition on their community hall. But Arviat came to use and said we will put it in as long as you can tell us you are going to help us with some of the financing in the next year.
I don't want to get into a situation as I think the member seems to be suggesting, that some needs are more important than others.
We don't look at needs as more important than others but if there is a way to meet a need in the community by working together with the community where the community puts some money towards that particular project we will do it.
I would like to ask, perhaps I will give a little bit of a background.
The minister and the officials have stated that they have staff already that specialize in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
I would like to ask in regards to Mr. Ferris’ comments that they would be teaching boat safety to the boat owners perhaps that person who deals with Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, will that person work on this.
Because we Inuit people, we the coastal Inuit people don’t want to be taught by an inland person who doesn't know anything about the coastal area.
Chairperson (interpretation): Yes, we are all boaters, well some of us are.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): For those of us who have gone boating, we know how the currents move and I know that for sure that people who were raised inland don’t know the coastal environment.
It's going to be a challenge like when we start, if we have to amend the rules, regulations we have to base it on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
If we need to change it the only way we can change if it has to reflect Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
Once we start working on the safety training, we will get a person who is experienced in the coastal areas.
I also would like to ask a question again as they have said there may be different regulations for commercial or private boat owners.
If the safety rules differ between the commercial and the private boat owners we have to make sure the public will know which rules they come under.
So I was wondering if the regulations differ between the commercial and the private boat owners.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): Yes, I apologize Mr. Chairman.
Yes, there are differences.
There are ones that carry cargo and then there are passengers.
There are insurance requirements and they are different for freighters and passenger carriers.
It would be good if those of us with boats or those of us who use boats for enjoyment can access insurance policies but they do require a lot more if they're going to be carrying freight or carrying passengers.
I would like to go back and think about, I know that you're not one but your husband, Glen Williams is the only one who has all the required licenses, the insurance and so on I think in the whole of Nunavut.
We'll be discussing this issue further and talk about safety issues and so on.
I would like to remind all the members that starting from last year and following the House rules, we don't name names in the House.
We are representing all the people of Nunavut and not just certain individuals.
That's just a reminder.
Well, the reason I asked those questions is so that the people out there will know what the rules are.
What can the communities do for example if they want to build access roads.
Some of the communities, I don't believe know the information about how they can obtain funding to build access roads, trails and so on.
They have a lot of priorities and the minister had said earlier this week, that the community governments are not only services providers, they should be working for the community as a whole.
My question is what kind of information are you going to be putting out in regards to the communities obtaining funding to build access roads and trails and so on.
We don't set aside money for other projects that will be used other than O&M because we have limited resources.
But we're looking at accessing additional funds from the federal government that would be used to build access roads for example or recreational parks.
For example, there's a recreational fishing lake near Rankin Inlet that is about 12 miles away and is called Iqaluk in Inuktitut.
Vehicles and so on have damaged the land around this fishing lake.
We as a Nunavut government can't do much about it but I'm just using this as an example.
I'm not saying we're going to be building an access road over there but with the help of the Department of Sustainable Development, we can see if we can find funds for recreational fishing lakes and attractions.
The Department of Indian Affairs believes we will be able to get some money from DIAND to be used for such things as access roads, roads leading to recreational areas, which monies could be used outside of municipal boundaries, outside of the town or the Hamlet.
These would be monies that would be used, so we can access recreational areas outside of the town.
I think all the Nunavut communities are asking for funds so that they can develop and access these recreational areas and also to increase the number of roads or to improve the infrastructure in the community.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Thank you, one further question and this is part of the comment that I made yesterday in regards to fire fighters’ training.
We use a lot money for fire fighting people, the firemen have to be properly clothed and they need training and the minister has said that there's ongoing training provided for these firemen.
Do they come here to Iqaluit or do you have training provided at the community level.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): I would like Mike to answer that question.
There are two types of training that are being set up, one is community specific where the assistant Fire Marshals as they travel into communities will do training with the local fire fighters in their respective communities on the equipment that is in the communities.
We also are developing more specialized training, some of that will be done in, what I call regional centres but not necessarily in Iqaluit.
But we would take the fire fighters from four or five communities into one community and do specialized in training in that community.
There will be increased training as well in airport fire fighting techniques because we are slowly moving back into that area, as a regulatory requirement.
The program will move at the speed it would get the money from the federal government.
They have allocated some, but we've enhanced the training for the fire fighters, we're looking at hiring a specialist, who will work with both community specific training and regional training.
We do send some fire fighters out to fire college in the south for very detailed training particularly in what we call Command Officer positions.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): I was just about falling asleep here, when you called my name.
Yesterday the Minister of Community Government & Transportation said the five-year plans would be implemented.
I just wanted to know if that's the case.
Hon. Jack Anawak (interpretation): Yes, we'd like to go back to it but we are working on the details at this time.
We're looking at the five years and identifying the priorities of the communities again like we used to.
We will be working with the communities and work out the final details.
The minister had made statements more than once that the communities know exactly what they need.
Because of course we don't go to the communities and the residents are the ones who know what they want or need.