EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Can the minister just clarify for me when there are appearances before NIRB, or when NIRB asks for input from the Government of Nunavut, is his department the only department on behalf of the Government of Nunavut that makes the submissions to NIRB with opinions on behalf of the government?
No, we’re not the only department. Like I said, we work with the other departments within the government to go in front of the NIRB.
It seems to me it could be very confusing to proponents that there could be possibly as many as five departments with an interest in major resource development projects in Nunavut. You could have three departments in support and two departments not in support, so the mining companies and major resource developers have to know; be very clear in their mind of who is representing the Government of Nunavut at the table when they’re submitting their EIS applications to NIRB.
I wonder if the minister could comment on that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We have one appointment under NIRB that comes from the government. I do believe that’s good representation from the government. So I don’t feel left out on the NIRB process as we appoint a person to sit on the board.
I understand the NIRB appointment process, governments have their appointees; I am talking about when the NIRB review process gets underway. They send out information packages, including the information on the submissions to hamlets, governments, government departments, individuals, Hunters and Trappers Organizations. They could be considered interveners.
So they ask for comments and if you have five or six government departments getting that information, they could all have the same opinions or individual opinions, but they all represent the Government of Nunavut.
Which department would take the lead in representing the Government of Nunavut’s position on major resource development projects?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you. I will get my deputy to answer that question.
For example, if there’s a proposal for mining development, they send out concerns to be answered and they usually send the information out to anyone, including the government.
As our department, we deal with environmental impact statements. As a government, we have one document that’s going to be given to NIRB.
For example, the Education, Culture, Department of Environment, and other departments put their submissions together and give one submission to NIRB.
I thank the minister and Mr. Awa for clarifying it for me.
I think you clarified it for the mineral developers who are exploring or developing in Nunavut.
I have another question on page I-17 under priorities: assess and determine strategies to deal with solid and hazardous waste and other contaminants in Nunavut’s communities.
A few years ago when I was with the Hamlet of Cambridge Bay, we put together a proposal.
We got a quote from a company in Yellowknife that they would come in and they would assess the environmental contaminants in and around our community.
It would cost $32,000 for them to do that work.
They wouldn’t necessarily do any clean-up, they would just identify where all the contaminants were.
Of course, hamlets are historically under-funded when it comes to even basic stuff. So we just didn’t have $32,000.
We took it to Nunavut Association of Municipalities and there was a NAM resolution that came forward out of one of the AGMs calling on the Government of Nunavut to assist municipalities to identify contaminants in and around our communities, and then develop strategies on how to contain them and clean them up.
We have to work with the Government of Nunavut and work with the federal government.
The federal government, in particular, is a very tough department to deal with, DIAND I’m referring to, because they could hit the mayors with substantial fines.
They would send letters out saying $100,000 fine and/or one year in jail.
I was wondering, Mr. Chairman, if the minister could comment on whether her department is working with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities or individual hamlets to help them determine the environmental contaminants in and around our communities so that at least they know what they are and they can develop strategies to address the contaminant issues.
Yes, we work with the Department of Community and Government Services. When there’s a municipality that’s contaminated, we work together to strategize.
The federal government had some funding made available for national funding, but I still didn’t quite understand the fund with the $3.5 billion. We got a new government and I can look into it to make sure that the fund is still available at the federal government level.
Next time I go down there I can look into that. We’ve been requesting their policy for two years now and they haven’t given us a copy of their policy, so therefore, I can look into it further once I go back down to Ottawa.
I will look into it to make sure that funding was made available for contaminants clean-up by the federal government. I will work with Community and Government Services on this issue.
I think it’s very important that the federal government be alerted to the environmental conditions in and around hamlets; that most hamlets in Nunavut are under-funded to deal with contaminant issues and environmental issues.
I know the government is doing the best they can to assist hamlets. I know Community and Government Services is doing that, but there is a problem there is when we have to direct a lot of our funding to environmental issues and contaminant issues in communities. It means that limited funding is not available for community halls and ice arenas and other essential services in the community that we require.
I know the federal government has very stringent laws and regulations that are national in scope and they want us to clean up our environmental contaminants in and around the communities. They should be aware that hamlets don’t have the resources and for the most part the Government of Nunavut doesn’t have very many resources.
So could you talk to your federal counterparts and alert them to that and ask them to work with the Government of Nunavut and work with the Nunavut Association of Municipalities to come up with a plan over the next 10 years to assist municipalities with contaminant issues around their communities? That would be a great help.
I wonder if the minister could comment on that Mr. Chairman.
As soon as we get out of this session, I’ll try to make as many appointments as possible with my colleagues in Parliament in Ottawa on concerns that we have in the department that I represent.
Again, we will work very closely with the stakeholders to make sure that we, from our territory, are recognized where we are and what contaminants are in the communities.
Again, we’re going to work very closely with Community and Government Services to make sure that we’re on the right track and right page when we go see our colleagues in the federal government.
One last thing I want to bring up with the minister; last year, I wrote a letter to the minister on behalf of Kitikmeot Foods, who had requested support from the minister to be able to harvest the caribou on Victoria Island before they cross the channel, the Coronation Gulf to the mainland.
The caribou can’t cross until the sea ice is frozen. There is a requirement of their permit they have that Kitikmeot Foods can’t harvest them until they’re on the mainland. The problem they have there is they have to be in the field and bring caribou carcasses to the abattoir to be processed within an hour of being harvested.
Because they cross to the mainland, it’s more than one hour distance away.
The Kitikmeot Food folks think that if they’re at the edge of the ocean on Victoria Island just waiting for the freeze-up it would make it a lot easier and facilitate their harvest. The minister wrote a letter saying that he didn’t think that could be done.
I wondered if the minister could comment on whether he has given some more thought to that and if he is prepared to go down to Cambridge Bay and meet with Kitikmeot Foods to discuss their request in person.
I think it is important for me to say that as the territorial government, we have to go through the Canadian Food Inspection Agency regulations and again, I think that we could try to certainly talk to the federal government to get ideas how we could deal with this issue, or how we could harvest the caribous in another way so Canadian Food Inspection Agency will approve it. So I think that the government will try to work with the federal government to make sure that these are met in the future.
Anything that is economical in our territory, we have to find a way to make sure that we harvest in the proper way that the Canadian Food Inspection Agency prefers. That is the regulations that we go through.
We are on a page I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and I-10.
Committee Motion 005 – 2(3): Review of the Department of Environment’s Hunters and Trappers Disaster Compensation Program (Kilabuk)
I have a motion.
I move that this committee recommends the Department of Environment review its outdated Hunters and Trappers Disaster Compensation Program as an urgent priority;
And that this review results in a clear definition of natural disaster that is appropriate to Nunavut’s circumstances;
And that the review takes into account the needs of Nunavummiut engaged in the fishing sector;
And that the Minister of Environment tables a new policy for the program no later than the last sitting day of the spring 2006 session.
Before we proceed with the debate on the motion, I have a few comments to make relating to procedure.
Every member has the right to speak once to the motion for a total of 20 minutes.
The mover of the motion speaks first; the mover of the motion has the right to the last reply which closes the debate.
To the motion, Mr. Kilabuk.
My comments are not very long.
I think it is very clear as to the length of the definition used which I am requesting for change.
As it is now, I have spoken about this matter in the House before, forest fires are not very applicable in Nunavut, which this program exists under.
Or rather, Mr. Chairman, I want to go over a few things that are in the current application forms and process. I want to use this to highlight some of the changes I am requesting, and it will be very easy to see why.
Under the current program, the maximum that a harvester and hunter can receive is $4,000 per occurrence.
As I have stated in the House a number of times over the course of the years, sometimes a hunter or fisherman will lose in excess of $30,000 or more; in this application, there is a requirement to be eligible; your earnings have to be at least 25 percent of your total earnings.
Under the format, the approval process requires the approval of the regional superintendent.
I am not sure how that is handled today.
There is also no schedule or timing when harvesters or fishermen can expect their compensation.
I remind you again, the last few that I’ve tried assisting out of my community have had to wait over a year, which is way, way too long in my view. It should not be acceptable to any application process under this government’s programs.
Also, in the statement of income, there is also a requirement of a minimum for $7,000, and I’m not sure how that is applied in the application process itself.
Without the proper explanation the minimum of $7,000, it’s hard for me to determine how that would be applied against me or for me versus the 25 percent requirement that is also listed in the application process.
What’s not here also is the transfer of rights for individuals living with beneficiaries under the land claims agreement and what has transpired since. I also fail to see how those are reflected in the old one.
I have the list here in front of me and the wording clearly has just taken away Northwest Territories with Nunavut being stuck into the application process.
I have had at one time in the last year verbal arguments, and by way of email, with the staff at Environment when I used the title of wildlife officer when I should have been using conservation officer.
That struck at me quite hard and consistent when I had failed the proper wording of conservation officer. I highlight that because in wanting this change and for the department to be able to demand that, I use the proper wording of conservation officer, is it not only fair that I, in, return seek proper wording be used by this department and the language that they use in the application process.
In my communications, it was made pretty clear to me that I was wrong in using the word - wildlife officer.
I will not make an apology about it. It was a true, honest error that I made, but one applied against me as a punishment of me using the wrong wording.
So I will, through this motion, want the Disaster Compensation Program clarified in a way that is reflective of the circumstances that we face in Nunavut and also with the resources that we have here in Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, I do not see how Members of this House can oppose this motion with the work that has already been ongoing to reflect the support of this motion.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To the motion, I’d like to make a couple of comments.
As we are in the stages of doing the research of the Harvesters’ Support Program, we are in the final stages of approving the report.
Once the report is done, the report goes to the Members of the Legislative Assembly for input and recommendations when we’re putting together a draft policy that will be Nunavutized for our people in Nunavut.
So we are in our very final stages of finishing the report. Once the report is done, we will do a draft and we’ll get input from my colleagues here.
We’re also working closely with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., so it’s not just the government’s policy.
We want to make sure that it also reflects the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to make sure that beneficiaries benefit from the policy.
Again, we’re a public government.
We want to make sure that we represent each and every individual in the territory. The beneficiaries don’t need a hunting license. The non-beneficiaries would need a general hunting license in order to qualify and be a full-time harvester in our territory.
So we’re doing our best. It’s going to depend on how soon we can come up with a policy.
Again, it’s not just going to be the government’s policy. We’re going to make sure that we get input from each and every one of you and also work closely with Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
So I agree with the motion and we’re doing our very best to make sure we’re doing our job as fast as possible, but doing it too fast might have hiccups that we use in the government now, hiccups in the policy, but we want to make sure that we don’t have that.
Again, I agree with my colleague that it’s an urgent priority that we come up with the disaster compensation that will benefit our constituents in Nunavut.
For your vote to count, you’ll have to be sitting in your member’s chair.
Are there any more comments to the motion?
I guess to close this with my comments, if you ask me what comfort and trust I have in this department’s dealings with the compensation program, I really have no backing documents to support the way this department has handled the request application for the compensation program because as early as this week, the same fishermen that lost gear are still waiting for their final payments from the previous year.
It’s been over a year.
Without putting in the guidelines and time schedule for this department to work with, I’m afraid that we will miss this opportunity of producing something that Nunavut has been waiting for long enough already.
The minister’s comments can only support the tabling of my request no later than the last sitting of the spring 2006 session to bring forward a copy of the new policy.
I think that his comments can only support this because as he states, the government is a public government and it is the expectations of all Nunavummiut, harvesters and fishermen, to have the department appropriately, in a timely manner, produce a policy that they’ve been waiting for long enough.
The debate is now closed. We’ll now vote on the motion. (interpretation) All those in favour of the motion, show of hands please.
We are still on pages I-6, I-7, I-8, I-9, and I-10. Department of Environment. Program Development.
I have a question on I-7.
Fur Price programs, there’s a $40,000 cut on that line item.
The Fur Pricing Program has been successful in the last three or four years, and it is a revolving fund. We thought being at $70,000 is enough.
We have not been losing any money with the furs. In the past, we have done that.
I do believe that it is appropriate for us to put another $40,000 to another area, which I do not really know where it is as some years have gone by.
So with the fur industry on top, I think $70,000 as a revolving fund is enough to cover in case we get into losses in the future.
Chairman (Mr. Kilabuk): Thank you, Minister.
Mr. Barnabas (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the same page there is a $60,000 increase for 2005-06; it was $20,000, then in 2006-07 it is $80,000.
This $80,000, how many communities would that compensate?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To every community in Nunavut.
You say that for an individual, it would be $4,500.
Is there an increase to the individual compensations following the increasing numbers here?
This $80,000 has been increased, but if there is a change in the policy we would increase the number shown here, it is dependent on the policy that is being drafted.
Page I-6. Program Development.
On page I-13 of the business plan, the Community Harvesters Assistance Program, CHAP, could the minister provide me and the House with the definition of an outpost camp for the record?
Where you live in an outpost camp six months on the land, where the outpost camp is.
If I understand, it is at least six months being on the land.
Could the minister tell me or give me some information on how many outpost camps there are in Nunavut?
By estimation, it’s about 40 for the outpost camps in Nunavut. I can’t give you the region by region but we have about 40 outpost camps.
Can the minister tell me how much funding each outpost camp is eligible for under this program?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
We are having fun today.
Minister Akesuk, go ahead.
When they apply for funding for outpost camps, we give the funding to the regional offices for them to fund the outpost camps. The three regional offices usually get applications from those people who are wishing to set up outpost camps.
If you have ten families living at one outpost camp, is that considered one application or is that considered ten applications for funding under the CHAP Program?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk: That’s almost like a community; ten families. I guess we go through by one outpost camp.
It goes through application, so everybody fills out applications as required. We don’t really know how much each camp gets, but we do our very best to make sure that we maximize our funding to those outpost camps. Again, it’s the regional wildlife organizations that handle the money on an application basis.
I’m glad that he made that comment, “almost like a community,” because in the Kitikmeot, in my riding I represent the two communities of Bay Chimo and Bathurst Inlet.
At Bay Chimo, there’s ten families living there and they’re considered an outpost camp. And in Bathurst Inlet, there’s four families living there and they’re considered an outpost camp.
I’ve been told that each outpost camp is eligible for $5,000 of funding. So if you have a single family somewhere in Nunavut and they’re considered an outpost camp, they’re eligible for the same amount of funding, say $5,000 that a community of ten families are eligible for, which is the same amount. I’m having a hard time reconciling that in my mind.
That’s why I asked that question. We have ten families in Bay Chimo and they should each submit an application for up to $5,000, which would be $40,000. The regional budget is I think it’s a total of $50,000.
You said that there are 40 outpost camps in all of Nunavut, so I know where there are 14 of them. They define an outpost camp as a family living for six months of the year on the land.
I think the CHAP Program allows us to give money to the regional wildlife organizations, again, for them to handle the allocations and how they think it would be best for them to deliver the $50,000 that goes to Kivalliq and a $100,000 to Baffin. It is really up to the RWO to allocate the money to where they think it would benefit the best.
Again, there are not ten families living in Baffin that I know that lives in an outpost camp and I think the $50,000 is allocated the best that they could. Our department wants to work closely with those two communities or outpost camps or whatever they’re considered.
On the Bathurst Inlet, there is a lodge there and we have to be very careful to make sure that people that are living there are people living off the land and not profiting any from the lodge.
I think it is really up to the RWOs that are in each region to hand out whatever allocations they want to do and what they think is best to spend the money on.
Any more questions, Mr. Peterson? Mr. Peterson.
I think Bay Chimo might be the only outpost camp in the entire world that is on a map of Canada. I do not know too many outpost camps that can claim that.
This is a problem I have in my riding is that the folks in these two communities; they do not consider themselves outpost camps.
They consider themselves communities, but the government considers them outpost camps so they fall in that category. Because they are considered outpost camps, they are eligible for funding under the CHAP, but obviously the CHAP Fund is insufficient to meet all their needs. And yet the Department of Community and Government Services doesn’t consider them communities, so they are not eligible for any funding under the Community and Government Services.
The poor folks down there fall under that grey area between two departments.
How do you help them with their needs? And they have housing down there, they have fuel tank farms, airstrips, and the only thing they do not have is water/sewer trucks. They have television, satellite and Honda generators, and they have Global Star telephones.
So they are like communities, they are not like outpost camps the way that we think of outposts camps in the Kitikmeot. I think the two departments, Environment, and Community and Government Services should get together and find a way to coordinate in providing some help to the folks in these two communities, and a lot of you in other departments as well, who are listening in, the Health Department and the Education Department.
There are people down there and there are kids who need education. There are elders down there that need health care. The government should find a way to provide them with the same level of services and programs that other constituents in my riding are receiving.
I will just close that comment just for the record.
Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Peterson. (interpretation) I do not have anybody else on my list, I-6.
Back to I-4. Environment.
Department Summary. Detail of Expenditures.
Total Operations and Maintenance. $16,642,000.
Chairman: Thank you. Do you agree that the Department of Environment is completed?
I would like to thank Minister Akesuk, his deputy Simon Awa, and Mr. Pinksen.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just briefly, I would like to thank the members and the interpreters and all the staff that are here tonight, and my staff.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Akesuk and his officials.
At this time, I would like to ask Minister Brown from Community and Government Services to say her opening remarks.
Bill 12 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2006-07 – Review in Committee – Community and Government Services
I feel honoured to appear before you and my colleagues as the Minister responsible for Community and Government Services, and respond to your questions about the 2006-07 Main Estimates for the department.