EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Mr. Speaker, all marine mammals, including beluga whales (interpretation) and also the narwhals and bowhead whales, walrus, seals, and fish are the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and they have the jurisdiction. But we want to have a close working relationship with the federal government in regard to these issues because those are our same issues and concerns, too.
The marine mammals in the Hudson Bay waters are a food source for the people in Sanikiluaq and in the Kivalliq region and we have concerns about seals, and we have seen seals that are dead.
We blame the hydro dam being built in Northern Quebec.
I think there’s a (interpretation ends) monitoring process for prevention of contamination to seals and whales, and other marine mammals, including shellfish, being done through Fisheries and Oceans in conjunction with the Wildlife Office in Arviat or Rankin Inlet.
(interpretation) Do they have a monitoring system yearly, or do they just do it once a year to do the monitoring of the marine mammals in the Hudson Bay area?
What is the process to make sure that those marine mammals are not getting sickly?
We have not been sitting idle on this, we have been involved with the assessment of the environment with the government and made a report to Mr. Kattuk’s constituency, of which they need to do more review on the impact on the animals after the hydro dams have been built, we still need to do more reviews on the animals we use for subsistence, so we are open to the federal government’s environmental assessment.
We don’t have much assessment reports on activities done around Kivalliq waters... I am not sure who to direct this question to; perhaps to the Premier.
Can the Premier make a report available to the regular members on how they are monitoring the marine mammals and what kinds of projects are being done by the federal government’s DFO, or can the biologist provide a report on the health of marine mammals?
Yes, the issue of constucting a hydro dam on river has an impact coming from Quebec to Nunavut, that is why they worked together with the federal government’s environmental assessment people, and they have said that they don’t have enough information, and that this requires an assessment on the impact of marine mammals.
I expect them to start on their work and yes, we will work together with them since the federal government has the jurisdiction over the waters, our government can’t really do anything about it, but we do provide support and will continue to provide support for we use those marine mammals for our subsistence, and once the assessment reports are complete I will table them in the House.
I agree with our Premier. We will be working together with the federal government.
There are usually organizations that request funding to do studies on global warming and I feel that we have to be able to be involved in the studies on global warming.
I would like the government to request some funding from the federal government, along with Fisheries and Oceans to do some studies on the food that we have. Can the Premier work with Fisheries and Oceans to make sure that our marine wildlife is monitored regularly?
We have helped and assisted the people of Sanikiluaq because they’re closest to the hydro dam.
We will continue to help them and work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on the monitoring of those marine mammals, and to work with the various Departments of Environment because of our concerns because we’re going to be living here for a long time and our foods have to be monitored regularly.
This is going to be an ongoing process. I’m sure that we will continue to assist the monitoring, even though it’s not really our responsibility.
Question 115 – 2(4): Income Support Assistance for Hunters (Barnabas)
My question is directed to Minister Picco, Minister of Education and Income Support.
I would, first of all, like to say thank you to NTI for enabling us to help out with income support and also the Harvesters’ Assistance Program for the Inuit of Nunavut.
The income support recipients are the ones that do a lot of hunting.
As they are hunters, we have to be able to assist them because we have no way of getting any money, except to go out hunting for food.
We sometimes assist them with gas and equipment purchases because of the high cost of buying equipment and food items in the communities.
As they are hunters, we have to help them out.
I know that the Inuit people assist those hunters with the amount of $400.
We talked about income support yesterday. The people that give out that money to those income support recipients get penalized because they’re receiving money as assistance from the public.
Why do they penalize them for the amounts that are given to them just so they can go out hunting?
Minister of Education and Income Support, Minister Picco.
Under the Income Support Program, unearned income up to $400 is available to the family, as well as $200 to an individual.
I’m not aware of any case where any type of assistance that’s been provided to a hunter who is on income support and continues that type of practice has been taken or put against their Income Support Program.
If the member is aware of an individual case where a person has their income support deducted because they received assistance for hunting, then he should make that known to the House and to me in writing, and we will follow it up.
I will write to the minister and I don’t want to say the names here in the House, so I’ll give him the information.
Mr. Speaker, my second supplementary question, even though we try to help them by giving them airline tickets, like the Member for Akulliq said that we’re trying to help the hunters because they might be short of food.
They receive money to buy skidoo’s from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and there is nothing else for them to go out hunting with.
I think some of them have to spend well over $100 for repair work for their skidoo.
If they are trying to buy gasoline for their skidoo, they have to spend over $20 to get the gasoline for the snowmobile and other things just to go out hunting.
If you are going to be taking money away from them, are we providing any service to them?
Again, I think there is some confusion here. If a person receives an airline ticket; and the member raised a couple issues, so I will deal with them one at a time; if a person receives a ticket to take a vacation to go visit someone for three months, they are not making a productive choice.
They are not in the community looking for work.
It is the same thing as the EI Program. If you are on EI, the program says you should be seeking employment.
If you are on income support when you are in the community, you are supposed to bring it around to a hamlet and have that pro...
Speaker: Excuse me. A Point of Order has been raised.
Mr. Barnabas: A Point of Order, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) There are no jobs in the small communities.
I’m sorry. If they are looking for a job in the small communities, there is nothing.
We have no other choice but to help them.
Speaker: Mr. Barnabas, I don’t see a Point of Order in that, it being a clarification more than anything.
We will allow the minister respond to your question.
I thank the member. What I was trying to clarify, that is the way we look at the airline ticket.
On the hunting, if a person is out supplying their family with food, that is a productive choice and their income is not deducted.
If they receive money for a machine, that is not deducted; if they receive money for gas, it is not deducted.
That is why I said, if the member has a case where someone has received money from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to actually have a carry-on, buy a machine, buy gas, to help them supply food to their family, and they have that deducted, then let that information come forward to me.
I am not saying in the House by a name, but in writing, and I will follow up because that, for clarification, that is not how the program runs.
I would like to inform the members that the Question Period is now over.
Item 8: Returns to Written Questions*
Return to Written Question 002 – 2(4): Support to Community Libraries (Clerk)
Clerk (Mr. Quirke): I’m tabling a response to Written Question 2 – 2(4) filed at the table by the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth.
*See Appendix for full text of Return to Written Question 2 – 2(4).
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Clerk. Orders of the Day. Item 8.
Item 10. (interpretation ends) Petitions.
Reports of Standing and Special Committees. (interpretation) Item 12.
Tabled Document 059 – 2(4): Guidelines for Nunavut Territory Archaeology and Palaeontology Permits (CD) (Tapardjuk)
During my appearance before the Committee of the Whole on March 16, the Member of the Legislative Assembly for Rankin Inlet North recommended to table the guidelines for the Nunavut Territory archaeology, and palaeontology permits.
This compact disc contains, in all four languages, copies of the guidelines currently used to request permits and licenses related to archaeology and palaeontology.
Motion 005 – 2(4): Amendments to Rules 18 and 39 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly – Notice (Tootoo)
I would like to give notice of a motion regarding amendments to Rule 18 and 39 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
I give notice that on Monday, March 26, 2007, I will move the following motion:
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Rule 39 be amended by adding the following subsections:
(5) A Minister may, under the item “Returns to Oral Questions”, rise to supplement his or her initial response to an oral question posed within the previous ten sitting days.
(7) A Member may, without notice, at the conclusion of oral question period, move that the time allotted for oral questions be extended.
If the motion is approved, the time shall be extended for thirty (30) minutes.
(8) Only one motion under subsection 7 may be entertained by the House on a sitting day.
AND FURTHER, that Rule 39 be amended by renumbering subsection 5 as  subsection 6; and subsection 6 as subsection 7, and subsection 9 as subsection 10;
AND FURTHER, that Rule 18 be amended by adding the following subsection:
(4) Notwithstanding, Rule 18(1) does not apply to Rules 39(7) and 39(8).
Motion 006 – 2(4): Extended Adjournment – Notice (Picco)
I would like to move an Extended Adjournment Motion.
I give notice that on March 26, 2007, I will move the following motion:
I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay that notwithstanding Rule 4, when the House concludes its present sitting in Iqaluit, it shall be adjourned until Tuesday, May 29, 2007.
Motion 007 – 2(4): Amendments to Rules 97 and 101 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly – Notice (Tootoo)
I like to give notice for a motion regarding amendments to Rule 97 and 101 of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly.
NOW THEREFORE I MOVE, seconded by the Honourable Member for Iqaluit East, that Rule 97(6) be amended by striking the present Rule and replacing it by:
The Clerk shall ensure that copies of Hansard are distributed under the authority of the Speaker;
AND FURTHER, that Rule 101 is struck and replaced by:
101 Under the authority of the Speaker, the Clerk shall be responsible for the production and distribution of Hansard.
Bill 09 – An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Honourable Member for Cambridge Bay, that Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act, be read for the second time. And, pursuant to Rule 67(2), that it be ordered into Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the Nunavut Elections Act to make further improvements identified from the experience gained during the 2004 general election, and suggestions made by some members.
A number of housekeeping amendments are also included.
Can I ask the honourable member to clarify the motion because there appear to be two in what was just read? Minister Picco, can you please clarify your motion.
I’m moving a motion to move that Bill 9, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Elections Act, be read for the second time.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. The motion is in order. Question being called.
I would seek unanimous consent of the House to waive Rule 67(2) and have Bill 9 referred directly to the Committee of the Whole.
Bill 9 has had second reading and will be referred to the Committee of the Whole.
I apologize; I have too many things to read.
Members, Bill 1, Bill 2, Bill 3, and Bill 9 with Mr. Arreak in the Chair. (interpretation ends) In accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 4 – 2(4), the committee will stay in session until it reports itself out.
Members, you are to proceed directly into Committee of the Whole and you may take a break for lunch at around noon and report back to the House at 1:00.
Chairman (Mr. Arreak): I wish to call the committee meeting to order.
In Committee of the Whole we have the following items to deal with: Bill 1, Bill 2, Bill 3, and Bill 9.
We wish to continue with Bill 1 and the review of the main estimates of the Department of Environment, followed by the Department of Human Resources, and then Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Are we in agreement we first deal with the main estimates for the Department of Environment?
Mr. Netser, do you have witnesses you would like to bring to the table? Mr. Netser.
Are we in agreement that we bring Mr. Netser to the witness table?
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, can we have a health break for ten minutes so that we can at least all be brightened.
Chairman (interpretation): As the Speaker stated, we will be taking a lunch break around noon. What is the wish of the committee?
Did you want to take a ten minute break?
All those in favour, and those who want to proceed.
We’ll just proceed if that’s the majority.
Sergeant-at-Arms, would you escort the officials.
For the minister would you introduce your officials.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On my right Simon Awa, Deputy Minister, and on my left is Jane Cooper, Assistant Deputy Minister.
We’re on page I-5 of the 2007-08 Main Estimates.
Total Operations and Maintenance. (interpretation) Any further questions.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman I am not exactly sure what my time allocation is but in my opening comments I wanted to ask the minister if he could table the harvest policy.
Is it possible to table it in this Committee of the Whole?
Today is a new day and you have just been allocated a new timeline.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): In regard to the commercial harvest they are the responsibility of Economic Development and Transportation.
What about the commercial caribou tags. How do you distribute the tags and what are the guidelines. I think that’s under your responsibility.
I think they’re a little different from the commercial harvest tags. Could you respond to that, please?
In regard to the commercial caribou tags, and I think you’re referring to Coral Harbour, when we harvest the caribou there is usually a quota system set. We set a limit for the year before we identify how many caribou tags there will be for commercial use.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I was referring to the Commercial Harvest Policy.
It would be in our community, but I believe that there are standards set and I believe there is a total allowable harvest set. Who do you give those commercial tags to and how do you come up with that decision?
I believe there is a policy or some kind of regulation. That is what I wanted.
We do not have a Commercial Harvest Policy. We only permit conventional harvests.
Mr. Curley: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If there is going to be a commercial harvest, whether it is caribou or musk ox, it would have to be under the hunter and trapper organizations because they don’t just give the permits to anybody.
Is there a permit guideline or policy, because without regulation or policy, this will not proceed? They will not give out tags.
If it was that easy, then we can do a lot more in the Keewatin.
Hon. Patterk Netser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) If there is an interest in commercial harvest, then the Department of Environment will have to do a study of the population and whether we should support a commercial hunt. We go by the population of musk ox or caribou.
If we feel the population is too low, then we decline those requests.
We are on I-5.
Under I-5, we all know that since the creation of governments in 1867, at the time the federal government which is responsible for waters and oceans, they have no idea.
The people who live up here, we are responsible for the land and maybe some lakes.
The minister is fully aware of this.
The concerns from the Belcher Islands, the river is going to be a danger because some rivers are being diverted to one, as Mr. Alagalak mentioned the seals that go through with mercury in them.
They contaminate and they go up the Hudson Bay whether it is whales or seals.
We know that in Montreal, the St. Lawrence River has a very high content of mercury.
I wonder if the Department of Environment can set up a protocol whether the department can be given the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans.
In Hudson Bay, around Davis Strait, the federal government in Ottawa will not realize it.
They will probably look in the computers. They will not look up here.
The harvesters and the renewable resources with the Department of Environment see this every single day and they know.
How can we fix this or maybe come up with a memorandum of understanding where the ... if the federal government and Government of Nunavut can negotiate to share the responsibility of Fisheries and Oceans, and to get more funding from the federal government.
Before he gets a response, we can only approve if there’s ten of us, if there’s anything to be approved, please try to make sure we have a quorum if you’re going to step out.
Hon. Patterk Netser (interpretation): Thank you.
The member is correct that the animals on land or water are our responsibility but the Fisheries and Oceans is handled by the federal government. Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs are talking with the federal government on devolution asking if the Department of Environment can be responsible.
Looking at the hunter and trapper organizations, they’re given the responsibility for the quota of polar bears. They’re given the quota and then they organize or fix as to when.
And it’s the same thing with whales because both of those are on oceans.
There’s nobody from the federal government, and yet we can harvest those.
It seems like the federal government are just using the Government of Nunavut conservation officers for no price, free of charge.
Under formula financing, I don’t know if it specifically states there.
How is it that the federal government gives you the authority to manage some animals through the Government of Nunavut department?
He said the polar bears are marine mammals. They’re not marine mammals, they’re land mammals. They’re recognized as marine mammals and they’re recognized by the American government, they might be called marine mammal.
We have negotiated with Department of Fisheries and Oceans and we have agreed to do the work for Department of Fisheries and Oceans to set a quota for whales, and if my deputy minister wants to supplement my response, he can.
We have been asked by the Department of Environment to start talking with Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
The member is correct that we don’t have too many people representing the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. So they just assigned their task to us and this has always been the case.
It’s very expensive when we are given the responsibility from Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The federal government doesn’t even give us funding. So, for that reason, we have been asked to start negotiating or having talks to see if we can come up with an agreement, and if not, you can do this.
So this has been put before us.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the information.
I know it’s not your responsibility but we have to start.
I brought this up with the Department of Transportation about a deep sea port, or docking facilities.
Due to the winds, lives have been lost.
And because of the high winds and spilling of oil, because the anchor line broke, and the others just pulled the anchor because the federal government knows that the winds can get very strong in the summer time.
Pangnirtung and Grise Fiord residents especially, and once our winds get strong, it comes from Davis Straight to Pond Inlet.
And once it starts approaching, they won’t be dragged, but it’s from the waves because when the waves start going 15 to 20 feet high, this can destroy equipment.
The communities have to get docking facilities because if not, the boats that are in the water get wrecked, and that causes pollution, too.
The docking facilities, this was one of the questions that were raised with Economic Development, they are trying to negotiate with the federal government, and we agree with the member.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): This will be my last question.
Will you be writing a letter to the Federal Department of Environment saying that the Department of Transportation wants docking facilities?
As the Government of Nunavut, for those communities who don’t have docking facilities, they lose equipment and damage is done to the environment.
Yes this is already being worked on by the government, so we won’t be writing a letter.
Environment. Branch Summary.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $3,526,000.
Page I-6, which includes I-7 and I-8 of the Main Estimates.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Do I understand that we are on page I-6. We are under Program Management, under Contract Services, $2.5 million; what is that for? My question is, in 2006-07 it’s about three to four times larger than the previous years.
We’re on page I-6. Program Management. Along with page I-7 and I-8.
What my colleague is talking about, polar bear and caribou management, we do surveys in the High Arctic and we do surveys with the helicopters.
Because the helicopters are used for surveys, we have no other choice but to use them.
That’s what’s used for High Arctic surveys.
Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): So the federal government acknowledged the fact that they relocated people from Northern Quebec to the High Arctic for sovereignty purposes.
Are you going to get the funding back from the federal government?
Yes, we provide support to the federal government.
If my deputy can try to correct that but we get a small amount for that from the federal government.
Mr. Awa, did you want to make a supplementary response?
Mr. Awa (interpretation): I can’t really make a supplementary response. The survey of wildlife, not just polar bears and caribous, we do need to do a survey on other wildlife such as musk ox.
Our wildlife, as the minister responded, we need to utilize the helicopters and airplanes for aerial surveys and we need to purchase fuel for the helicopters and airplanes. They have to be brought to the survey area.
So that’s why it’s so expensive and that’s one of the reasons why it’s so expensive.
This funding is inadequate so therefore we get additional funding through the federal government and Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and they do provide funding for research, too.
Mr. Arvaluk.  Mr. Arvaluk (interpretation): Thank you.
I’m finished.  Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Mapsalak.
I would like to ask a question, although I had asked this question previously to the minister in regard to the hunters losing their hunting equipment.
This line item is used for compensation and benefits, if you can clarify that for me.
Disaster compensation is for natural disaster compensation.
We set aside that $80,000 annually for that.
Mr. Mapsalak (interpretation): I want to get a clarification. My colleague, Mr. Arvaluk’s comment in regard to the hunters losing their hunting equipment, could they be provided with some assistance through this line item?
It’s for natural disasters.
If hunters lose their equipment due to a natural disaster, they can apply, but sometimes the hunters deliberately leave their equipment so that the natural disaster can destroy it in hopes of getting compensation. So we have to very careful when we allocate funding.