EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have maintained my position and with winter approaching, our terminal building in Naujaat is extremely undersized to serve our population, which is also growing. I have maintained that due to this population growth, which is quite fast, it has resulted in people and passengers not being able to enter the building.
Passengers sometimes have to wait outside during the winter and when the plane arrives and passengers disembark, the building is full, even when there are not that many passengers. Many people cannot enter the building.
This includes passengers arriving and passengers trying to get on the flight.
Some people have to wait outside during the coldest part of the year.
I keep reiterating this problem, but somehow I guess I don’t sound truthful.
Nonetheless, since I reside in that community, I have seen it first hand as I personally have had to wait outside.
With that being the case, will the department provide some figures specific to the communities that need air terminal buildings in a plan for next year?
Will a document be tabled outlining your plans?
With respect to requests for air terminal buildings here in Nunavut, we are aware that many of our existing buildings require renovation or replacement.
The plans are listed in the (interpretation ends) 20-year infrastructure needs assessment (interpretation) report that outlines these communities that have been prioritized.
Naujaat, Chesterfield Inlet, Whale Cove, Taloyoak, and Kimmirut are listed as the priority communities.
However, we have provided the planning documents by listing the projects and the communities. Whenever the government requests funding for various capital projects, all the requests are not approved and other departments also submit their capital plans. That is why we generally are approved for one project for the year.
With respect to which building will be renovated or replaced, we will keep submitting these projects for approval as we are aware that these buildings need to be replaced.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also comprehend the fact that the Nunavut government will not spend over $300 million for this Iqaluit project.
That is what I have been led to understand.
You stated that past submissions have been tabled for funding approval to the government. Perhaps you meant to the federal government or the Government of Nunavut when you negotiate funding for various capital projects.
You stated that the department has submitted applications for funding. Is that funding application sent to the federal government or does the Nunavut government submit their application to the federal government for these types of capital projects that are a priority?
Yes, your verbal presentation was completely understandable.
What I was referencing in my earlier response is that the Government of Nunavut has various departments that submit their plans for projects they wish to undertake in the upcoming year.
In that process, we have to have a comprehensive plan prior to submitting funding applications to the federal government.
Some of the criteria are if these projects are the priority projects in their capital plans and if agreement has been reached within our government.
It has to first be a priority project before it can be submitted to the federal government for funding.
This funding being requested now is a substantial amount.
You identified that this would be completed in August.
Will this be the last time you submit a funding request for this project and that no further funding requests for that project will be submitted?
Is that how the process will work?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for asking for clarification.
Yes, the plan is for the project to be completed by August of next year and it will be opened upon completion. This current request for funding is our last significant amount. However, this will not be the very last funding request, but it will not be like these substantial amounts.
There will be funding requests specific to operations and maintenance. Members will still see future funding requests for that, but the requests will no longer be that substantial.
Actually I was referring to the capital plans only, as obviously the operations and maintenance funding requests will be submitted annually.
With that being the situation, this fund of $48,472,000 is specifically requested for that project. You stated that when negotiations commence, the criteria include prioritized projects of the government and you keep mentioning that Naujaat is one of these prioritized projects.
Even though that is the case, I wonder why this project isn’t slotted as an absolute priority, as the need is there and this situation is well known.
The capital plan we are reviewing today for funding approval will also be the last funding approved within our term.
I wonder how that can change.
In looking at the Taloyoak Air Terminal Building project that totals $3,960,000, is it impossible to take some funds from this Iqaluit airport, perhaps an amount like $4 million from their funding request?
Is that impossible?
This plan is specific to that project and was negotiated and agreed upon for that amount.
We can’t take any funds from this project funding request.
The money that is budgeted, $48 million, is coming from the federal government to the Nunavut government and it’s slated for that project only.
Before I go to the minister, I would like to welcome to the gallery the two young ladies sitting behind the cabinet members.
This capital estimate plan for 2017-18 includes this last funding request of $48,472,000 for the expenses that must be paid as the construction work is in the last stages.
This funding is for the completion of this project and many aspects of this project have already been completed.
There are construction workers that need to be paid and this project is nearing completion.
Therefore we can’t excise any funds from this project and earmark them for a different project.
The next name on the list, Mr. Keyootak.
Prior to asking my questions, one of the visitors you welcomed is my grandchild, who is wearing the blue outfit, and her companion. I wish to welcome my grandchild to the House.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask firstly about the document I tabled yesterday related to a request from Qikiqtarjuaq for a port, which included the design drawings that I tabled.
I wonder what the minister will do with that plan I tabled.
With respect to Qikiqtarjuaq’s request, our department is well aware of the plans and we will continue to push the project forward. This project has been reviewed in the past and we will ensure that it is reviewed in greater detail by our staff.
We know that the residents of Qikiqtarjuaq are ardent about this piece of infrastructure they desire. However, as a department, we tried to request a further $500,000 which wasn’t approved, so we will persevere with this request later on.
With respect to the past studies on the small craft harbour for Qikiqtarjuaq, this constitutes the third edition or version. The Hamlet of Qikiqtarjuaq had a study conducted in 2009 called the Qikiqtarjuaq Harbour Development Project 2010, which outlined a plan through Fisheries and Oceans, and another study in 2013 called Port of Qikiqtarjuaq, which also includes plans in detail through the Nunavut Development Corporation.
All of these studies were reviewed by our departmental staff, but again it requires a budget through the capital process to move it down the line.
Although all these plans already exist, I suppose we will look at amalgamating them to see which designs could best be used for the community and to conduct an internal review of this project plan. That is what is needed.
We all know that this project has been at the forefront of Qikiqtarjuaq’s priorities, as they have tried to get this harbour.
As one of the smaller communities, why are they pushed back on the priority list? It seems whenever a larger community wants a project, the smaller community’s request tends to lose out.
This also does not appease the community nor our constituents, as residents of smaller communities have to push for many years to garner the infrastructure in the face of larger community requests.
It seems this project is being pushed aside, although the designs are all drawn out by the hamlet.
Based on my knowledge of the type of plans required for any large infrastructure project, harbour design drawings are quite expensive.
This has already cost the municipality funds for the design drawings, which you saw when I tabled them.
It has already led to large expenditures without any assistance from the government.
When I first got elected, one of my first questions to the minister was about the port project status based on Qikiqtarjuaq’s desire to get a small craft harbour that could accommodate both boats and small ships.
It receives a lot of traffic since it sits at a junction between north and south, especially just offshore where the shrimp and turbot fishery vessels sometimes stop over in Qikiqtarjuaq.
When any type of offloading is required or to load supplies, the vessels currently have to travel to Greenland or Newfoundland to offload or take on supplies.
Our community is situated adjacent to the fishing grounds and it has been slated many times as the most ideal location for fishery type harbours.
At that time I asked the minister in that first meeting if she could travel to Qikiqtarjuaq to meet with the hamlet council.
She was unable to visit the community due to weather issues.
Will this also be the same result with the new request from the council to meet with her? When would she be able to travel to Qikiqtarjuaq?
It wasn’t because of the weather.
When I was trying to get to the community, some of your colleagues, you, and some of the hamlet councillors were out by boat when I was planning to visit the community and I couldn’t do it afterwards.
I wanted to meet with the hamlet council with you present. It would have been more appropriate.
Mr. Keyootak: (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Perhaps next time she should go there outside of the boating season.
Can she give us an estimate on this fall or this winter to meet with the hamlet council?
Yes, I can work with both the hamlet council and my colleague. I am completely open to visiting the community where I used to live.
Whenever the municipal council is available and it coincides with my travel itinerary, it will be evaluated by my officials and the hamlet office to determine when this trip would happen.
We have no qualms about going to the community.
There are many people talking about the need for ports and harbours and they all want to be a priority.
Some of my colleagues asked if their communities would be a priority.
As there is already a design in place, would be it be a priority? I know that there is a lot of work involved, but the design has been completed. Can it be a priority for future projects?
This project continues to be on the list of prioritized projects.
As I have stated previously, there are seven communities within Nunavut that were earmarked to receive marine facilities.
Qikiqtarjuaq is one of the communities listed as the priority projects for these requests. It is obvious that the Hamlet of Qikiqtarjuaq is very dedicated and committed to getting their local marine facility and we have recognized that.
I also thank you for clarifying that to me.
Yes, we will be expecting you in Qikiqtarjuaq, but it isn’t just the hamlet council, as it includes the local HTO that is very committed to completing this project in light of the offshore fisheries adjacent to our waters for both turbot and shrimp.
There are many opportunities for local economic growth where the money is spent elsewhere away from our community.
In particular the smaller ships fishing for turbot and shrimp spend a lot of money in sailing to ports such as those in Greenland and Newfoundland to offload their catches.
The offloading expenses are quite high and it is added to the cost of the catch. We know that in our community, as does this government that has bought products.
This includes the clam diving on the seafloor and this constitutes part of the economic benefits of this project.
They are included in this plan.
It would not just be a docking facility, as they explored the possibilities of servicing the ships that fish for shrimp and turbot.
When these ships that fish for these species land their catches, whether they are shrimp or turbot fishing vessels, they tend to have by-catches of other species.
As an example, the turbot fishing vessels catch many fish that are not turbot and the by-catch is thrown offshore since there are no docks to offload them.
That’s what we find out when the vessels go fishing for shrimp. They also catch creatures other than shrimp.
Due to the fact that there is no facility in Nunavut, they just throw them back in the ocean that may have some economic benefits or alternatively, the community may have been able to use them for food.
There are many side benefits that we are aware of and it would alleviate the situation for people living in poverty or facing food insecurity, as they would be able to access the by-catch. We are aware of this.
In consideration of these benefits, our community is very committed to this project.
I just want to reiterate that scenario and I really don’t have a question within my commentary.
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank the member for being quite passionate about this.
I can tell him that we are listening.
I have recognized all regular members for questions on page K-3.
I will exercise my discretion as per Rule 77(2) and recognize Mr. Rumbolt, then Mr. Mikkungwak.
You’re first, Mr. Rumbolt.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to ask a few more questions.
I just want to go back a little bit when we were talking about air terminal buildings for Naujaat and Chesterfield Inlet.
Yesterday we were provided with some information as to CGS is doing two preplanning studies for these two specific communities for airport terminal buildings.
I’m just wondering if you could enlighten us today as to what specific work needs to be done as part of a preplanning study. What is involved in a preplanning study?
Hon. Monica Ell-Kanayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have Mr. Hawkins respond to the question.
The preplanning study for an air terminal building typically involves the siting of the building. Sometimes it goes in a different place than it formerly was. Sometimes it’s the construction method.
We have suspended buildings. We have some buildings that are built slab-on-grade. It depends a bit on the geotechnical feasibility of building them on grade.
If we can do that, that’s obviously the better way to do it. It’s the size of the building. There’s a bit of a master planning of how the other facilities will fit around the building.
That’s about the extent of it.
There has been a lot of talk over the years about using common designs for buildings and whatnot.
It makes us wonder why so much preplanning is needed for buildings.
I wonder if you can explain why it is that we use common designs, yet we still need the same number of dollars all the time for preplanning studies.
I’ll have Mr. Hawkins respond.
This is a question that we have asked ourselves.
Every design has to be re-engineered.
The common design is sort of the wall configuration and where the plumbing and different parts of it go, but it is not with a great deal of efficiency or savings.
There’s efficiency of time of course, but there isn’t a great deal of savings in doing that.
It’s just one of those things. All the designs have to go through a code review. No matter what, they will have to be re-engineered and re-stamped.
It just doesn’t seem to come up with a lot of savings. As I said, it delivers quite a lot of efficiency as it is less time-consuming.
I thank you for that information.
Maybe we need to rethink the name, common design, because it’s not so common. When you really look, it boils down to the nuts and bolts of everything.
I’m going to move on and I want to talk a little bit about the Motor Vehicle Information System.
In my opening comments I talked with concern about the amount of time it takes for documentation to get to our communities.
It takes a year or sometimes longer for clients to get their general identification cards and their driver’s licences.
Back in April I wrote a letter to the minister asking for an update on my community in particular on outstanding driver’s licences and general identification cards.
Back in April there were 69 outstanding driver’s licences and general identification cards.
The minister did explain some of the reasons for the delays and it was such things as applications incomplete, backup documents missing, or no photos attached.
I know in our communities we use the GLOs for this process, for getting this information.
Can you explain to us why such a great amount of information is always missing?
Is it the system that we’re currently using or is it that the GLOs are not trained well enough to take the information?
If you could explain some of that, please.
Since he’s asking questions regarding staff, I’ll have my Deputy Minister, Ms. Rowe, respond.
Actually it’s both.
We can’t say it’s just the GLO’s problem and we can’t say it’s totally a system problem, but it’s a combination of things in that particular case that caused there to be 69 files that had issues.
We believe the new system will assist us greatly in flagging this information automatically because, once the document is in the system, we will be able to follow up to see if something is missing right away instead of the way it is now where our system is very old and doesn’t provide automated information very easily.
We do believe that the new MVIS system will assist greatly in the turnaround time of driver’s licences and general ID cards.
I was going to get into questions on the new system shortly, but currently we are using the old system and that’s what we’ve got to work with and that’s where our issues are.
Again, back to the letter that was given to me in April, the minister did state that in May a person was going to go to the community and help with the backlog.
That person did go there and I appreciate that.
In September I took it upon myself to ask for an update and in that update there were still 62 pending driver’s licence and GIC cards.
The backlog only went down by seven people.
The problem still exists and it’s four months later, which brings me to my question.
I know part of it was answered. With this new system that you want to install, how exactly will it improve getting their information back to the clients in a timelier manner?
Currently photos are taken, they’re put on a USB, they’re mailed to Iqaluit, Iqaluit looks at them, “Whoops, it’s not good enough,” mails it back, and the process takes forever.
How will this new system simplify things so that people get their identification cards and driver’s licence much quicker?
I would like Ms. Rowe to respond.
What we are looking at doing is making it so that we don’t have to mail documents from one community to another.
We have backups in mail and we’ve had mail missing.
That causes a great deal of concern and it also does not help with all the pending files.
What we’re hoping for is, instead of putting this information on a USB, there will be a way to transfer those items from a community to Iqaluit so that it’s not a matter of it being mailed and lost and not picked up.
Instead of it taking a week or more just to receive the package, we can actually do it through uploading of information electronically.
If I understand the response correctly, these applications and photos that are done in the community locally will be electronically accepted in Iqaluit in a central location for processing.
The current system, once all the electronic information is in Iqaluit or the mail system at current, it is then sent to Ottawa for processing, where the cards are created and whatnot.
Will this still be a requirement of the new system or will all the processing be done in Iqaluit?
We will still have to send the information to Canada Bank Note in Ottawa, but we will be able to issue temporary driver’s licences with photos that we are not able to do at this time.
I think that’s a bit of good news that you will be able to... . I just had my driver’s licence renewed four weeks ago and I just got a receipt and I don’t have it back yet by the way.
With this new system, you’re saying you’re going to have a photo attached to the temporary licences.
Will this be recognized when clients are travelling at airports and whatnot through security that they will recognize this as a formal government identification card?
We are working to have that recognized elsewhere than the territory. It is possible to do that in other provinces and territories at this time, not with ours.
I’m just saying that that is also something other provinces and territories do as well with temporary issuing of driver’s licences with photos.
Before I go to the next member, I just wanted to remind all members that we are here to deal with the proposed capital budget for 2017-18.
I’ll give it another try.
Your department’s June 23, 2015 presentation to the Canada Transportation Act Review Panel recommended that “all Nunavut airports [be] upgraded to the GPS Instrument Approach that is appropriate for each individual airport.”
I’ll have Mr. Hawkins answer that question.
The last information we have on the update is instrument approaches are NAV CANADA’s responsibility and the Government of Canada has some sway over NAV CANADA, but most of its sway over NAV CANADA is from their clients, who are the air carriers, and they identify the priorities.
We do meet with them and consult with them and try to obviously push them into creating the instrument approaches for our airports.
The last update I had from them or I attended was in April of this year and they were pushing four or five approaches out. I’m afraid I don’t have the list of which ones they were working on in front of me, but there is progress in this.
Each approach to an airport is different and they all have different things that they have to consider when they take them into consideration.
Sometimes it’s the hills surrounding it, as we talked about earlier, and sometimes it is the town or some other kind of obstacle. The approach has to be a safe approach.
In the next four or five years, we will see, I believe, about half of the approaches or more in Nunavut will be completed and then it’s just another rollout of probably another ten and they will all be completed.
Just for clarification, I have allowed the questions on the motor vehicle system, as on page K-3 there is an item called “Computer Hardware and Software” which shows capital expenditures in fiscal year 2016-17.
Mr. Rumbolt, are you done?
Mr. Mikkungwak, sorry.
Mr. Mikkungwak: Wow!
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving it back to me.
I don’t think Mr. Rumbolt has ever shared his time with me.
Aside from all that little humour there, when we look at this GPS approach and when we look at one, transportation being very vital, I know that in my community I can honestly say I won’t ask for a port because I’m the only inland community in Nunavut.
I have been lobbying for my runway extension and GPS approach, considering the fact that I have an operating gold mine north of my community which has added the stress of aircraft. In addition to that, we also have an upcoming gold mine south of my community, Rankin Inlet, which is also going to increase the transportation.
When I look at that, I believe, when we look at transportation issues and we want to keep some of the transportation issues and funds within our territory, my thinking here is if we are weathered out in Rankin Inlet, we should have an alternate site. I’m 40 minutes away from Rankin Inlet.
If you cannot land in Rankin Inlet, your alternate site should be Baker Lake, definitely.
When I look at that and at the same time I take into consideration the minister’s opening comments, I take safety wholeheartedly and I surely understand that the department takes that very seriously.