EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, I wish to also report that Bill 18, Language Statutes Amendment Act, has been reviewed by the standing committee and that the bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
Bill 3 and Bill 18 are ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole at the December 7 sitting.
Reports of Committees on the Review of Bills. (interpretation ends) Item 13.
Tabling of Documents. (interpretation) One moment, please.
Tabled Document 077 – 3(2): Correspondence with Minister of DIAND on Food Mail Program (Rumbolt)
I wish to table a copy of a letter that I wrote to the federal Minister of Indian and Northern Development regarding the Food Mail Program.
The high cost of living and especially the cost of healthy, nutritious food is a concern for Canada’s more remote northern communities. Mr. Speaker, I hope that this letter will help to support the lobbying that our government will be doing on this issue.
Tabled Document 078 – 3(2): Amarok HTO Letter to Minister Shewchuk (Okalik)
This letter is from the Amarok Hunters and Trappers Association to the Minister for the Department of Environment.
Tabled Document 079 – 3(2): Correspondence Relating to the Federal Food Mail Program (Elliott)
After the Premier’s comments today, the tabling of this package is very timely, as well as with Mr. Rumbolt’s.
I wish to table a package of correspondence relating to the federal Food Mail Program. A number of my colleagues have raised the issue in this House and I’m hoping that one or some of our ministers will pursue this issue when they next communicate with their federal counterparts.
Mr. Speaker, this package includes letters to and from our hard-working Nunavut MP and federal Minister of Health, the Hon. Leona Aglukkaq, as well as others.
Tabled Document 080 – 3(2): Portraits of Resilience: A Photo Project of Many Strong Voices (Komoartok)
Mr. Komoartok: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I am pleased to table a package of information on the Portrait of Resilience project that I discussed in my Member’s Statement earlier today. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 081 – 3(2): Attachments to Standing Committee Reports (Arvaluk)
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I presented the Report of the Standing Committee on Oversight of Government Operations and Public Accounts on the Review of the Annual Report of the Information and Privacy Commissioner of Nunavut.
Today, I wish to table documents which are appended to the earlier report that I tabled. These attachments include various documents, some of which are news media stories related to the report, news clippings, and items of interest, and so on.
The reason why I am tabling these attachments today is because these items are already available in the public domain.
Tabled Document 082 – 3(2): Summary of Regional Round Tables (Tapardjuk)
Tabled Document 083 – 3(2): FPT Ministerial Report for the Council of Ministers; Canada Meeting and Summit on Aboriginal Education (Tapardjuk)
I have two documents to table. The first one is in regard to a summary of regional round tables. A series of regional round tables were held in the fall of 2009.
Through these important forums, participants received information about the new territorial legislation and reflected on its implementation in various sectors.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table the FPT Ministerial Report for the Council of Ministers; Canada Meeting and Summit on Aboriginal Education.
Tabled Document 084 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report for the Nunavut Development Corporation (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the 2008-2009 Annual Report of the Nunavut Development Corporation. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Tabled Document 085 – 3(2): Towards a Representative Public Service Statistics as of September 30, 2009 (Shewchuk)
Tabled Document 086 – 3(2): Towards a Representative Public Service Statistics as of June 30, 2009 (Shewchuk)
I would like to table two documents. The first one is a report towards a representative public service statistics as of June 30, 2009, and the second one is a report towards a representative public service statistics as of September 30, 2009.
Speaker: Thank you, Minister. Can we have the documents brought forward to the table, please.
Tabled Document 087 – 3(2): GN’s Response to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs’ Food Mail Review (Aariak)
I am pleased to table the Government of Nunavut’s response to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs’ food mail review September 2009.
Tabled Document 088 – 3(2): 2008 Annual Report for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (Curley)
I am pleased to table the 2008 Annual Report of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
Tabled Document 089 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report on the Payment of Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses to Members of the Second Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (Speaker)
Tabled Document 090 – 3(2): 2008-2009 Annual Report on the Payment of Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses to Members of the Third Legislative Assembly of Nunavut (Speaker)
(interpretation ends) I, too, have a couple of documents to table.
As required by section 36 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to table the 2008-2009 Annual Report on the Payments of Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses to Members of the Second Legislative Assembly. Thank you.
The second document, as required by section 36 of the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, I wish to table the 2008-2009 Annual Report of Payments of Indemnities, Allowances and Expenses to the Members of the Third Legislative Assembly.
Bill 6, Bill 7, Bill 8, Bill 9, Bill 10, and Bill 11 with Mr. Ningeongan in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:16 and Committee resumed at15:58
Yesterday, we had opening comments from Minister Taptuna and the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Environment.
I would like to ask Minister Taptuna: do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table?
Just for clarification, we are continuing on with Bills 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11.
We would like to continue with the review of Bill 8 and the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, followed by the Department of Environment, Nunavut Arctic College, and, if time permits, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Health and Social Services and the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Are we in agreement to continue with the capital estimates for the Department of Economic Development and Transportation?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Taptuna, again, do you have witnesses to bring to the table?
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s officials in.
On my immediate right is Deputy Minister Bob Long and on my left is Assistant Deputy Minister Methuselah Kunuk for Transportation.
I would like to remind the members to have your questions precise and to the point as much as you can to give others a chance to have their input.
We will immediately go to the page-by-page review on Economic Development and Transportation.
Branch Summary. Economic Development. Total Capital Expenditures. $700,000.
Page I-3 and the details are on page I-4.
Are there any questions on I-3 and I-4?
I’m lost because I brought my substantiation sheet from another department, but my actual budget binder is not here.
So can you guide me? I want to ask some questions on small craft harbours. Am I on the right page, Mr. Chairman?
I believe you are, so you can proceed with your questions.
I have a copy now.
In June of this year, you were asked a question in the Legislative Assembly concerning the status of federal support for the construction of new small craft harbours in Nunavut.
At that time, you indicated, “We’re expecting an answer from the DFO minister shortly, hopefully within the month, to get a clearer picture on which communities are going to be funded.”
As of today, what is the status of this issue and are you working with Nunavut’s MP and the new Senator to obtain federal support?
Chairman: Mr. Arvaluk, I have just been advised that we’re not there yet; my error again.
The issue you are alluding to is on page I-6. I’ll advise.
Are there any questions on I-3?
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I welcome Hon. Minister Taptuna and his officials.
In the Kivalliq and using Baker Lake as an example, we have been requesting some funds through your department and I’ve heard that it’s very hard, for example, for arts and crafts projects.
However, we have been able to access some funds through the Kivalliq Partners in Development that had a contract to make it easier to obtain some funds.
My question to the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation is if it’s possible to take that contract back because it’s very hard to fill out applications to try and access funds for arts and crafts projects.
Is the Department of Economic Development and Transportation to return that contract back to the partner corporation?
I will have to look into that and get back to him because that is an O&M issue.
I-3. (interpretation ends) Economic Development.
Total Capital Expenditures. $700,000.
Turning to page I-5. (interpretation ends) Economic Development and Transportation. Branch Summary.
Transportation. Total Capital Expenditures. $4,850,000.
I am finally where I’m supposed to be at.
As I first asked on June 8, there was a question in the House about the federal government’s assistance for Nunavut small craft harbours.
At that time, you indicated that you were expecting an answer from the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans shortly and stated that you will hopefully, within the month, get a clearer picture. That was on June 8 of this year.
You stated that you would get a clearer picture of which communities were going to be funded for small craft harbours.
As of today and since it’s the beginning of December, what is the status of this issue and are you working with Nunavut’s Member of Parliament and the new Senator to obtain federal support?
I will try and answer that question. I know it has been pretty frustrating since the program was initiated in 2005.
As a department, since then, we have undertaken some initiatives to move the program forward with federal officials. Why we have done that is that we want to advance some of these designs. We have already undertaken some fish habitat studies in some of these communities.
We have offered our present funding to advance the detailed designs of some of these sites in Qikiqtaaluk. This includes Pond Inlet, Clyde River, Qikiqtarjuaq, and of course, Pangnirtung is already ongoing.
We’ve done some preliminary design work in Arviat and Cape Dorset. While we’re doing this, we’re waiting on capital funding from DFO Real Property to actually carry out the construction of these sites.
The reason why we’re doing this is we’re trying to move the projects forward a little faster than in the past, and that’s one of the initiatives we’ve taken on.
We going to take further studies in design, although the initial parts of the studies are already undertaken, but we’re advancing Arviat and Cape Dorset to move them along.
We’ve also put in floating docks in some of the smaller communities like Resolute Bay, Hall Beach, Sanikiluaq, Grise Fiord, Taloyoak, and Whale Cove.
I hope that kind of clears up and answers the member’s questions.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Taptuna.
Has the minister then identified… ? Since Pangnirtung is under construction already, has he identified which community… ? He mentioned three at first and then added Sanikiluaq and some other communities.
Has he identified already which community should be next if the funding is received from the federal government?
We’re trying to advance some of the Qikiqtaaluk sites like Pond Inlet, Clyde River, and Qikiqtarjuaq. While we’re in that process, we’re still lobbying the federal government, of course, through our Nunavut MP and our Senator, and we will continue to lobby.
The $500,000 that is in there as a line item, we will be using that to continue our lobbying efforts to get actual construction money.
But first of all, the member indicated that I had mentioned Sanikiluaq, Grise Fiord, and Taloyoak.
That’s an O&M program that has been happening over the summer and that’s for floating docks.
Of course, we’re going to be continuing to lobby the federal government, as I said in my ministerial statement. It seems like Ottawa has forgotten about Nunavut on basic infrastructure like docks.
Again, I’ve got to mention that on our own initiative, we are trying to move these projects forward for the three communities that I identified; Pond Inlet, Clyde River, and Qikiqtarjuaq, on the design work.
Mr. Arvaluk: For you department, for 2009-2010, capital estimates include $500,000 in funding for Nunavut’s contribution to the construction of small craft harbours. Has any of this funding, the $500,000, actually been spent?
I will have my assistant deputy minister answer that question.
Yes, we have spent some of that $500,000 trying to advance some of the small craft harbours. What we are planning to do is use this $500,000 we have in the capital plan to spend some of that on Pond Inlet’s harbour, designing it and trying to get more detailed designs so we can get more actual costing.
That’s what we are planning to do in the next summer.
I know that they have been speaking and trying to discuss with federal counterparts. Has he also been talking to companies nearby, for example, Baffinland, to contribute to the design and funding of the initial work or part of it or 50 percent of it with that company?
These discussions are very early with industry. A good example is Baffinland and the Peregrine project here that we have close by Iqaluit.
The discussions are very early, at the very earliest stage and yes, we plan to have more dialogue and open discussions on how they could contribute to any kind of infrastructure like that.
As the member is aware, once a company starts production, this government has what we call a development partnership agreement and there are opportunities there to discuss these issues, such as P3, partnering P3 to build up infrastructure for some of these communities.
Yes, I encourage him to do that, but it would have been good if the negotiations with Baffinland, the federal government, and NTI or QIA included in their impact benefit agreement some of those infrastructures that would… .
We admire Northern Quebec’s participation in the benefit agreements of this reward or rebate for the mining companies operating in this area.
We would have loved to see them in the IIBA for North Baffin.
There are several communities I know; Clyde River, Artic Bay, Pond Inlet, Igloolik, and Hall Beach are very close by and they are all going to be affected one way or the other, but the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement does not include… .
Other than employment opportunities and training, there are no tangible benefits outlined in there, so I would have liked to see that.
My next question, Mr. Chairman, is the amount that your department is requesting for 2010-11, for another $500,000, and subsequent fiscal years.
What will this funding be spent on if the federal government does not provide support for the construction of new small craft harbours?
First of all, I probably should comment on the IIBA, that the Nunavut government is not a party to that, it’s done under the land claims agreement.
At times, the smaller communities are not very well informed on the contents of the IIBA and this government is not part of that.
We’re looking into how the industry can actually help us out here in partnership with the federal government and the territorial government.
There are other organizations that may be interested, such as the birthright corporations.
We’re optimistic when we’re talking specifically about that line item, that we’re going to be using that to do some actual work so that we can move our projects forward where they become more acceptable to the federal government.
We’re thinking that if we do have actual estimates, numbers, and designs that the federal government would be more open to actually putting in money for the construction of this infrastructure.
As the member is well aware, the construction cost is a huge amount.
A small example is one maybe in Cape Dorset where a breakwater is over $8 million and that came from a 1988 study.
So it’s hardly realistic when we talk about $8 million from 1988.
This is my last question, Mr. Chairman.
It has to do with educating the federal government and maybe some other players the importance of respecting the rest of the Canadian citizens, mainly the Nunavummiut, because the Constitution does not allow any government body to have an omission in their services.
I think that building anything south of 60 is fine, but if you start omitting to include anything north of 60, that might be considered as something that’s not regular in the Canadian Constitution.
My question should be: will your government lobby the federal government in a more intense way in convincing them that we live up here, we have a population here, and we even have a territory and a functioning government that deserve equal treatment when it comes to infrastructure projects that the federal government builds for anything south of 60?
Yes, I agree with the member. We have been lobbying hard using our MP and we have done a great job in educating some of the parliamentarians down in Ottawa.
When we talk about the north, we talk about arctic sovereignty and we bring that to the forefront, indicating that there are people up here who live in the north and arctic sovereignty is an issue every day, it’s in the news every day, and we bring that to the forefront.
Yes, our government has the fiduciary duty to its citizens and you’re absolutely right in that.
We will continue to lobby any way we can.
Whether we change strategy or not, that’s determined to be seen, but I believe that we do have a good hard-working MP in Ottawa who’s doing a lot of work for Nunavut actually educating the parliamentarians down in Ottawa and southern people.
Having said that, we will continue with our own initiatives to move these infrastructure projects a little bit faster.
I just wanted to ask some questions about I-6 if that’s alright, the Arctic Bay Airport Redevelopment.
In your opening comments, you said in 2010-11, the completion of the construction of the new Arctic Bay Airport would be completed.
In the 2009-2010 capital plan, there was $83,000 for the maintenance for the road going to Nanisivik and on the substantiation forms, it was, I think, estimated maybe $100,000 a year to maintain the road.
I’m just wondering: if the airport is not going to be open until 2010-11, why is there not any money to maintain the road this year?
That $100,000 or $83,000 you mentioned that’s in the capital plan was for the major repairs on the road during the summer.
We are doing the actual maintenance and snow removal under other O&M.
We are still going to continue that. We don’t need to do major repairs on the road after the new airport is completed.
That’s why it’s not in the capital plan.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that answer.
I guess it explains where the money is coming from for maintaining the road.
I guess the questions I have relate to some of the oral questions I was asking earlier in terms of the Nanisivik Naval Facility will be constructed in Nanisivik and they will be using the Arctic Bay Airport to bring supplies back and forth.
As far as we know and from what you have said in other comments, the Nanisivik Airport will be closed down and not in use. So I’m just wondering how in terms of my questions earlier about making sure that the local community receives benefits from it, how will they get back and forth from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay?
Yes, for sure there’s going to be construction happening there for the docking facilities which the military is going to be using as a refuelling station.
The department has indicated that the airport is going to be closed and to maintain that route from that location to Nanisivik is at a very high cost. That’s why this department had determined that it was going to be shut down.
If the military wants that road open, they can do that with the community’s permission, I believe.
So what the minister is saying is that they’re going with their initial.
I had received a letter from your office saying that once the Nanisivik Airport was closed and the Arctic Bay Airport was opened, that road would become an access road, so then that road would have to be maintained by the Hamlet of Arctic Bay.
So then I guess with that being said, you’re actually saying that the hamlet, or would it be the responsibility of the Government of Nunavut to go talk to the Department of National Defence and let them know that that road is going, someone will need to go from Nanisivik back and forth if we’re going to have Arctic Bay residents employed to work over in Nanisivik or during the construction phase of the Nanisivik Naval Facility transporting people back and forth from Arctic Bay to Nanisivik, there has to be some mode of transportation.
As well, when they’re there for the summer months, when the ice is open between… . I believe they said it would be April until October that they would need to get back and forth from Nanisivik to Arctic Bay for food and different supplies, and those benefits would be going to the community of Arctic Bay.
You’re saying it’s up to DND and the hamlet to maintain that road from the day that the Nanisivik Airport is closed until the Arctic Bay Airport is opened.
At this time, there is really no indication from the military on their plans with that road, but we made it clear as a department that we’re not going to fund that road on operations and maintenance of it.
It is just a huge cost and as you can see in our budget, there really is not enough resources to keep every single road open in Nunavut.
Now, I indicated in a previous letter that yes, that road was going to be closed once the new Arctic Bay Airport is opened.
At this time, we’ve got no indication from the military on what they actually plan on doing with the site, whether they need the road. Maybe; we don’t know that.
So then just for clarification… . I guess again as a new MLA, I don’t want to step on anybody’s toes.
Is it the hamlet, my responsibility, or is it the Government of Nunavut’s responsibility to go talk to the federal government, DND, to explain the situation? I don’t want to be seen as taking on someone else’s responsibility or getting in trouble for not consulting someone. So if you could let me know if you want me to tell the Hamlet of Arctic Bay to go talk to DND.
Again I will try and answer that question.
I believe he has read the letter that I had put forth previously and we had indicated that we’re not going to maintain the road; it’s going to become an access road.
If the military wants to make use of that road, of course, they will have to either talk to the department, but it would be better possibly talking to the Hamlet of Arctic Bay. It’s within Nunavut land there and I’m pretty sure the community would have more say of a piece of land that’s right outside their community.
Thank you for those answers.
In terms of the $600,000 that is being spent this year, you had said in your opening comments that it was for the installation of navigational aids and relocating the CARS station from Nanisivik.
Usually, when there are different capital projects, the year after a project is finished, in the following year, there is money allocated for warranty and whatnot. Is the warranty already taken care of? I noticed that in 2011-15, there’s no more money allocated.
Is the warranty actually covered under that?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. Minister Taptuna.
I’ll have to get back to the member on that because part of the project is with Nav Canada and I can’t comment on that issue right now because we really don’t have accurate information at this time.
So the minister is saying that in the 2011-12 capital budget, we could possibly see more money going to the Arctic Bay Airport redevelopment. Is that correct?
Not at this time, no.