EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I will try to respond to that.
This is for the license holder and because the Nunavut beneficiaries do not require a license, this does not apply to beneficiaries.
Chairman (interpretation): Perhaps, if we go to Page 34, we will take a break and come back at 7.
Chairman (interpretation): By Justice of the Peace or Judge, Clause 48.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): A limitation, (2), the superintendent has no authority to restore or revoke a cancellation or suspension imposed by the Justice of the peace or judge.
According to his response, do I understand it correctly?
Can you please clarify that section?
Chairman (interpretation): Surrender.
Yes, this relates to a cancellation by a Judge, or Justice of the Peace under section 48.
So this is only license holder; this does not apply to the right of the beneficiary to hunt.
All it means is that when the Judge says cancel the license, the Superintendent cannot reissue it or cancel the suspension; that is the Judge’s, or Justice of the Peace’s decision.
It cannot be reversed by the Government.
The Judge will have the only authority in that section.
The Superintendent will have no authority in that section.
Mr. Orr: Yes, that is correct.
Revocation of Allocation.
Exclusive Decision.
In reading that section, is the Superintendent of the region for Department of Sustainable Development, it states that the Superintendent has exclusive jurisdiction in 32, 46, and 47 to examine, inquire into, hear and decide all matters and question relating to the cancellation of, or refusal to issue a license and that the decision is final, inconclusive, and not open.
That is such authority for someone in such position.
And if he has a problem with a hunter and makes that decision, that decision is irreversible, and this hunter’s rights will be abolished, even though they did not think that they broke the law so I think that there is room for improvement in that section.
This Regional Superintendent has too much authority.
They would be making all sorts of decisions in the different regions if they have this.
Either in the Kitikmeot, Kivalliq, or the Baffin region, they will have different opinions, so I think that we should clear this up.
We have only one Superintendent and it is the Director of Wildlife, Joe Tigullagaq, who holds that position.
It is not a regional position; it is a Nunavut-wide position.
He would work with different region Directors, in coming to those decisions at Department of Sustainable Development.
From my understanding, yes I am fine with that. There is a turnover rate that may have a different view.
Say a non-Inuk would take that position in the future.
You said Joe Tigullagaq, I am totally fine with him, I am happy for him, but he will probably be promoted to another position and a new employee will be taking on this position, so that is where the danger comes.
So, I would think now yes, fine, Joe Tigullagaq is in that position so I’m confident.
Are we going to continue to ensure this position is manned by an Inuk?
I’m just thinking that if a hunter didn’t think he did anything wrong and was questioned about his actions, this decision would be irreversible.
So, I think there is some room for improvement because there doesn’t seem to be any rights for the hunter before this judicial review.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): This is for license holders.
This applies to mainly the license holders.
It doesn’t really apply to Nunavut beneficiaries and when we go to Clause 162, the Minister can appoint the superintendent under Clause 162.
What we’re talking about now mainly applies to license holders and not Nunavut beneficiaries.
Under 51.
Who in the world would have ultimate decision making, all alone, no appeals, no state, it even says final and conclusive and not open to questions or review in any court.
That’s not right.
People should be able to go somewhere else for a second opinion or any some type of review.
I don’t agree with that, and even if there is a very serious criminal court you have appeals.
You have either places to go because you believe what you did was right.
So, I would like some more explanation. I just don’t get it, no appeals, no state, what kind of country are we in?
It’s probably worthwhile to look at the section under which such an event might take place.
It speaks of this exclusive jurisdiction only applied with regards to sections 32, 46, and 47 of the Bill and there are really now circumstances under which this could take place.
Under section 32, is when the refusal of the license is mandatory.
Meaning there is no choice in the matter because the person was ineligible. 32(2) is a discretionary refusal based on the person, the person who has prior offences.
46. It’s similar.
It relates to people who have prior offences.
And 47, is a notification given to an individual who may have their license cancelled.
So, this is not a very broad authority, in fact, it’s quite narrow.
Lastly, it should be clear that sub-section 2, 51, 2 notes that in the case where there has been a denial of natural justice and that is where somebody has made an unfair decision for lack of a better term.
Then, there is an appeal process for judicial review.
I hope that clarifies things.
Sue, would you like to make an addition?
I just wanted to clarify that on an application to court for judicial review, the court does not really have the jurisdiction to change the decision.
If they decide that the improper process is used in coming to a decision, they can remit the matter back to the Superintendent for their consideration.
In fact, that is what happened in the Noah Kadluk case, where they wanted to do a polar bear hunt with the traditional method.
So they do not have the jurisdiction to actually change the decision.
Are you done, Ms. Williams?
Clause 51. Do you agree?
No Appeals.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): There is a danger in my opinion and that is why I am bringing up my concerns, that it is only under section 32, 46, and 47. 32, 46, and 47, was only if they were non-Inuit.
So there is a danger where I would think that if that person makes that decision and it is irreversible, there is a problem there that could arise if this Superintendent had the exclusive decision.
I am just worried about the level of authority.
So if it was a Qallunaaq, non-Inuk if he was refused due to the colour of his skin, and this is an exclusive decision, I think there is room for improvement in there, because it states, as he said, with my colleague from Quttiktuq, that although it seems quite powerful and the authority seems endless by a bureaucrat.
Perhaps, although they have the right of refusal, I am just wondering whether there is too much authority.
We are talking about license holders and it states in the Bill that the right to appeal a decision is an option and so the right to appeal will be considered.
Once an appeal has been brought forward, then the case would apply.
Why is 52 even there when there is no appeal process for a decision of a license holder when there has been a decision made by the Superintendent which is irreversible then if they are unhappy with the decision, there is no chance for an appeal; so why is it even there?
Just to clarify one point under section 47, of course, with respect to importing licenses like commercial licenses. There is a hearing procedure first, but the basic policy behind section 52 is that once the hearing process and all the internal considerations have been done, that this decision of the Superintendent ends the matter as far as appeals are concerned.
Then you cannot appeal to the Minister or appeal beyond that; however, as Ms. Cooper pointed out, judicial review is always available if you think that the decision was based on reasons that are not justified, or if there was other grounds for bad faith.
So then you could go to court and say the decision was unjust, but the straight appeal process is meant to end with the superintendent.
That’s the final step in the chain.
Page, if there’s any questions.
As I said we are going to break until 7:00.
I’d like to break for a meal if we can, Mr. Chairman, allow us to take a break for an hour.
The food’s ready now.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. First of all, we wanted to take an hour for supper that was, yes there was on hour set aside for supper.
Half hour is enough time to eat; we don’t have to cook and prepare it.
Chairman (interpretation): 30 minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 18:22 and resumed at 19:09
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back, and I hope your supper was good.
In Inuktitut, we’re on page 32 clause 52.
Carried. Clause 53.
Chairman (interpretation): It’s carried.
Corporal Applications. Clause 54.
Improper applications, who does this Clause apply to?
To the Land Claims beneficiaries, or to the non-beneficiaries, or does it apply to those individuals?
These are for the license holders.
This would apply to the license holders and also Inuit, too, who have a business license, if they own one, and this could also apply to the private business.
We will see 53, improper applications Clause 54. Agreed?
Wrongful use of license or tag, Clause 55.
Issuing incomplete licenses, Clause 56.
False statements.
Clause 57. agreed?
Compliance with Act. Clause 58.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): In the bracket in Inuktitut (3) states responsibility to appear on guardian who endorses an application for a license to have his game issued to a child under the age of 16 or who accompanies a child while harvesting game and it states that children under the age of 16 or who accompanies a child while harvesting the game shall ensure that a child complies in all respects with this Act under regulations and orders made underwritten.
I was wondering if you can clarify that for me.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): This applies to the non-beneficiaries.
I am sorry, this does not apply to the Land Claim beneficiaries, it is to the license holders.
It applies to the license holders.
Chairman (interpretation): Compliance with Act, Clause 58.
Chairman (interpretation): It is carried.
Authority to Harvest, Clause 59. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): In (a) I will read it again.
Has a right referred to in section 10, 12, 13, 14 or 16 to harvest game; that game or other prescribed wildlife provide a license.
So, I need clarification on that, too, what it actually means.
Mr. Orr: Mr. Chairman. This section lists, by referring to these other sections, all of the people who have rights to harvest.
So, in Paragraph ‘a’ that would be beneficiaries, people who would be entitled under Article 40 of the Land Claim which are Inuit of Northern Quebec, Dene in Saskatchewan and Manitoba and aboriginal people in the Northwest Territories.
Paragraph ‘b’ is everyone else who requires a license.
Those would be non-beneficiaries and people without rights under the Land Claims.
This will not apply to, it will not have a negative impact on Nunavummiut, even though it states like that?
Mr. Orr: That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Authority to Harvest.
Obstruction.
Impersonation.
Extinct or Extirpated Species.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): I need clarification, Mr. Chairman.
No person shall harm, harvest or interfere with any part of an extinct or extirpated species. (interpretation ends) I am in a loss, excuse me, I am in a loss right here.
Harvest, harm or interfere with any part of an extinct or extirpated species.
What is part of an extinct animal or either the animal is extinct or it is not.
Can you just give me an explanation?
Mr. Orr: I guess I thank the Member for that question.
This deals, particularly, with the Acts of Hybrid Flora, which is plant species that would be covered by the Act, that is extinct, but there had been some problems in the past with people disturbing the bits of wood left over.
So, the species are extinct and so, someone could not go into that area and disturb what is left of that extinct floor.
Mr. Anawak: So, this Bill includes agriculture to some extent?
Mr. Orr: It deals with plant species if they are wild.
So, it would not include grains that are domesticated, but the intent was to have it applied to wildlife as defined in the Land Claims, which includes the plants, wild plants that do not, not agricultural grains that are domesticated but wild ones.
Mr. Anawak: I am going to make a fool of myself here.
I just cannot understand harvest, harm or interfere, okay, I can understand that part, I guess it just does not really make too much sense for me as an Inuk.
Chairman (interpretation): I did not hear a question.
Extinct or extirpated species, Clause 62.
Interim Protection for Endangered or Threatened Species.
Lawful Possession.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Clause 64 reads, the possession of a part of an extinct or extirpated species or a member of an endangered or threatened species by a person is not unlawful under this Act if:
(a) it was in the person's possession before the species was listed as endangered or  threatened;
(b) it is used for ceremonial or medicinal purposes by an aboriginal person, or it is  part of ceremonial dress used for ceremonial or cultural purposes by an
Aboriginal person;
I’m a bit leery about this clause, the way it is written.
Perhaps today my colleagues from the High Arctic and Rankin Inlet, they spoke about training the adults about tradition for sewing and hunting, we now want to start training on these kinds of things.
Perhaps this is going to be interfering with the topics that we just discussed earlier today.
For example, even though they say that polar bears are all disappeared, and since the polar bear population is increasing very much in my community and we have observed dead polar bears and they’re very skinny, we would like our young people to, we would like to give our young people an opportunity to start training on traditional harvesting and traditional methods.
It’s good to talk about endangered or certain species, but we discussed earlier that we should have more economic opportunity using traditional ways.
It seems like this is going the other way, that’s why I’m a bit leery about it.
Perhaps the Minister and his officials can explain to me about this.
Mr. Pinksen.
The intent of section 64 is to make allowances for possession of extinct, endangered and threatened species when, normally it’s not allowed.
Normally it’s prohibited.
But 64 is to make it an exception for that activity in certain circumstances.
I don’t think that it would interfere with a traditional usage of one of those species.
I’m not sure if I understood the concern completely, but I don’t believe that this section would interfere with a certain activity.
In the past as Nunavummiut before the division of Nunavut, especially here in Iqaluit that there were, Kimmirut, Iqaluit, and Pangnirtung, that Inuit were fooled by the officials as when they stated that the polar bear, I mean the beluga whales and the polar bears were endangered species, but in some areas in Nunavut there is a high population of these species.
It seems like if we get false information, it’s just going to get the biologists to do the surveying and to me they could mislead people by using this clause, so that’s why I was quite leery about that because won’t the false information or false claims be set in Nunavut.
In regards to the Member’s concern, we will go to Clause 29, it states, it says here, the intention of this clause is to have possession of this, extinct or extirpated species.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): What I am talking about, this clause has an impact on the training of traditional ways like using traditional knowledge if there is an employment opportunity.
I know about the Clause 129.
I was wondering if it is going to have an impact on that so I would like clarification on it.
Chairman (interpretation): Who is going to respond?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): In regards to the Member’s concern, it is under (h), the circumstance of the position otherwise except by the regulations.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 64.
Habitat Protection. Clause 65.
Prohibited Activities in Critical Habitats.
Prohibited activities in critical habitats, I have a few questions for the Minister.
Who designates the specific area as critical habitats?
Is that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Department of Sustainable Development?
The designation of critical habitats is the decision made by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board on the recommendation of a Species at Risk Committee, but we will cover the specifics when we get into those sections, but the actual designation is by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
So, we can agree that we will not, I can ask my question to the species at risk because the reason I am asking is that the Species at Risk Act that was just passed, my concern is that if you get a species at risk and I just want to make an analogy and I think the Peary caribou up in Victoria Islands, high arctic, I do not know if that is in certified or registered as a species at risk.
What I am getting to my question here and I will make it very brief is that okay, we have a species at risk.
In the future there is going to be more pressure on different animals.
You know, with the way of global warming, the polar bear may be a species at risk here in 50 years and that has critical habitat.
And what I am getting to is that if you have got the Parry caribous that may or that might be, they are endangered and I think they may be a specie at risk.
I do not know if they have been designated yet, I have not been following it, but then, somebody decides, okay, we have got to make critical habitats, this area, designates this area as critical habitat, that is what I am understanding here myself, by reading it and you can clarify it for me.
Okay, so we say three hundred and, you know, there is a 50 by 50 square mile area of Victoria Island that is going to be designated critical habitats and then under Clause 66 on (j), (a) and (k), use of motorized vehicle or other conveyance used motorized equipments and what I am getting to there: if you designate in the future, an area that is a critical habitats, and, you know, what provisions are there that you do not have to border your way by, you know, 80, 90, 100 miles going to your hunting ground or something like that.
In terms of the Members, this is something that was discussed in the Working Group.
There is a solution to that problem.
It comes in subsection 2, which refers to other provisions in the Bill.
Basically, when the Board makes a decision on a critical habitat and what is going to happen with that species, they can provide for exemptions as long as the activity will not adversely affect the habitat or the species.
So other uses that will not affect the species, for example, it may be that it is the time of year when the calving goes on, and at that time, you do not want any motorized activity, but the rest of the year it is no problem.
So, it would design an exemption depending on the species involved, and what kind of factors were relevant.
It was anticipated that there could be some exemptions from this.
And those decisions would be made by the Board.
On that issue, do the HTO’s, the local HTO’s have any say on the use of the critical habitat so they could say, “Okay, Nunavut Wildlife Management Board along with the Government set out this areas, wherever it is, that it is critical habitat.
And I am not talking about calving, I am talking about critical habitat for whatever, polar bears, or grizzly bears, or something like that, and in the wintertime it seems to be a migration of caribou through there or something.
That is something that I am talking about.
I know that this could happen.
So does the HTO have much input, or do they have all the input in making that decision through this Act to say hey, we want to be able to use that area this time of the year.
We do not think it is that dangerous to the species at risk.
The decision on the designation and the exemptions from the prohibitions is made by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
So it is their decision.
I do know from experience that the Board places a very large amount of emphasis on consultations and input from the HTO’s.
That is not within the process.
A decision required from the HTO’s, but I do know for a fact that the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board will go through the HTO’s.
They take HTO recommendations very seriously.
Can the Minister commit to putting that in the regulations?
Yes, I would have to talk with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board first, how we can make a commitment on the Member’s question.
When we do the changes in the regulations, they have to be involved.
Whatever is here for the species at risk?
So I will wait until 162, I guess, to ask my question, but again I am worried too about the designation of a critical habitat without the proper consultation with the community at large, or the region at large.
So, I just want to make sure that there will be involvement.
I know that a Species at Risk Committee will be appointed by the Minister again.
I just want to make sure that I will ask my question when we get to the Species at Risk part.
I am worried about what the actual definition of the critical habitat would be.
For the people who are at the witness table, whenever I say their name, the light comes on for you to speak, if you can press your mute button just before you carry on a conversation amongst yourselves as we can hear those conversations.
While we’re talking about this, the HTOs will have to be given the authority to be involved in the changes of the regulations because the HTOs are the important people and have the knowledge of their area.
Perhaps if we make a motion in this regard, to involve the HTOs because according to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit sometimes the wildlife, their numbers increases too much and they have no food and then they start dying off when there is not enough food for them.
Because of the global warming in the north, as it’s happening right now, there might be an incident where the food for the animals that eat grass or lichen or something might disappear and be covered with glaciers or something.
So, I just wanted to mention that.
It’s not a question.
Littering.
Under Clause 67, I’d like to ask a question because there have been some people who go out in the summer and they leave behind a bunch of garbage after they tent in an area.
I realize this happens but is there any way that we can encourage people to do less littering through law?
We can give out information to the public out there through the HTOs, saying that there is a law that you cannot litter near any habitat.
And sometimes there are people who could go on the radio on other informational items even if they don’t belong to the HTO, they give out information to the public that if you leave your tenting area out on the land, you have to clean it up.
And we will work together with the HTOs in the communities to make sure that they give out information in regards to no littering near a habitat.
We can do more to promote non-littering near those habitats. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): I just wanted to give you advice that in my community, the HTOs also have a thing in place whereby contaminants and other garbage material cannot be left behind anywhere on the land; not just near the habitats.
That’s the rule that we have that they have to take their garbage with them when they leave their tenting areas and I’m glad to see this in this section.
Chairman (interpretation): I think that was just a comment.
I am sorry, Ms. Williams, did you have a question?
Maximum Harvest Amount.
Geographic Control.
This is the clause I talked about and it seems to be part of my discussion or my concern regarding polar hunting areas or zone.
Those zones that are set aside, even though some Inuit know about the zones, if they go past beyond that zone that they cannot shoot, say for instance, a polar bear.
They are not really concerned about that because they do not exactly know where the boundary is drawn because there was a guy who shot a polar bear beyond the zone and I feel that this geographic control could be perhaps changed or rewritten because I do not have any understanding of zones because there is no visible line drawn like such as game zones and or whatever you call them.