EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
You should not, you know, it has got to have a tag.
I am sure that everybody understands the rules.
The point I am getting to here is that it is a dangerous little issue, because, you know, a gesture of friendliness and friendship could be charged, many people, even myself, I do not sit in an office and read the regulations and the Acts all the time and I am getting a little touchy here.
Will you develop something in the regulations to say if a polar bear is passed on to somebody, through the family over generations, and sometimes these skins last a long time, if they are tanned the right way.
And a tag will fall off, that is a known fact.
If it is a simple issue of somebody going to the renewable resource officer’s, or wildlife officer’s office and say, you know, I lost the tag, you know over the last three or four years, so can you please give me a tag because I obtained the skin legally from my cousin in Gjoa Haven or Taloyoak.
Like I say, you know, right off the bat, if you got something like this, then, you know, the wildlife officer has that power and authority to take the skin and not give it back, which I think is a little ludicrous.
So, you commit to me that in the regulations, you look at something that you take a person’s word, or oath, that, you know, they will not have their skin, or their hide seized because of some kind of, you know, lost tag over the years.
That is basically all that I have to say, Mr. Chairman.
On Clause 85(1), the person lawfully acquired it from a person who lawfully harvested, so that is part of it there, but again, we will commit for your request to look into that.
Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When you are looking into that request, if you see it is possible that if a tag gets lost that the wildlife officer does not keep the skin until something is done.
I am talking about Inuit here; I am not talking about transient people stealing polar bear skins and going south.
I am talking to professions of local people.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): When we get into Clause 217, it is already mentioned there.
So Clause 217(2), it will be there, once we get to that.
Mr. Netser (interpretation): The question was already posed by Mr. McLean.
I feel exactly the same way as Mr. McLean.
For example, today, while we are talking about integrating contemporary laws and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit we, the Inuit, through Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, would not be repossessed.
It is just the accelerated pace that the wildlife officers work, and Department of Sustainable Development that all these things happen.
I think it is up to your department to talk to the elders further, because we do not like to hear about people getting their furs possessed.
Chairman (interpretation): Minister Akesuk
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): I know that this Bill, and as we had said earlier, we want to include the Elders’ Council.
When we are drafting the regulations we will look into all those issues, and also include the concerns that were voiced by Mr. McLean and Mr. Anawak.
Chairman (interpretation): Applications.
Chairman (interpretation): Prohibited Uses.
Clause 87.
I would like clarification on 87(2), authorized uses.
A person my hunt game while on a snowmobile, a sled pulled by dogs, a prescribed all-terrain vehicle, or a boat other than a barge of less than 15 metres in length.
Just for clarification…may have been while on these modes of transportation.
These are the authorized uses underlined under (2).
And it states quite clearly, a barge, less than 15 metres in length.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): But, in the Inuktitut it says anyone can go hunting and hunt or shoot animals with these types of modes of transportation.
It is not going to change the modes of transportation that we use.
We are using, or doing, and using the modes of transportation these years.
I believe that we are in Clause 87, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): We are on Clause 87-1(c) on a vehicle or a conveyance, a firearm with a live shell, or cartridge in the barrel, breach, or firing compartment, or a crossbow loaded with a coil.
And it says here that these would be prohibited.
I think that we can do that in our community because we have an over population of polar bears.
There have been, on more than one occasion, dangerous bears have approached even vehicles and sheds.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Who is going to answer that? Mr. Orr.
The purpose here is not that the firearm cannot have ammunition in the weapon, it is just it cannot be in the breach.
So, if you have the weapon in the vehicle for protection, then you would have to have it in a way that you can slide the bolt in and load the ammunition, or the bullet, when you are presented by danger, but not that it is already loaded and is ready to fire at that time.
Chairman (interpretation): Going back to Prohibited uses.
Chairman (interpretation): Spotting Aircraft.
Clause 88.
Under the (3), 12 hour rule.
No person other than an Inuk can hunt big game within 12 hours from disembarking from an aircraft if the aircraft is such and such.
And I am concerned about this issue, because as people of Nunavut we have seen more and more inter-marriages between Inuit and Qallunaat.
It says here that no person, other than an Inuk.
Exactly what are we talking about here?
Are we talking about…what if this Inuk had a half Indian blood and this non-Inuk shall not hunt big game within 12 hours.
We have in-laws who are Qallunaat. We have husbands who are Qallunaat.
Would they be affected by this Clause?
This one applies and we are recognized as Inuit under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and those would be non-members.
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): I am starting to get confused here.
When we say no person other than an Inuk, like for example, if we had non-native son-in-laws, this will not have an impact on them.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): I am talking about non-beneficiary members of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
They will not be able to be recognized in this section.
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): Mr. Chairman.
What about the individuals who are transient people?
In some of our communities we would like to attract tourists from other countries for big game hunting.
I am sure that these big game hunters would like to go out hunting right away, once they land in the community.
The HTO’s in our communities, will they have the authority in this section?
Will they have the authority to tell the individuals who are just coming in, you will have to wait 12 hours before you actually go out hunting.
Mr Pinksen will respond to the question.
This section would apply to those sport hunters, those visiting sport hunters.
After they have arrived at their hunting camp, they would not be permitted to hunt for the first 12 hours.
That is also the way it is currently in our Wildlife legislation.
Some of them may not like it, it may inconvenience them slightly, but it is intended to prevent them from chartering into a place, grabbing animals, and heading back out immediately.
It is there very intentionally to prevent that sort of activity.
Chairman (interpretation): Dangerous Harvesting.
Clause 89.
Chairman (interpretation): Feeding Wild Animals.
Clause 90.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Yes, as hunters we like to feed the more jittery wild animals.
Will this have an impact on that?
I am not sure what circumstances hunters feed animals.
I am not really aware of too many circumstances where hunters are feeding animals intentionally.
We did make an exception for people with meat caches and fish caches and stuff to make sure that that activity is not interfered with.
If we have missed circumstances where hunters are intentionally feeding animals, we would certainly want to look into that.
I am not aware of any such circumstances.
I was a fulltime hunter myself.
Usually, the wildlife is not readily available when you are out hunting.
We, the harvesters believe that if I am going to set traps I have to set bait there so that I could attract the animals, or the fox.
If I am a wolf hunter, it is very difficult to find wolves, but we need bait close to the area where the wolves are.
That way you can attract them.
I was wondering if you could make a clarification if this is going to have a negative impact on that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): In Clause 90 (3b) it says a person lawfully harvesting fur bearer with bait.
This section does not apply to that.
Chairman (interpretation): No Release of Animals.
Clause 91.
Chairman (interpretation): Dangerous Animals.
Clause 92.
Chairman (interpretation): Dangerous Wildlife Protection.
Clause 93.
Chairman (interpretation): Closing of Areas to the Public.
Clause 94.
Chairman (interpretation): Surrender of Weapons and Other Articles.
Clause 95.
Chairman (interpretation): Public Health and Public Safety.
Clause 96.
Chairman (interpretation): Defence of Life or Property.
Are we still on Clause 97?
Chairman (interpretation): Yes.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): It is written okay, however, if a polar bear is inferring with life or property, and if the polar bear is shot dead, there is one thing that I do not agree with.
Will the person that caught the polar bear, will it just be taken away from that individual?
Chairman (interpretation): Which one of you will reply? Mr. Pinksen.
Mr. Pinksen: What normally happens is that the skin is seized for an investigation into the circumstance, and when the circumstances are determined the skin is turned over to the HTO for them to decide where it goes.
That is the current practice and that is the way the Land Claims directive to continue the practice.
Chairman: Mr. Anawak.
Have there ever been any instances where a skin was returned to the hunter, to the person who caught it?
Mr. Pinksen: There have been cases where the HTO in that case has chosen to give it back to the individual.
Quite often they don’t.
Quite often they choose to donate it or have it for a draw or something like that but they have done it on occasion.
But they are made aware that they can return the pelt if they choose to?
Yes, the HTOs are aware that they can deal with it how they choose to.
I just wanted to point out while we’re on the issue of polar bear, because I come from a community where there is a large population of polar bears and usually some hunters have harvested polar bears all season.
Some hunters are not very happy to go out polar bear hunting when the season is open because the fur is not really good.
When the season opens, although this is not much of a problem but I just want the officials to be aware this.
When there is a polar bear harvest off season their HTO makes a decision as to how they should be disposing of this polar bear skin.
I just want the Members to be aware of that because that’s how we do it, where we live in a high populated area.
Chairman (interpretation): It states here, defence of life or property, but if you would like to respond Mr. Akesuk.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. This applies to all wildlife.
Chairman (interpretation): Defence of life or property.
Do you agree with Clause 97?
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 98.
Chairman (interpretation): Prohibition.
Clause 99.
Chairman (interpretation): Reporting Emergency Kills.
We are now on Clause 100.
Chairman (interpretation): No Unlawful Removal or Posting.
Clause 101.
Chairman (interpretation): Information on request.
Clause 102.
Chairman (interpretation): Individual Harvesting Report.
Clause 103.
Chairman (interpretation): Rights of First Refusal.
Clause 104.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): It talks about commercial and other activities of Inuit rights, Inuit rights of first refusal.
In the community, how would this apply in the community for the commercial and other activities purposes?
In the community, the Hunters and Trappers Organizations usually allocate sports tags and that is what we are talking about, sports commercial tags.
Chairman (interpretation): Import of Wildlife, Clause 105.
Chairman (interpretation): Export of wildlife.
Clause 106.
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): Export of wildlife, no person shall export wildlife, from Nunavut, unless (a) he or she holds a license authorizing it; or (b) the export is exempted by the regulations.
Mr. Chairman, it is quite long. Export of wildlife Clause.
Mr. Chairman, it is self-explanatory.
What we have been concerned about our wildlife in the north because some of our wildlife is sent out to some other countries.
In regards to export of wildlife, no person shall export wildlife from Nunavut.
For example, some of our polar bears are sent out to the zoos and these northern polar bears are sent down south to the zoos.
It has been many years since any polar bears were exported from this area, more than 10 years and while it is still possible, we only would consider such a thing if it was supported by the community.
It is not prohibited in this Bill to export live animals, but it does require special permits which would only be issued after community consultations.
If it is the intent of the Act, I agree with it and I support it.
If that is the intent of this Bill we will have some authority to consult with the HTO.
Now I understand it.
In the past we have seen, Mr. Chairman, like we were never even consulted when there were issues pertaining to our wildlife.
Some of the HTO members get really disgusted seeing wild animals down South when they belong in the cold environment.
For that reason, I agree with it, the way I understand it.
Through this clause, does it include that if I am going to Ottawa, myself, if I am going to bring country food, I need a special permit when I am just going to go visit my son.
There is a requirement for an export license for exporting wildlife.
In the current system that is inflexible, meaning it is always required.
We have through the provisions of this Bill, made that system more flexible.
Quantity, such as small personal quantity can be exempted, as well as species could be exempted, if there are no concerns about its conservation. So we have tried to make the provisions more flexible based on the needs of the Territory.
Export of Wildlife.
Clause 106. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Inuit Disclosure.
Clause 107.
Chairman (interpretation): Trafficking in Meat.
Clause 108.
Chairman (interpretation): Commercial Purchasing.
Clause 109.
Chairman (interpretation): Buying Raw Pelts or Hides.
Clause 110.
Chairman (interpretation): Requirements for Non-residents.
Clause 111. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Guiding License.
Clause 112. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Preference in Allocation of Commercial Licenses.
Clause 113. Agreed?
Clause 113, I will read it.
“Pursuant to the Agreement in the allocation of Commercial Licenses within the Nunavut Settlement Area, preference shall be given to a) An applicant who has a principal resident in the Nunavut Settlement Area for at least 18 consecutive months prior to the submission of his or her application b) Applications that will likely provide…
I need clarification on Clause (a).
I do not even understand a word of it at all.
We seem to be talking about aboriginal people here.
So, I am pretty confused right here.
Chairman (interpretation): Who is going to respond to the question?
Mr. Orr: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Its provision is required by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
We are taking the wordings straight out of that agreement.
The idea is this is basically a northern preference idea for commercial licenses.
So, under paragraph (a), that means the people who have lived in the settlement area for at least 18 continuous months.
So, northern residents and the second part is, they have to have benefits that will directly affect or directly benefit the Nunavut settlement area.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Does it mean, then, the way I think, the way I think I understood it is that the Nunavut residents are not going to have, they are not going to be impacted here?
Perhaps we are talking about transient people who should be 18 continuous months prior to submission of his or her application.
Chairman: Mr. Orr.
Mr. Orr: Yes, it is correct.
Clause 113.
Chairman (interpretation): Tanning License.
Clause 115.
Chairman (interpretation): Giving Harvesting Instruction.
Clause 116.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Harvesting instruction, I honestly like that because in Nunavut, this would be more job opportunities created for that if I understood it correctly.
The long time or the original residents of Nunavut, the original full-time hunters are very knowledgeable about hunting techniques and survival techniques.
They should be able to provide instruction and training to the Nunavummiut.
So, does that mean there could be more creation of employment opportunities such as training on the harvesting techniques?
It says that the Hunters and Trappers Organization will deal with this and they will be responsible for the approval and issuing of a license.
Chairman (interpretation): License Required.
Clause 117.
Chairman (interpretation): Special Report by Outfitter.
Clause 118.
Chairman (interpretation): Commercial Reporting.
Clause 119.
Chairman (interpretation): Quota limitations.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 119 has been approved.
Clause 120.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 121.
Order of Minister.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Order of Minister.
I’ll read it for you.
It states, the Minister may by order, establish limits on the quantity of wildlife that may be harvested or possessed where it is necessary to implement an accepted decision of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board or (b) the Minister considers that necessary or advisable in respect of these matters within the jurisdiction of the Government of Nunavut.
It doesn’t state the Minister will have the exclusive authority; however, perhaps he may over ride the communities wishes by order of the Minister.
Does that mean the way I read it, Mr. Chairman?
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board will always be consulted in these matters and they would recommend to me what should be done.
And there is constant contact with the NWMB and we will still use the same process with working with the NWMB and they come up with those recommendations and we review those and make the decision according to those.
I’d like further clarification where the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Minister, once this Bill is passed will they have the authority to change this Act without consulting the others.
Once this Bill, we’ve heard that there should be a review after five years and then we would make any amendments if required in the future.
And once this Bill is passed we can’t change it without the approval of the Assembly.
Is the Minister saying that the Minister and the NWMB can change that within the five years before the review requirement?
No, we cannot change the Act once enacted.
It can only be changed through the Assembly.
Not even through NTI or NWMB so we can’t just go and change it any time we want.
It has to go through the Assembly for amendments.
Chairman (interpretation): Order of Minister.
Clause 121.
Clause 122.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 123.
Allocation of Basic Need Levels.
Chairman (interpretation): Allocation of Licenses and Tags.
There again for the allocation of licenses and tags in reading (1) subject to subsection (2) the Minister may a) determine the maximum number of licenses and tags that may be issued.
And with that like that is it not a danger that upon the discretion of the Minister if the community requests for an increase that will not allow them to even go forward with the request and I think that there is a concern there for those communities that would like to increase the allocation.
So how will the process be done?
I would like to ask the Minister that once communities according to this Act, the Minister has the sole authority in that matter.
Is that not a danger for those community’s local HTOs?
Mr. Orr will respond to that.
The allocation of licenses and tags by the Minister must be in accordance with decisions that were made by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, so for total allowable harvest, and so on.
Subsection says, ‘Any allocation by the Government basically has to be in accordance with the system set up in the Land Claims.
Are you saying then that the Minister will still hold the authority and he cannot make it solely?
For the basic needs level, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has the jurisdiction and we would have to work with them to make those decisions.
No, I would not make those decisions solely as the Minister.
Chairman (interpretation): Maximum if No Total Allowable Harvest Established.
Clause 125.
Chairman (interpretation): Requiring Tags.
Clause 126.
Chairman (interpretation): Fees for Tags.
Clause 127.
Chairman (interpretation): Opening Time or Season Clause 128.
I will read it for you again.
‘Subject to the regulation the Minister made by order establish open and close times or seasons for the harvesting of wildlife, and specifying wildlife that may be harvested at any time during the year where (a) it is necessary to implement an accepted decision of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, or (b) the Minister considers it necessary or advisable in respect of these matters within the jurisdiction of the Government of Nunavut.
It seems to mean to me that the local HTOs and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Minister in conjunction can solely make their decisions with consulting.
Does that mean that, Mr. Chairman?
The local HTOs in the communities decide what the seasons are, so that will not change.
If they were to be changed then the communities, obviously, would be consulted.
So, I think he should just go to the question and not even read the clauses.
It would make the progress faster; just go right to the question.
I just want people to understand what I am, what I mean in my concerns so, because there may be a danger, I would just like to specify.
Chairman (interpretation): No question there.
Clause 128. Open Time or Season. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Recommendations. Clause 129.
Chairman (interpretation): Outside Request. Clause 130.
Chairman (interpretation): Decision of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Clause 131.
Chairman (interpretation): Interim and Emergency Measures. Clause 132.
Chairman (interpretation): Implementation. Clause 133.
Chairman (interpretation): Preparation of Recovery Policy. Clause 134.
Chairman (interpretation): Contents of Recovery Policy. Clause 135.
Chairman (interpretation): Preparation of Management Plan. Clause 136.
Chairman (interpretation): Ecosystem Management. Clause 137.
Chairman (interpretation): Decision of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. Clause 138.
Chairman (interpretation): Designation of Critical Habitat.
Clause 139.
Chairman (interpretation): Compensation. Clause 140.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Did you mention 138?
Further clarification, please.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, we went through it.
You want to go back to that?
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): No.
Chairman (interpretation): We are done with that Clause 138.
You can go back to the recording and listen to it.
Compensation. Clause 140.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 141. Special Management Areas. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Administrative Areas. Clause 142.
Chairman (interpretation): Co-management. Clause 143.
Chairman (interpretation): Habitat Protection Orders. Clause 144.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 145. Right of Action, Habitat Protection Orders. Clause 144.
I almost missed that one.
Chairman (interpretation): Right of Action. Clause 145.
Chairman (interpretation): Financial Responsibility. Clause 146.
Chairman (interpretation): No Change in Use. Clause 147.
Chairman (interpretation): Part 6.
Management Functions.
Clause 148.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 149.
Powers of Minister.
Chairman (interpretation): Interim Decisions.
Clause 150.
Chairman (interpretation): Establishment of NWMB.
Clause 151.
Chairman (interpretation): NWMB Functions.
Clause 152.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Clause 152 b (3) Ascertaining and adjusting the basic needs level of Inuit and harvesters exercising the rights referred to in section 12, 13, or 14, can you please clarify that.
Officials, please clarify that.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Mr. Orr.