EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
However, if I wait until the fall to bring this issue forward, it may be too late for it to be given due consideration in the capital planning process.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that I have raised this issue a number of times since I became MLA for Nanulik.
A new school project for Coral Harbour was first identified in 2006 in the government’s five-year capital plan for 2007-2011. The community has been anxiously looking forward to this new school. However, the government has since re-prioritized its capital projects and the school is no longer considered a priority.
Now, basic planning for the school is not scheduled to begin until 2014-15.
Mr. Speaker, it is not clear what criteria the government is currently using to prioritize projects. The criteria used to identify a project as necessary in 2006 does not seem to apply today.
It is also not clear how this government intends to improve our education system and its outcomes without investing in the necessary infrastructure first.  Our new Education Act will not be able to meet its anticipated potential without the appropriate facilities in which to deliver it.
Mr. Speaker, teachers and staff at the current Sakku School have shared with me some very important justifications for a new school in Coral Harbour.
At the appropriate time, Mr. Speaker, I shall be tabling the information that has been provided to me.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly urge the government to bring forward the new school project for Coral Harbour in its next capital plan.
Member’s Statement 242 – 3(2): Establishing a Disabilities Portfolio within Nunavut’s Government (Elliott)
I rise today to call upon the government to assume greater responsibility and representation for Nunavummiut with disabilities.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, I have repeatedly asked questions about services for people with disabilities across Nunavut.
Often, the responses to my questions focus on the once-a-year block of funding provided to the Nunavut Disabilities Society, or on specific services or the lack thereof.
Mr. Speaker, this is not satisfactory.
I am confident that many Nunavut residents living with disabilities and those who are working hard with limited resources to advocate on their behalf do not find the level of support satisfactory either.
I recognize that funding is made available, but there is more to addressing an issue than just throwing money at it. In many cases, resources are so minimal that it is even difficult for them to articulate their needs much less have them met.
Mr. Speaker, on March 16, 2010, the Premier spoke eloquently and persuasively of the need for focus, leadership, and collaboration.
She indicated that each of her cabinet ministers would be acting as a champion for several areas of interdepartmental effort.
Mr. Speaker, I have noted that in at least seven of Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions, governments have appointed a champion for persons with disabilities by designating a minister with specific responsibilities for disabled persons.
Clearly, the types of disability portfolio differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. As we know, the unique circumstances in Nunavut would mean that a portfolio for persons with disabilities in Nunavut would also need to be unique.
However, we do not have to start from point zero in addressing this gap in our cabinet.
Mr. Speaker, later on today, at the appropriate time, I will be tabling a copy of the NWT’s Action Plan for Persons with Disabilities.
Although we have been our own territory for over ten years, we do still share many similarities in population, legislation, organization, and government structure. We should learn from the best practices applied elsewhere. We should base our proposals on models that work.
What we should not do is remain inactive and complacent.
Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Premier to appoint one of her ministers with specific responsibilities as a champion for Nunavut’s persons with disabilities.
Member’s Statement 243 – 3(2): Remembering Nellie Atsainaq Kilabuk (Komoartok)
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I rise today to send my condolences to the family and friends of Nellie Atsainaq Kilabuk.
Nellie was a respected elder who recently passed away and she will be missed by the entire community of Pangnirtung.
She turned 80 in February and she lived her life by helping others behind the scenes.
Mr. Speaker, Nellie was predeceased by her husband, Ipeelee Kilabuk.
Ipeelee was a member of the fully elected Legislative Assembly Council of the Northwest Territories in 1975.
He represented the constituency of Baffin Central.
Mr. Speaker, Nellie dedicated much of her time and effort to help those in need, including neglected children and infants.
Nellie was very involved with the Anglican Church in Pangnirtung. She participated in the church choir ever since I can remember and she was involved with the church women’s auxiliary.
Nellie was also a traditional and modern seamstress. She taught her skills at the Attagoyuk School in Pangnirtung.
Nellie raised many children and grandchildren, and one of the daughters she raised has been a long-term interpreter/translator for NWT and Nunavut, Naimie Kilabuk-Bourassa. She is sitting up there in the booth.
I ask my colleagues to join me in extending condolences to the family of Nellie Atsainaq Kilabuk and the community of Pangnirtung. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Member’s Statement 244 – 3(2): High Arctic Residents Oppose Seismic Testing in Lancaster Sound (Arvaluk)
I think we all know that the people of the High Arctic, especially the Tununiq constituency, are totally opposed to the seismic study that has been planned for the Lancaster Sound. They also want find out why or for what purpose that marine area has to be tested seismically. If they are to continue with that study, they have to take utmost care.
Why do they require seismic testing when, on the other hand, they are trying to protect the environment?
That has never been answered to date and we’re leery about the study’s purpose because Minister Jim Prentice from Ottawa stated that he is the minister of Parks Canada, but he stated that they have to undertake the seismic study in order to determine the boundaries for the proposed Lancaster Sound Marine Park.
It’s impossible for some of us to understand the reasoning behind that.
They know for a fact that the High Arctic people as well as the people from Pond Inlet would like to know the real reason for this study and they also want to find out why they are hiring out a German ship to undertake this research.
They also have not informed us as to how long they will be utilizing it and what kind of costs they will incur for using that ship to conduct these seismic studies.
There are a lot of questions that have not been answered to date.
I will continue at the appropriate time during question period to pose questions to the Minister of Environment because again these are legitimate concerns and it was stated that they would try to consult with the communities prior to completing this research study, especially High Arctic residents.
Member’s Statement 245 – 3(2): Thank You for Country Food (Okalik)
Today, I want to acknowledge and thank some constituents by using this avenue.
We were able to get some caribou meat from Rankin Inlet with the assistance of my colleague from Rankin Inlet North, Mr. Curley, and we had an elders’ feast.
I am extremely grateful for Rankin Inlet and Tagak Curley.
Again, we worked together in all of these communities to work with the elders and they were extremely grateful to have some caribou meat and to enjoy that country food.
So I would like to see more cooperation and collaboration, especially where it relates to elders and country food.
No matter where they come from in Nunavut, they are very appreciative of our fellow residents.
I am extremely grateful on behalf of my elders and it would be good to see more country food. I thank them for their assistance.
Return to Oral Question 348 – 3(2): Mentoring Program for NTEP Graduates (Tapardjuk)
This is a return to Oral Question 348 – 3(2) raised on June 1 by the Member for Akulliq, John Ningark, with regard to the support for newly graduated teachers.
I informed the member that I would update him prior to the end of this session if a mentoring position will be assigned to Kugaaruk to assist the new teacher education program graduates working at the school.
I am pleased to be able to inform the member today that a position has been granted to the Kugaaruk school to assist the new graduates as they go through their probationary years.
The intent of the new position is to support and strengthen their skills so that they become confident and competent educators.
We really want to assist the new graduates.
We hope to start the staffing process, Mr. Speaker, within the next week so the mentor teacher will be in place for the start of the school year in August of this year.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) I want to recognize a fellow resident from Nunavut, Mr. Anawak.
You probably recognize a familiar face around the community and the son of one of our former colleagues, Mr. Jack Anawak. I want to welcome him to our Assembly. (interpretation) Welcome.
Wait a moment. (interpretation ends) Member for Akulliq, Mr. Ningark.
Question 370 – 3(2): Appeals Process (Ningark)
Mr. Ningark: Good afternoon, Mr. Speaker.
I thank the Hon. Minister for Education.
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Minister of Human Resources.
As outlined by the Minister of Education, the program is successful, the NTEP program and nine, I believe, out of ten were hired recently to teach in the Kugaaruk community.
One particular candidate for their program, about five years ago, Mr. Speaker, was teaching. While teaching in a Kugaaruk school, she was told that if she took the NTEP program and be successful in the five-year program, in the end, she would automatically be hired without having to be interviewed.
Mr. Speaker, we just learned recently that the same teacher that was given the promise to automatically be hired if she succeeded in graduating, she has to go through a standard interviewed and whatnot, contrary to the promise made by someone, and not hired.
This person, Mr. Speaker, has many potential. She has been given the 10-year long-term employee certificate and she was a language specialist in a Kugaaruk school prior to taking the program.
My question to the hon. minister, Mr. Speaker, is: is there an appeal process?
Can this case be reviewed so that she can be given the opportunity to try and be hired as she was promised to begin with? That was five years ago.
I would just like to outline that it is not a proper process in Human Resources to promise any individual a position on the completion of any training or skills that they have acquired.
I would absolutely look into this situation if the member would allow me to by providing me in detail the circumstances of the situation.
Mr. Ningark: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the hon. minister.
Here with me in my hand I have a letter from the individual that was written to the director of human resources community operations outlining that she was promised to be given the automatic hiring if successful.
I will be more than happy to get this letter to the hon. minister and perhaps meet with the hon. minister some time tomorrow.
I didn’t hear a question. So you will meet with him tomorrow.
Member of Tununiq, Mr. Arvaluk.
Question 371 – 3(2): Seismic Testing in Lancaster Sound (Arvaluk)
I would really like to point and understand, which I spoke to earlier in my Member’s Statement, the 500 hours of seismic testing.
They will be doing that every minute for 500 hours.
If I count, there are 60 minutes in an hour; 60 times 500, I cannot figure it out, but perhaps 30,000 seismic pings will be undertaken and it will be conducted from Davis Strait in Lancaster Sound.
What we cannot understand is that here we are being pulled on one side with the polar bear quota being decreased by ten annually for four years because they’re an endangered species.
Isn’t it more dangerous to conduct seismic testing in a marine area in Lancaster Sound?
Have you looked into how dangerous or what the possible consequences there could be with seismic testing?
I would like to thank the member for the question. My understanding, Mr. Speaker, of the seismic testing, if it occurs, the sound level is 180 decibels, as my colleague had outlined yesterday.
I would just like to compare this to other noises that are made in the water. An outboard motor is 80 decibels. An inboard motor is 110 decibels.
The common ships that we see transporting through the water is 200 decibels.
So in relation to these activities, that is what the seismic testing, the sound that comes out of that seismic. It is my understanding when this testing takes place that it dissipates within 600 metres.
The sound level is gone.
There are all kinds of mitigating factors that come into seismic testing and when it’s done, these are mitigated through proper steps being taken.
However, as I mentioned before, yesterday, to my other colleague, there are ongoing consultations with these concerns with the communities right now as we speak.
I believe they’re into their third or fourth community today.
We will review those concerns when they come out.
Some comparisons. There are no 30,000 outboard motors. There are no 30,000 ships.
A big ship of that nature up there is only 200 decibels compared to 100 decibels that will be blasted every minute for 500 hours.
I don’t think it is a fair comparison.
Minister Prentice, who is also the Minister responsible for Parks Canada, had stated that the proposed testing is just a step on the way to making Lancaster Sound a protected area.
Can the minister tell me what his counterpart is saying in terms of if you do seismic work there, that’s going to create a protected area?
What are they trying to find in a scientific way using seismic blasting in Lancaster Sound?
Again I would like to thank the member for those comments.
Mr. Speaker, as part of establishing any marine mammal conservation area, any national park, or any park, the information and requirement is to do seismic testing whether it’s on land or water, and that is to know the resources that you have and to delineate the boundaries of the area that you would like to protect.
This information is standard procedure when these areas are formed.
This information is also very important to Nunavut and Canada in acquiring and designating sovereignty areas too.
I’m not sure what “resources” means in terms of his explanation. A resource can be anything that could be used for human consumption.
Can he explain to test and to do seismic work to find what is there in terms of resources, Mr. Speaker?
By resources, I am referring to mostly mineral resources, oil and gas, mapping of the area and mapping of the structure to know what kind of topography you are dealing with too.
I’m now totally confused.
I had thought that the Minister of Environment, Mr. Jim Prentice, stated that the blasting was for the purpose of determining making Lancaster Sound a protected area.
Now we want to know if other resources, like minerals and oil, had been found by using seismic blasting.
Are you saying that if there is enough oil or other minerals in Lancaster Sound, it will still be open for oil and gas exploration, drilling, etcetera, and not as a protected area as was stated before by the federal Minister of the Environment?
What I am saying is that the information that is received from the seismic testing is used in the criteria of establishing a protected area and this area that is under question right now is under a study; a study by the communities that are involved, a study by the federal government and Nunavut government.
There is an agreement in place that this feasibility study happen to establish this park and that is exactly what it is.
This information would be used, and the community is going to have most of the say in deciding where the boundaries are of that protected area and even if they would chose to have that protected area.
Question 372 – 3(2): Improvements to Iqaluit Breakwater (Okalik)
I would like to raise a question to the Hon. Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
Here in Iqaluit, there are quite a number of boaters and we also get a fair number of ships that arrive in Iqaluit.
They tend to have a lot of problems associated with the high tides and there is no real dock for them.
That slows down and increases the cost associated with the shipping and offloading ships.
I want to ask a question to the minister.
There is a better docking facility in one part of Iqaluit and it would be so easy just to make improvements to allow it to be used by ships and it can be used even when there is low tide.
If there was a bit of improvement to that existing area, it would really bring down the cost of the proposed dock. Again, we have heard the figures in the past.
So I want to ask the minister about whether he can consider that.
I’m not going to say that we desperately need a marine facility here in Iqaluit. We do need them in other various communities throughout Nunavut.
Yes, we do have some conceptual designs and we have brought that forward to the city for their discussion. We did present that last January. We are hoping this month to publicize some of the evaluation assessments that have been done once we get better estimates on the actual cost of either improving the causeway and having another look at some of these other conceptual designs that were put forth.
Yes, we know that our government is having difficulty with fiscal resources and that is probably the reason why we will not be able to complete a very expensive dock.
However, there is an existing facility there that they can make improvements on and the cost would not be as extreme as some of these proposals.
This dock could be used by our boaters and local hunters.
If you get a boat trailer, you can trailer your boat over to that area and then you would be able to just put it in the water without having to keep the boat in the water.
It can be used by all residents in Iqaluit.
So I would like to see if that is something they can take into consideration and plan for down the road.
If anything is going to be designed in that way, it has to also benefit the citizens of Iqaluit, the residents, for hunting or recreational activities and that has got to be factored into any kind of infrastructure building like that.
Also, we want to improve the offloading time for the supply boats from eight hours a day to extended hours.
We’re hoping that we could double that time at minimal cost.
The concept’s cost ranges between $20 million and $90 million.
We do have to make a decision on the best bang for the dollar that is going to best benefit not just Iqaluit but Nunavummiut because most of the supplies are offloaded here into Iqaluit and then moved further into other communities points north.
We hope to have further discussions this month with the city and the major marine carriers on coming up with a feasible infrastructure for Iqaluit and Nunavut.
Yes, we are paying for it currently as all goods shipped by shippers into Iqaluit have this added cost included due to the downtime while waiting to offload that cargo.
We are already paying for it. We, as a government, pay for that annually. It’s quite conceivable that the government could bring down the cost by making improvements to that existing facility.
I further encourage the minister to plan for a marine facility, but I know that we won’t be able to catch it this fiscal year. If they start planning now to look at more cost-effective ways to create a facility, I would like to ask the minister when this planning or review of possible marine infrastructure or docking facilities will be finished.
Yes, that’s why the feasibility study is taking a little bit longer than I expected.
This month, as I indicated, we’re hoping that we can come to an agreement on what we do need that’s feasible for the city, for the government, and all users, including the annual resupply that we get from our marine users and not only that but also the people of Iqaluit; the hunters, the harvesters, the fishermen, the recreational users.
That’s going to be all included in the feasibility study and we’re hoping to conclude that in June.
Question 373 – 3(2): Additional Conservation Officer for Baker Lake (Aupaluktuq)
My question is directed to the Hon. Minister Daniel Shewchuk of the Department of Environment.
Our community is expanding and with the season of hunting and fishing being close by, even doing it as we are today back in Baker Lake, our renewable resources officer is working very hard and he is working very well. He’s got the support of the community.
To administer such vast land as well as the number of people coming in and out of Baker Lake and our expanding population, I would like to ask the hon. minister that we would like to state and address that Baker Lake would like to know if there are any recent plans in hiring a renewable resources officer for the community of Baker Lake.
The member is absolutely correct that Baker Lake is a thriving, developing community.
As soon as a year ago, we did expand our staffing capacity there and have now two conservation officers stationed there.
There is a vacant position there right now.
I can inform the member that the staffing request has gone to the Department of HR, I believe, on May 4 and that position will be advertised and bulletined in the very near future.
Question 374 – 3(2): Community Concerns about Seismic Testing in Lancaster Sound (Elliott)
My questions are directed towards the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College and it’s in regard to follow-up questions to what Mr. Arvaluk had questions in regard to Lancaster Sound and the seismic testing that’s going on.
I was in communication with my mayor in Arctic Bay this morning on the consultation that went on yesterday in Arctic Bay, the HTO and the community itself, the mayor, and interested parties that showed up at the meeting all were sort of in agreement that they do not want this to proceed.
I know in news articles and in conversations that QIA is not interested in having this go forward as well.
My question is: will your department listen to what the community is saying?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his concern and question again.
This seismic activity seems to be quite an important topic and it is, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the member that as I stated before, we will wait until all of the consultations are done.
We will review the concerns that are brought up by the community and at that point in time, we will move forward as we need to in this situation.
I guess one of the things that the community wants is just assurances from the government in terms of where we’re going.
When we talk about Lancaster Sound and protecting the wildlife and when you hear different news-related articles and comments about oil and gas, the community becomes concerned.
Again this is a DFO project and it’s on federal waters. Even if Nunavut Arctic College, the Government of Nunavut, and the communities are not interested in having this happen, they could still do it?
The question that the member raises is a good one.
It is my understanding that any research that is going to take place in Nunavut is under the authority of NIRB and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, and that requires the recommendation from NIRB that administers the land in the Nunavut settlement area.
So just for clarification, that is even within Nunavut, within federal waters?
Again my understanding is that the land and waters within the Nunavut settlement area, which some of this project is and some is not.
My final question is in regard to the process because you had said that NIRB sort of makes the final recommendation. It is my understanding that NIRB has made the recommendation that it is up to you as the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College to decide whether this research project goes through.
Concerning the process, NIRB has recommended to me and given me their screening criteria to make a decision.