EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I know for a fact that there’s another community in the Baffin region that has 10 less people than Pond Inlet with two conservation officers while Pond Inlet has never been able to get more than one conservation officer.
What qualifies a community to be eligible for two conservation officers as opposed to one? What is the reasoning for having two conservation officers in any community?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Indeed, if Pond Inlet has a population over 1,600 people.
It is also a regional decentralized office for DOE regional staff. If they are required to assist the community, they should be able to provide assistance. I imagine the member will respond that this office has no connection to the services provided by a conservation officer.
An Hon. Member (interpretation): Indubitably, I will ask that.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): I expect that question from the member.
When a community qualifies for more than one conservation officer, they review all of the needs of the community, including the criteria. It is also tied to the different species that require wildlife permits and paperwork.
Even when a community has over 1,600 people, this is not the deciding factor, as various criteria involving wildlife matters are all considered in this determination.
As he is unwilling to direct himself, I will instead provide him some direction.
The DOE staff that the minister referred to have absolutely no connection to the local people of Pond Inlet.
If the staff members have any connection to the community and can provide assistance occasionally to our community, does that mean that since the regional office is situated in Pond Inlet, our community will never be able to get a second conservation officer ever?
As I said, they would qualify once certain criteria are met.
Therefore, I cannot say that it will never happen.
There are two communities where there’s a difference of only 10 or 20 and their population numbers and the number of harvested animals are roughly the same.
What is the defining factor or the difference that allows one community to have two officers and only one officer in another?
It depends on the workload demands that there be two conservation officers.
What does “workload” mean if two communities have exactly the same population?
For clarity, what does that mean?
Our conservation officers don’t just deal with wildlife issues, but they also deal with environmental issues. Based on the workload in the community, we decide if there will be more than one officer.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Who determines that Pond Inlet should get another conservation officer?
Once Department of Environment staff is aware of the need to do so, they make that decision.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, do I understand then that even if the HTO requested for a second officer and as long as the Department of Environment does not agree with them, they will never get one just because the department has the final say?
We work closely with local HTOs.
Once they have made a request, we review those requests to determine if they need additional conservation officers.
We’re on page I-4 of the departmental appropriation.
Mr. Enook, do you have a question?
Just this one item, I want to provide direction to the larger communities currently stuck with one conservation officer, which causes hardship and difficulties to a community in that situation.
This applies equally to the smaller communities, obviously.
I want to urge strongly, if I am able to do so, that the minister and his department, if they haven’t already provided this information to the community HTOs, that they provide the rules and guidelines outlining the criteria to fulfill the need for a second conservation officer or when they have the right to request this second position.
At the very least, they should provide this information to all communities.
I shall stop there, Mr. Chairman.
Please be advised that you are out of time. I’ll understand if we need to get back to you.
I don’t mind you asking only if it’s on that page. Just remember why we’re here today.
We are here to review the main estimates for the Department of Environment for 2012-13 and the details are listed in the business plan.
I just wanted to ask a brief question in regard to staff development and training.
First of all, I believe the Environmental Technology Program is very good.
I would like to hear from the minister if they will continue to provide funding to Arctic College to deliver that program and how many years the Environmental Technology Program is.
Can the minister please provide me with more information so that I can ask additional questions?
I didn’t have an opportunity to respond to Mr. Enook.
We take his comments well and we will be able to review this issue along with the HTO.
In regard to Mr. Curley’s question, our department provides funding to Nunavut Arctic College to deliver the Environmental Technology Program and it’s a three-year program.
That is what I wanted to hear. Also, is the Environmental Technology Program a diploma or degree program?
Do you have any information as to how many students are taking the first, second, and third years of the program?
It is a diploma program as currently offered.
As I stated earlier, Nunavut Arctic College is responsible for that program, so we don’t have the numbers you are seeking at this time.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) Yes, it would be better if you had access to this information, as other departments are privy to this information and your department, I believe, provides funding for this program.
Please pass this along to your staff.  When you do get this information, perhaps you could report to the members since these students, many of whom are younger people, enjoy the courses and how they are working towards protecting their homelands.
This is particularly poignant for these students. So we would want a full report on this program and hence, in the future, we want this information as to how many students are in this program and how many of these students are on the verge of passing the program. These numbers are important for members to hear.
In particular, elected officials like to hear about successful students in their constituencies who are taking the Environmental Technology Program.
Further, will these students be able to fill these positions after they have graduated this program? Thank you.
Yes, we would be able to provide that information, even if it necessarily doesn’t stem from my department, but from the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College perhaps, when we reach Ministers’ Statements in the Orders of the Day.
We provide funding for these courses and when we require outside agency assistance, we also collaborate with them.
When students complete the Environmental Technology Program in its entirety, they are fully capable of filling the position of a conservation officer in the communities.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. I believe you provide funding to Nunavut Arctic College.
How much funding do you provide annually? Nunavut Arctic College is provided funding annually through other sources.
Do you provide funding and how much do you provide them with to support this program?
I was just informed that we don’t provide them with funding. This program is run by Nunavut Arctic College and while they’re taking that program, Nunavut Arctic College is responsible for that.
In spite of that, the Department of Health and Social Services provides funding for the Nursing Program and also for their accommodations, and so on.
I would like to know how many students are taking the Environmental Technology Program. My earlier question was quite clear.
Can the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College provide a brief answer? Many of our constituents in the communities are taking that program.
I would like to hear from the minister responsible.
Minister Shewchuk, the member would like to hear from you.
I would be pleased to answer that question.
The environment program that is offered through Arctic College is offered in two locations: one is in Iqaluit and the second location is in Pond Inlet.
It is a great success. I am very proud of what is taking place with that program.
There are 22 students in the Iqaluit program and 12 in Pond Inlet, and over 90 percent of those students are beneficiary students.
All I hear is good praise and very good things about the classes that are going on.
Mr. Curley, do you have any more questions?
Mr. Curley (interpretation): This is my last question on this topic, Mr. Chairman.
For the graduating students, is it possible for the minister to identify where the students come from? Can they discuss which of them will announce the students graduating from this program? Elected members like to hear about constituents who succeed and additionally, MLAs like to announce their successes.
It is clear that members also have children in school who have to work really hard to pass the courses.
I thank the minister for Nunavut Arctic College, as this program is thoroughly enjoyed by our youth and they always seem ecstatic about learning, although I suspect that is not always the case.
However, students work extremely hard to pass the courses and I wanted to let both ministers know that since we are proud of their accomplishments and with the possibility of employment after graduation in the future.
That is all. This is primarily a statement and if the minister could agree, members would like to hear about these students.
As ministers, we have the opportunity to make statements in the House about various matters. However, I can’t speak on behalf of my hon. colleague, the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College. He indicated that he has agreed that he would be able to make that announcement. (interpretation ends) Right?
Minister Shewchuk, did you want to say something?
Just to add to Mr. Curley’s question on where the students are from and that we should let all of Nunavut know where these students are from, I can provide that information.
I do know that they’re from right across the whole territory that are involved, except for the program in Pond Inlet, which are basically Pond Inlet students and very successful too.
I would just like to say that the program in Pond Inlet would not have been possible unless it was for private industry taking partnership in that and several other partners too.
I think, when the Hon. Shewchuk was the Minister of Environment, his department came up with a document which we now call Upagiaqtavut.
This document deals with climate change impact and adaptation in Nunavut.
This document, I think, has four components to it.
Understanding that global warming is eminent and it’s happening now, we need partnerships at every level of government, federal, territorial, and the people of Nunavut. We also need every scientist that we can have working for us.
The components I spoke about are, one, partnership building objective, two, research and monitoring.
This is where our partners in Nunavut communities come in like Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk. Objective No. 3 is education and research.
A very important component, to my knowledge and to the knowledge of Mr. Curley, which he has been stressing all along, is the government policy and planning.
This is a very important component of what we have in order to deal with global warming in Nunavut.
And finally, again Mr. Curley has stated a number of times, is report to the House and subsequently to the public of Nunavut.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate that Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk are part of this government document in partnership.
(interpretation) Mr. Chairman, last week, I directed a question to the Minister of Environment.
Perhaps now that he has his officials with him, he can respond to my question about the permafrost monitoring stations that include Kugaaruk and Repulse Bay. I believe they’re called Nunavut permafrost monitoring stations in English.
I believe there is a network established in Nunavut and I am thankful that the stations were based in Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk. Does your department have any further information on this network? Is there any information on the changes to the climate?
I ask because they have other research projects.
I might be mistaken and that these are simply just monitoring stations collecting data. There is other research done specifically for seismic monitoring primarily in the southern latitudes.
Do these stations have any benefit? Here I ask about the permafrost monitoring stations or perhaps your department is not party to this information.
Based on what we have been told, there are monitoring stations in Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk.
I believe it is on I-4, planning and preparation for the future and integration, where communities and governments work together; coordination. As an example, you have to have a clear plan to work towards meeting the future challenges.
What kind of benefit do these stations provide or are these stations checked from time to time?
Apparently there is one in Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. We’re on page I-4. Corporate Management.
Environment. Members should stick to the pages we are reviewing. Some of the questions are completely off topic, but I do recognize that people require information.
I thank the member for reminding us.
With respect to the monitoring stations the member referenced that I was unable to respond to yesterday, it is still being looked into and I cannot respond as of yet.
This is because they are not part of our research projects and I am unsure as to which government or department is responsible for them. We could always speculate because research is undertaken by few departments. We can look into that as to who authorized the permafrost monitoring stations that the member wants to hear about.
I still cannot respond at this time.
I also thank the minister for his eventual future answer on this issue.
Climate change is something we have to prepare for and try to adapt to, as per the statement contained in I-4.
It speaks to planning.
We need to have a climate change adaptation plan that provides direction to our communities.
The different levels of government need to collaborate on these issues to prepare for climate change, including integrating community, government, and Inuit responses, and coordinating it to develop a strategy.
What has the government undertaken with respect to strategic planning as per I-4?
I will get my Deputy Minister, Mr. Akeeagok, to respond to that.
Chairman: Deputy Akeeagok.
We developed the strategy called Upagiaqtavut in June.
With respect to our plan of action related to climate change, it’s hard to plan out for the long term, but at least it’s a strategy to initiate planning.
That is why it is written in that manner, especially since there are many research projects.
Researchers are required to present their findings in their projects if they will be conducted near or within a community. Even if the research project was not under the auspices of the GN, they are included in the computer database which is available to the global community.
However, research requests and research reports have to be sent to the communities as to their findings.
Only through partnership with various research bodies can we ensure that we do not all research the same issues. Nonetheless, if we are aware that this body is going to be researching this aspect of climate change, it allows us to concentrate on the areas not being researched.
That is how we have tried to alleviate miscommunication and to ensure proper cooperation in this field.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Deputy Akeeagok. (interpretation) At this time, we will take a 30-minute break and we will be back at 6:30 p.m.
>>Committee recessed at 18:00 and resumed at 18:34
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for returning. We will try to complete the Department of Environment.
We are on page I-4. $4,277,000. Do you agree?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Turn to page I-5. Mr. Enook.
Even though we may be off on a tangent, we thank you for acknowledging us.
I will try to stick to the details in I-5.
If I’m correct, the legislation is included in the summary.
Indeed, it seems they are included.
If you have a copy handy, on page 147 of the Department of Environment’s business plan, I have a question on one of the priorities.
Mr. Chairman, it states here that one of the priorities for 2012-13 is to “Complete implementation of the Wildlife Act and regulations.”
My question is, Mr. Chairman: when will the Wildlife Act and regulations be implemented?
They will be implemented during this current year.
He said this year. Can he narrow that down to a certain time, such as the spring, fall, summer, or winter?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Enook. Minister Arreak.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): We still need to consult with several bodies and get agreement from the other parties we are dealing with on this issue, particularly NWMB and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
At this time, we have not totally agreed on the details.
We will work on closing the gap once the discussions have been completed. I cannot narrow it down any further by putting a date on it.
Further, on page 148 of the same plan, one of the priorities listed for 2009-2010 talks about continuing the polar bear co-management agreements in Canada.
It states that the cause for delays in finalizing this initiative is a lack of response from the other jurisdictions, particularly Quebec and Newfoundland.
Can the minister provide an update on what the status of this priority is today?
We’re working with Quebec, Newfoundland, and Manitoba and we’re still in negotiations with them in regard to the Act and regulations.
Can the minister state what the problem is?
These regions are all separate, all with different agreements applicable to their areas, for example, in Quebec, for the lands on the provincial jurisdiction under their JBNQ land claims.
Further, the provincial government has different legislation governing their jurisdiction.
That is why we have to include them in our negotiations and we were able to come to an agreement on these matters.
Before I move on to another item, I would like to ask another question on this issue.
The minister said that they are at an impasse, although discussions are ongoing. Do we have any expectations as to whether this process will move ahead with actual results? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We’re continuing with the negotiations and we have some agreements. It’s progressing.
I would like to ask another question on a different topic. On October 29, there was an agreement that was signed between the federal government, the Nunavut government, and the Greenland government.
Under 2011-14, it indicates that “The joint committee expects to finalize an action plan by the end of the  2010-11 fiscal year.
Pilot studies including a feasibility assessment of aerial surveys are expected to be reported on in winter 2010-2011.” Were those aerial surveys completed? Additionally, is the department in a position to produce the results of these past studies?
I’ll have my Deputy Minister, Mr. Akeeagok, respond to that question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. (interpretation ends) Deputy Akeeagok.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you. This agreement stems from the Greenlandic and Canadian governments. This agreement was agreed to this year to conduct aerial surveys in Baffin Bay, as well as further north on Ellesmere Island.
Even though it is my old island, I can’t remember the proper name.
Kane Basin is the other area where they want to conduct these aerial surveys.  Both the Canadian and Greenlandic governments have been impacted by the polar bear ban on exporting skins or products.
Once the survey has been completed, the results will allow both governments to develop a position. Further, they will continue to cooperate on these issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Deputy Akeeagok.
Perhaps I’ll ask this question. Have the aerial surveys that were to happen been completed and, if so, what results do you have? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Yes, the Baffin Bay survey is one I believe the member is asking about with respect to the aerial survey and DNA sampling program. The survey was planned to continue for a period of three years, which was initiated last year.
It will continue this year and for the third year. At this time, it is still ongoing and hasn’t been completed yet.
I want to ask a question about the nations that live across the Atlantic and it’s with respect to the sealskin issue.  On February 7, 2011, the Nunavut government released a press release outlining their concerns about the position of the federal government with respect to the World Trade Organization pertaining to the European Union anticipated sealskin and whale products ban fomented by the animal rights activists.
The press release outlined their support for the industry and of individuals as well as various organizations that depend on these animals and products, highlighted their rights to subsistence, as well as the fact that these are renewable resources that could be harvested sustainably.
This is part of what makes Nunavut unique, particularly our cultural attachment to seals, sealskin preparation, and it forms a major part of many Inuit lives.
I would like to know the status today with the federal government’s application to the WTO, as I imagine you are collaborating with the federal government on this issue respecting the EU sealskin ban.
What is the current status of this application? Perhaps the minister can provide a quick update, Mr. Chairman.
This process continues and is still in the system.
We continue to work with our federal counterparts on this issue and we are provided with a quarterly report on how this process is unwinding.
There is also the pamphlet I released a while ago that is trying to garner more support for this initiative. I imagine most of the members have already read it.
One of your ministerial colleagues stated that the European Union isn’t concerned about the selling or marketing of liquor here, which was banned via a motion by this House, as all EU liquor products were banned in Nunavut. What are your thoughts on the ban?
You seemingly stated that their position has not changed. The ban continued. What are your thoughts on this issue?
I didn’t say that it was at a standstill. What I did state was that this process is ongoing and is still underway. The sealskin issue is something we continue to fight for via correspondence with our federal government as well as with other organizations to fight this ban.
This is still underway, we are collecting reports on the progress, and it is slowly progressing as the matter is still being worked out.
With respect to the motion that the member referred to, the ban on wine and other liquor products from the EU to Nunavut is still in effect.
It has had an impact and shows our efforts to fight this sealskin ban symbolically that currently is in place to ban all sealskins to the EU.
On January 19 of last year, the GN issued a news release concerning the GN’s effort to promote seal products in China.
Is the minister able to let us know what the department has done to date to increase the promotion of seal products in China?
What types of initiatives has your department introduced in China to promote Nunavut’s sealing industry?
I can speak to this summarily and, if I don’t finish, my deputy can provide the rest of the details.
With respect to seal promotion, it involves sealskin, seal meat that we can try to sell to China, which they are currently sampling, and we are in the midst of negotiations to come to an agreement to sell these products.
Yes, we can market sealskins to the Chinese. Furthermore, I believe that they are the largest purchasers of sealskins at this time.
Ms. Ell (interpretation): On page 155 of your 2012-15 business plan, one of your priorities for 2011-12 is to “Review the Fur Price Program and seal marketing programs and initiatives.”