EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
So I’m wondering: do they do assessments like an environmental assessment to see what needs to be cleaned up to have it reclaimed back to the way it was when it was originally built?
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, that’s exactly what would happen. There would be an environmental study on it to determine what kind of clean-up it requires.
That would be done before any work starts.
In terms of the reclamation plan, I don’t know if there’s a special term for it, but when is that actually going to start?
Are we just at the starting block?
Will there be an assessment done in the summer?
Maybe a bit of a timeline.
Mr. Kunuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Like I said earlier, we’re still trying to determine who is really responsible for areas, whether it’s the federal government, and some parts may be ours.
Until we exactly determine that, we can start the environmental study as well as maybe deciding when the reclamation would be started.
I think what I want to do next is maybe change gears towards talking about Nanisivik. In terms of all airports across the territory, how often do Transport Canada regulators go around to monitor our airports to make sure that all the requirements are being met and that safety regulations are actually being followed?
Twice a year; they do it in the winter and also in the summer.
Now going to a different means of transportation in terms of some of the comments that the other members made earlier about water transportation and mineral exploration, we are moving towards more ships travelling throughout the Northwest Passage and our waters.
There is definitely a concern for spills or even contamination, people dumping garbage, and whatnot.
In terms of your Transportation Policy and Planning Division, is your department looking into strategies for long-term use of our waterways or is that something that the federal government does and we have no ability to influence?
Through NORAD, there is surveillance happening through the organization. I’m pretty sure you have heard of NORAD.
Also, Environment Canada is responsible for making sure these foreign ships are abiding by Canadian laws.
Of course, in our transportation strategy, if there is room for improvements on our strategy regarding environmental protection, we will take a look at that when the time comes.
Also, my question is in line with what Mr. Aupaluktuq was asking. I was hoping to get more explanation. In terms of the business plan on page 189, it talks about transportation policy and planning, where the division is directly responsible for several federally funded programs, including overseeing the Canadian Coast Guard Remote Re-supply of Sites Memorandum of Understanding.
Could the minister explain what that actually means?
For the memorandum of understanding for the remote resupply sites within these small communities, there are push-ups and landing areas that are specific to the resupply sites.
The communities do apply to the department to access funds to either make it safer or clean up that site within these communities.
I believe the amount is $5,000 per community.
With representing three communities, I’ve had a couple of my communities concerned about the actual offloading area where these ships pull up and then they bring in the barges and land on the shore.
What the communities were hoping to do was change the location, mainly because it’s close to where a lot of traffic is and a lot of young people moving in and out. There is always a fear with the heavy equipment.
If a community wants to move the location of where that happens, do they work with your department for that?
Yes and with our partners, the marine suppliers, and anybody who is involved with these resupplies to the communities.
You said partners. I’m wondering who specifically.
I want to be able to go back to my communities and let my mayors know who to contact and let the SAOs know, or senior administrative officers. My brain…it’s getting too late. I want to report back and let them know who they can talk to and make sure that they are talking to the correct people to start the process.
Yes, we do have a lot of partners within our government.
It involves several departments because if you want to relocate a certain site, there’s got to be pre-development engineering and other technical expertise that we don’t have within the department.
So of course, CGS would be involved in some of these initiatives.
If that comes to a point, then of course, the marine carriers are the key to this.
In terms of marine travel and whatnot, it seems like the federal government is monitoring where the ships go.
In terms of where the ships actually dock and for infrastructure, that’s your department that deals with that and there’s a plan or strategy around that.
Yes, we do work with our partners and, as I mentioned, that includes DFO.
On page 191 of the business plan, one of the priorities for 2012-13, the last bullet, is “Identify funding for the Iqaluit Marine Facility.” I’m wondering again: if it’s DFO that does this, are you working with DFO on this?
Maybe you could explain what that priority is and what’s happening. We have been talking about P3 projects and we have been talking about an airport here in Iqaluit, but I think there are other communities that are looking for marine facilities and docking.
I know I heard quite a few other members mentioning things like that.
So maybe a clear explanation of what that is.
Chairman: And that includes Pond Inlet, Mr. Elliott.
Some of these projects are huge and involve a lot of money.
I can only say that we’re doing our best to identify funds. So this priority is ongoing.
So what is the priority?
Maybe you could explain, “Yes, it’s expensive. Yes, it requires a lot of money.”
But what are we talking about?
Is it docking facilities? Is it help with sealift? It just says, “Iqaluit Marine Facility.”
It doesn’t explain what you’re going to try and look for funding for.
So I just wanted more explanation on that specific project that you were talking about.
I wouldn’t want to surprise Mr. Elliott, but we’re talking with our partners, including the city, Transport Canada, DFO, and a number of other departments. In the past, we submitted three different designs to the city and those are still in discussions.
Once we have some certainty on the amount of funding that would be available for the pre-conceptual drawings of the marine facility, we will have a clearer understanding on which direction we’re going to be taking.
As soon as we understand that, we will let the committee member know.
Now, to me, this sticks out in my mind because I think it was a Conservative campaign promise, but your department’s 2010-13 business plan indicated that one of its priorities was to “Complete the next phase of studies for the Nunavut-Manitoba Road” and that “The Business Case study is complete in final draft form, and is being reviewed by the governments of Nunavut and Manitoba.”
Last year, during your appearance before the standing committee, you indicated that the business case study was completed. When will you table a copy of the study in the Legislative Assembly?
We will table it when it’s ready.
Does that mean that it’s not ready?
Again, we work with our partners from Manitoba and we do have to respect their wishes.
I’ve got to say, at times, we’re ready to do things, but again, we do have to respect their wishes of some of these things that they want to do before we release them and table information that goes public on some of these huge infrastructure items.
So am I correct in saying that it’s the Government of Manitoba that doesn’t want us to know what’s happening with this and the Government of Nunavut would like to tell us?
It’s not that simple as the committee member is making it out to be. I’ll have my Assistant Deputy Minister of Transportation elaborate a little more on that.
The business case study for the Manitoba-Nunavut road has been completed.
We try to work with the other jurisdiction and they were getting ready to work with us and release it, but then there was a political change in Manitoba.
Those things do happen. They tried to work with the new people over there and hopefully it will be released some time soon.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Your 2011-14 business plan indicated that “The contract for the feasibility study for ports in Pond Inlet, Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay has been awarded and work is underway.
Phase 1 of the Northern Transportation Systems Analysis is complete.” Were these feasibility studies completed and will you table them in the Legislative Assembly?
Yes, we will table them.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): In reading these, if a marine facility was built in Cambridge Bay, will that make it possible to nearby communities in the Kitikmeot?
Can I get clarification on her question, please.
Chairman (interpretation): Please clarify your question, Ms. Ugyuk.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) If these ports were to happen in these three places, will the communities in the Kitikmeot benefit from a Cambridge Bay port?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for the clarification, Ms. Ugyuk.
I believe it would.
Once you put infrastructure in a region, yes, the surrounding communities usually benefit from major infrastructure like that.
I thank the minister for clarifying that. (interpretation ends) As of today, what is the status of your efforts to lobby the federal government for more support for the construction of small craft harbours?
We continue to do that. It’s one of our priorities, as stated in our business plan.
In May, it was a campaign promise by our MP who sits in cabinet in Ottawa.
Yes, we intend to carry on trying to assist our communities in building this direly needed infrastructure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to add to the small craft harbours issue, the federal government was assessing how the communities would be affected.
I know that the report has been done on feasibility studies.
Have you received any implementation plans or do they provide funding to your department on this? I need an update on that as well as to the committee.
Can we get clarification on the question?
Mr. Curley, please provide clarification.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I believe that Methusalah understood the comment that I made in Inuktitut.
The federal government’s Small Craft Harbours program conducted a feasibility study in several communities and some of them have been completed, such as the study done in Rankin Inlet and Arviat.
I imagine that these reports have been completed and I believe you are in discussions with your federal counterparts. Have they provided funding or have they committed to provide funding?
What is the status of this program?
Perhaps that clarifies it for you.
I thank the committee member for that.
Yes, it’s clear.
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Small Craft Harbours Report, which we jointly did with DFO, includes seven communities.
The work that has been done so far by this department: there’s preliminary design work at Pond Inlet, Chesterfield Inlet, Repulse Bay, and Kugaaruk with funding from the 2010-11 capital plan.
These studies were based on a terms of reference that DFO used for similar studies at Qikiqtarjuaq and Clyde River, but we’re working closely with them.
We do want to move this initiative forward for all of our communities in Nunavut, for that matter, not just in Pangnirtung. Pangnirtung will be completing their small craft harbour this summer, so we’re quite envious of Pangnirtung, but we do want marine infrastructure like that within our communities because it is by no means cheap to bring our supplies by air.
We do have to try and find ways to bring the cost of living down in Nunavut, so it is our priority.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I’m not sure whether or not the harbour in Pangnirtung is considered a small craft harbour. (interpretation ends) It’s one of the, I think, pretty mid-sized ports, as far as I’m concerned.
Could the minister maybe give us more information with respect to exactly what the timeframe would be for actually working on some of the local craft harbours? If you have any budget amounts projected, could you indicate to the committee, please?
Yes, in technical terms, Pangnirtung does have a small craft harbour.
There are other terms that are being used around for ports, wharfs, docks, which have a totally different meaning, but Pangnirtung does have a small craft harbour.
When we look at some of these initiatives that we specced out for the Iqaluit Marine Facility, it can go as high as $90 million just for that infrastructure alone. In Clyde River, we’re looking at a small craft harbour.
Of course, the cost depends on the available construction material, aggregate, geotechnical work, all of that, and the prices for small craft harbours in our communities range from $15 million to $20 million.
Mr. Chairman, with this department, we have done some user needs assessments and feasibilities in these small communities. Of course, one of the things that we have to do is do an ocean floor geotechnical analysis that involves engineers to go in there and analyze the seabed because for the most part, you can’t build on something that is sinking. So all of these technical things have to be done to determine what kind of facility you’re building.
Again, I mentioned construction material. If it’s not available within a community, it’s very difficult to do this type of work. DFO requires that there are fish habitat studies done. (inaudible)…has to be complete before any kind of rock is put in the water.
Of course, within Baffin Island, the Qikiqtaaluk area, there’s got to be an analysis done on tides, wind analysis, ice pressure, and we have been trying to do that to convince DFO that we’re doing a lot of this work on our own, and to try and speed up the process where DFO can actually start taking us seriously and helping us and assisting us in building these facilities in Nunavut. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) I think DFO has indicated the work done on marine and biological studies.
Do you have a timeline of when that is going to be done? Since we have completed Pangnirtung, which community is the first priority if there should be funding made available and when would they start putting in the construction material?
In consultation with DFO, Qikiqtarjuaq would be a community that would be considered as a priority for a small craft harbour. That is being based on employment that it creates in fisheries.
We do know for a fact that the fishing ships go to Greenland rather than stay in Nunavut for refuelling and processing their catch. So we’re hoping that all this work can be done in Nunavut rather than some other country.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna. (interpretation ends) I take it for granted that, because Qikiqtarjuaq is top on the priority list, Mittimatalik is right behind.
I have no more names on my list. We are on page K-6.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $24,280,000.
We will now go back to K-3.
Department Summary. Community and Government Services. Detail of Expenditures.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $58,998,000.
Does the committee agree that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation is concluded?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Minister Taptuna, do you have closing remarks?
I want to thank the committee members for their scrutiny and their comments and questions.
We appreciate that. We do our best to make sure that we provide the services that we’re obligated to do within our department.
I appreciate the suggestions and comments.
I want to thank my staff that did a lot of hard work preparing all of this information.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank the committee members for their scrutiny and appreciate the hard work that you guys do to make sure that everything is on par with what we’re trying to do as a government.
Chairman (intepretation): Thank you, Minister Taptuna.
We have completed the departmental review.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out. Before we proceed with the review of the next department, we will take a 30-minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 18:16 and resumed at 18:43
Bill 24 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2012-2013 – Nunavut Housing Corporation – Consideration in Committee
We can now proceed. We will commence our review of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
I would like to ask the Minister responsible for the Nunavut Housing Corporation if he has any opening remarks.
Hon. Fred Schell: Yes, I do.
Hon. Fred Schell: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
I am very pleased to be able to meet with the members of the Committee of the Whole today to discuss the 2012-13 main estimates and business plan of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Fiscal 2012-13 GN funding to the housing corporation will increase by $13,623,000 from the main estimates of 2011-12.
$8,649,000 for O&M costs for new public housing that will be available during the year;
$1,143,000 for increases in staff housing lease rates;
$348,000 for utilities for new staff housing that will be available during the year;
$474,000 for other O&M costs for transfer of Iqaluit staff housing, administration, and new staff housing that will be available during the year;
$555,000 increase in administration costs related to finance reorganization previously approved by FMB following announcement relating to construction over-commitments;
$527,000 for administration related to increased costs for legal fees, governance, and LHO support;
$1,927,000 to offset the net reduction in CMHC funding.
The need for additional public and affordable housing continues to place a burden on the finances of the government and we must seek alternative solutions and sources of funding.
I look forward to lobbying the federal government to continue to discuss our growing housing issues in Nunavut and the requirements for new funding for both capital and operating costs.
I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have regarding the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2012-13 main estimates and business plan.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Schell. (interpretation ends) Do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table? Mr. Schell.
Thank you. Minister Schell, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
Hon. Fred Schell: Thank you.
To my immediate right is Alain Barriault, president of the housing corporation, and to my immediate left is Lori Kimball, Executive Director of Corporate Services and CFO of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Mr. Rumbolt: Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
The standing committee notes that the corporation’s proposed 2012-13 main estimates of $157,382,000 has increased by approximately 7.7 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2011-12 main estimates.
The number of positions in the corporation is 91.
This is an increase of 3.0 PYs from its 2011-12 main estimates.
Mr. Chairman, the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2010-11 annual report was not tabled in the Legislative Assembly until February 21, 2012.
The standing committee looks forward to the minister tabling the 2011-12 annual report in the Legislative Assembly and emphasizes the importance of the corporation tabling its annual reports in a timely manner.
On February 21 of last week, the minister also tabled the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s contracting report for the 2010-11 fiscal year.
The standing committee looks forward to the minister tabling the Nunavut Housing Corporation’s contracting report for 2011-12 in the Legislative Assembly and again emphasizes how important it is that the corporation table its such reports in a timely manner.
The current government, through the Public Agencies Council, has indicated that it is undertaking a memorandum of understanding-based approach to this process.
On October 27, 2011, the Minister of Finance tabled the 2011-12 letters of expectation to Crown corporations and agencies in the Legislative Assembly.
Mr. Chairman, on January 20 of last year, the Nunavut Housing Corporation issued a news release concerning the changes being made to strengthen the financial management and the governance structure of the corporation.
The standing committee is pleased to note that the Nunavut Housing Corporation has taken steps to improve its financial management and governance structure and looks forward to the minister providing ongoing updates on these important issues.
On October 29, 2010, the Nunavut Housing Corporation announced the results of Nunavut Housing Needs Survey.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-15 business plan indicates that one of its priorities is to “Continue lobbying efforts at the territorial and federal levels to seek support for the provision of suitable, adequate, and affordable housing across Nunavut.”
The standing committee fully supports the minister in his efforts to use these results of the Nunavut Housing Needs Survey to secure additional federal funding to reduce Nunavut’s housing shortage.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-15 business plan provides an update on one of its previous priorities, which indicated that “The Staff Housing program is being reviewed as part of the GN Comprehensive Long Term Housing Strategy.”
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-15 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its priorities, which was to “Adopt and implement a revised Rent Scale and guidelines.”
It indicates the “Initial consultation and analysis of findings has been completed.
Options, along with their financial impact, are being prepared for early 2012-2013.
These options aim to reduce disincentives to employment and to support the goals of poverty reduction and other social programs.”
Mr. Chairman, on October 26 of 2009, all Members of the Legislative Assembly agreed that comprehensive reviews of the public housing rent scale and the Income Support Program were required.
Members noted that these reviews should focus on identifying and removing disincentives to entering the workforce.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s 2010-11 annual report indicates that a total of $3,352,000 was spent on homeownership programs in 2010-11.
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-15 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its previous priorities, which was to “Develop and implement a major homeownership program as a cost effective and efficient initiative in support of the construction of new homes.”
It indicates that “Housing forums were held in January 2011 and September 2011 to discuss various initiatives and alternatives.
Further action is pending the outcome of the GN Comprehensive Long Term Housing Strategy.”
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-15 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its previous priorities, which was to “develop a long-term Homelessness Strategy and a corresponding implementation plan for responding to homelessness across Nunavut.”
It indicates that the Nunavut Housing Corporation “has developed the new Tunngasugvik (homeless shelter funding) policy.”
The Nunavut Housing Corporation’s draft 2012-13 main estimates have allocated $400,000 to continue its work through the Homelessness Secretariat.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2012-13 main estimates and 2012-15 business plan of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Before we proceed, I would like to remind my colleagues of Rule 77(1) and Rule 77(2).
I believe we are now familiar and able to recite these rules.
At this time, before we get into the main estimates, are there any general comments on the opening comments?
Mr. Ningark: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank the hon. minister in charge of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.