EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We will now proceed to the page-by-page review of the main estimates.
I-4.
On page 136 of the business plan in the first bullet in the priorities of 2014-15, it speaks to the department’s review of hunter support programs to assess the effectiveness and delivery, and the review is to be completed in early 2015.
Can you provide an updated timeline for the finalization of this review?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister of Environment, Mr. Mike.
I thank the member for asking about this.
I did see the review, but it was better to look at it properly and hear more from the communities and to hear from HTOs across Nunavut.
I said that I wanted to see it this winter and expected it too, but due to more work that needs to be done, it is clear now that we can expect it this spring.
In April of last year, NTI had announced that it would be reviewing its own harvester support program.
Can you indicate if your department has been working with NTI during the review of both these harvester support programs?
This winter, NTI Vice-president James Eetoolook and I met regarding this.
I can say that NTI is not ready and with that being the case, we can’t do too much, as NTI will bring up their findings to us.
I understand that the government doesn’t have control over NTI support programs, but as they are both going through a review at the same time, I was wondering if there was any collaboration or working together to co-develop both these harvesters support programs to make sure that they work together.
NTI has been there all along and we continue to consult them as we move forward on these and other issues.
I can say that we are doing our own review and not working directly with them, but they are also conducting their review that we haven’t seen and they have not seen our work either.
From the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, there is oftentimes where the Government of Nunavut has to have dialogue with NTI on policy changes or Acts and regulations.
I brought this up with one of your colleagues and I’m not picking on you, Mr. Minister. It seems to be across the government.
When we hear that NTI was consulted, that’s all we hear.
We are wondering if maybe the government could take a little bit further of a stance and start sharing some of the discussion papers that are ongoing where NTI might be bringing concerns forward that maybe we, as committee members, may not have thought of that can have an impact to the Inuit in Nunavut and Nunavummiut as a whole to help complement our government’s programs and our dialogue that we have in here.
Is that something that your department would consider, sharing a little bit more of the dialogue information as far as correspondence between NTI and specifically your department?
I’m hoping all ministers are also listening to this.
It’s something that I think all the committee would like to see on an ongoing basis.
Hon. Johnny Mike: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, I do agree with you.
We do our best to have a dialogue with NTI and others on wildlife issues and programs and things like that, but I do understand that NTI may have some different ideas on how to deliver their harvester support programs and of course, they do have a lot of ideas on their part.
(interpretation) Right now, I can say that, through discussions, as I said, with NTI, with personal communication with the vice-president, I can use that as an example.
As I stated earlier, he told me that NTI might bring something out in March regarding the harvester support program funding.
The Department of Environment also works closely with NTI in regard to caribou. NTI also supported our caribou hunting moratorium.
That is basically how we have been working together, Mr. Chairman. We will always continue considering different things with NTI.
Just to take my steps a little bit further, NTI has a role to play: representing Inuit. The Government of Nunavut has a role to play: representing Nunavummiut, all of Nunavut, whether it be Inuit or whatever background our residents have.
We’re proud of the multicultural component that Nunavut does have to experience.
I think what I’m trying to get at is that although there are differing roles, there still may be information in the dialogue that the government may choose during a consultation period to say, “Okay, that’s too much just for Inuit, not for Nunavummiut.”
In correspondence on a policy change or a regulation change or a legislative change, I think the point I’m trying to get at is that we would like to see copies of that correspondence from NTI.
Maybe NTI is listening. Maybe they don’t provide physical correspondence, but when we just see that NTI has been consulted, it doesn’t really tell us anything, whether they agree with it, whether they oppose it, whether there are just factors within it that they agree with, whether there are parts of it that they oppose, just to give, I think, the committee members when we’re voting on these things a bit more information.
That’s kind of where I’m going at.
It’s more of a comment, Mr. Chairman, but I would appreciate to hear Minister Mike’s response to it.
Actually, as I stated earlier, I have been working in conjunction with the vice-president of NTI, and my officials work with his officials on these matters.
What I can state is that we maintain an open door policy towards each other in this regard, particularly related to implementation of the land claims agreement, especially wildlife-related management issues. We maintain close communications with NTI on this front.
Further, our cooperation has strengthened over the last year, and wildlife issues are becoming less contentious, although I can state that we are collaborating with Nunavut Tunngavik on government operations, especially environment-related matters.
Yes, I concur with the member that your source of news shouldn’t just be about the consultations ongoing with NTI. We will keep that in mind in all future announcements.
On page 136 of your business plan, the second bullet there says, “Conduct a strategic review of the department’s organizational structure in consideration of the changing pace of development and GN priorities.”
Can the minister just explain what that means?
I would like to ask you if my assistant deputy minister can respond to that question.
The department’s structure is essentially the same as it was when we were formed as a department in 2004.
The government has changed around us, budgets have changed, there’s a new government mandate, we have gone to Sivumut Abluqta as the government’s mandate, and we have been sort of stuck in the same structure with the same budget allocation as we always had.
We just felt it was time to take a look at how we resource various parts of the department and how we’re structured and to check whether we are running as efficiently as we can to address the issues that the government is facing today.
That’s really what we’re trying to say is to take a close look at our structure and resourcing in the current work environment.
According to this, the strategic review was done in 2014. Can the minister’s official just let us know what structures are changing, if any, after their structural review?
Chairman: Mr. Mike.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member.
Yes, it was last year in September when the Department of Environment started to review their organizational structure.
This review involves the departments of Finance and Environment, as it impacts on some of the budget line items and to ensure they are properly structured.
Yes, with respect to this structure, it seems obvious, as I had also thought that this organizational structure would be presented to cabinet, but it’s not quite ready yet for presentation to that level.
That is where it is at.
We will be looking forward to seeing the review and the changes when it’s completed.
Going on to a different subject, quite a while ago, I asked about the Wildlife Regulations and at that time, I told him that it was about ten years since the Wildlife Act was passed and there were still no regulations.
Here we are again. Can we get an update on if and when there will ever be any Wildlife Regulations passed?
What he stated was absolutely truthful.
Actually, the wildlife legislation and proposed amendments or as we call them, the (interpretation ends) regulations, (interpretation) will have to be developed in collaboration with NTI.
The most difficult issues are on the block, including NWMB’s difficult decisions, but what I can say to the members here about that is that the most difficult issues and complex barriers stopping progress have largely passed.
Due to that, my personal viewpoint is that proposed wildlife legislation enactment is set for July 1, 2015 and that we can start implementing that. I am referring to the issue we are discussing at this point.
I hope that they actually will come out this time on July 1, 2015 because we have been told many dates on many occasions and it seems like it’s quite a long, hard process.
I hope the minister is successful this time in getting them “gazetted,” published, enacted, and in use by July 1.
Going on to a different matter, on page 137, one of the priorities for 2015 is “Develop and implement a media campaign for national and international audiences aimed at counterattacking misinformation relating to the status of polar bears as endangered and noting that polar conservation is in fact a success story.”
Would the minister agree that the polar bears in general in Nunavut population-wise are doing good and are stable?
Yes, with respect to polar bears the member referenced, for our future plans, we have identified the year 2015-16 as the proper time. Misinformation continues to be spewed, even within Canada as well.
Due to these misguided intentions, the Department of Environment has to publish data on the polar bear, the status of the species in Nunavut, and to release that for global information.
There are the animal rights groups whom we want to provide this information to, as issues related to polar bears surface from all facets of the animal rights sector.
With respect to my colleague’s comments, that is the main reason why we have to combat the misinformation spewed by these groups and to ensure the uninformed global village is aware of the facts.
I wanted to respond to that question firstly, but further, in today’s legal framework, our wildlife partners, such as NWMB and NTI, are in agreement with respect to polar bears, that polar bears are doing well and the population is stable.
Can the minister just tell us exactly how this media campaign is going to be run, like what are they going to do, what specifics, if they are that far ahead, if they have planned that far ahead?
What exactly are they going to do to let the rest of Canada and the rest of the world know that our polar bear population in Nunavut is doing just fine?
If you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, my deputy minister can respond to that question.
Mr. Nirlungayuk.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for allowing us to appear before you.
In regard to Mr. Savikataaq’s question, with the polar bear issues we face in Nunavut, it includes the fact that the territory has the largest population of polar bears in the world. If I were to say it in English, it’s (interpretation ends) two-thirds of the world population (interpretation) lies within Nunavut.
We not only have the biggest population, but we are also the biggest harvesters of polar bears.
The other jurisdictions that have polar bear populations include the NWT, Newfoundland, and Quebec, whose governments we are working with on this issue, and that includes ITK.
We have commenced the preliminary work on the plan.
We will start hearing about the latest (interpretation ends) CITES in South Africa (interpretation) where the Americans and the Russians will once again attempt to change the status to stop harvesting of polar bears.
We are starting to work with these various governments and organizations, and we have cooperated on past work in Bangkok by using the media as well as showing the map with the (interpretation ends) boundaries with 13 sub-populations (interpretation) that reside in Nunavut along with our management system.
As an example, we provided population status reports, such as the stability of the population in Davis Strait, using various colours. The visual information is very useful in providing understanding to the rest of the world.
The misinformation bandied about includes the lies about over-harvesting or that all the populations are decreasing.
The other argument used is the hypothetical global warming scheme, that polar bears may become endangered with the loss of ice. We know that is not the case.
We are just beginning to put together our facts with the other jurisdictions in Canada that share the polar bear populations.
(interpretation ends) Environment Canada, (interpretation) is providing assistance on this file. Obviously, since this issue involves outside organizations, any information package has to be prepared with their assistance. Plus, they work with their global counterparts on these issues.
Environment Canada is one of our partners in this front.
With respect to the developments in Northern Quebec, we are working with them to deliberate on our options on the polar bear management challenges.
However, in Nunavut, we have been in the forefront on this issue for 40 years, ever since polar bears became a species harvested using quotas. We have been involved in polar bear management for that long.
I will stop there as I tried to briefly hit all the points and hopefully I was clear in my response, Mr. Chairman.
I thank Mr. Nirlungayuk for the explanation.
I want to just keep on this topic a bit longer.
Is there anything that they are doing to convince their counterparts from Environment Canada that the polar bear population is doing fine? That’s what they believe. Our Nunavut government believes that polar bears are doing just fine.
It seems like every report that comes out from Environment Canada about the western Hudson Bay polar bear population is that they are not doing so well.
What is the minister’s department doing to convince Environment Canada that the polar bears of western Hudson Bay are doing just fine? The population is stable.
I’ll have my deputy minister respond to the question.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Savikataaq.
Yes, your statement is truthful. In the past, the department was conducting work in the (interpretation ends) Wapusk National Park, (interpretation) which is ongoing. Unfortunately, western Hudson Bay is part of the zone where the department believes the population is decreasing.
This is slowly being replaced by the fallacy of global warming that since the climate is warming, the polar bears will become extinct.
However, in the past, the Nunavut government has started to conduct its own population study due to the biases existing federally. We found that the population is stable.
Environment Canada and our government are collaborating on this front.
With our data, they have started to state that the polar bears in western Hudson Bay are not decreasing.
The polar bear researchers who conduct their work in that park work for Environment Canada.
We are communicating with Environment Canada to see if they can come up to Nunavut, particularly to the community of Arviat.
We would like to work with them to negotiate or arrive at an agreement on the scientific data.
Last year for the first time, Environment Canada went to Rankin Inlet to discuss the issue and they want to continue that.
They also want to meet with the Kivalliq Wildlife Board.
We’re trying to work with Environment Canada along those lines.
I will have more questions on polar bears later at the appropriate time.
Just on the same page there, 137, the last bullet says, “Investigate options for incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into environmental decision-making in a more standardized manner.”
When I read that, it almost implies that it’s not being used much at all right now and you’re trying to figure out how to use it in your decision-making.
Is my interpretation of that sentence correct?
If it’s not, can I please be corrected and get an explanation?
With regard to your comment, is it part of the 2016-17 plans?
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Savikataaq for asking about that issue.
In this day and age, whenever we work on any polar bear related issue, we have to use the past population data or (interpretation ends) western science, (interpretation) which has more weight.
Nonetheless, we are looking at ways to incorporate Inuit traditional knowledge into this process.
To use this example, if I wanted to trade my polar bear skin after harvesting a polar bear, then I would have to use the (interpretation ends) science (interpretation) to prove that it was harvested legally before I can ship it outside of Canada. The only way to export the skins is to use scientific data.
We are working with Environment Canada to deliberate on the issue of incorporating Inuit traditional knowledge into more decisions related to polar bears. As Inuit, we are at the frontlines, as Inuit are the ones concerned about the changes. We know we can provide facts on the climate and our wildlife that we observe.
Scientific studies, unfortunately, take years to decipher and sometimes many years pass before the science catches up with the reality Inuit are seeing.
For that reason, we are working with Environment Canada on Inuit knowledge and how this government can incorporate Inuit knowledge.
For example, over the past two days, the public hearing on the caribou management issues is being conducted at the Parish hall and Inuit are immersed in this hearing.
In Nunavut, Inuit knowledge is already used, but the outside countries have to catch up to our knowledge.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I had raised this question due to the 2016-17 wording that states, “Investigate options for incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit…” In reading that passage and the wording, as I understand it, the knowledge isn’t being incorporated now.
That is why I want clarification on one of the priorities listed for the 2016-17 fiscal year that states, “Investigate options for incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit…” Is that not written properly or am I misunderstanding it?
My deputy minister will elaborate on the details.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Joe.
Actually, Inuit traditional knowledge is currently being used. However, during the division from the NWT, the legislation that was enacted was just transferred to our government.
Nonetheless, we are trying to draft new legislation to see how IQ can be better incorporated into government operations.
It is also a requirement to incorporate IQ. When the members are reviewing the draft legislation, this aspect has to be included in the legislation. It is only by amending the existing legislation and the dependence on (interpretation ends) western science (interpretation) to make these management decisions that we can start to incorporate more traditional Inuit knowledge.
This could be by documenting the traditional knowledge or by utilizing a committee for this area.
The weight given to (interpretation ends) western science (interpretation) and Inuit traditional knowledge has to be equalized, more like your left and right arms.
I can tell you at this time that we still need to make changes to the current system.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) We are on Environment.
I move a motion to report progress at this time.
Chairman: There is a motion on the floor and it’s not debatable. I will now report progress.
Those opposed to the motion.
Mr. Enook: Thank you.
Chairman (interpretation): Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the minister’s officials out.
Mr. Rumbolt is the seconder. (interpretation ends) The motion is in order.
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) This House stands adjourned until Friday, March 13, 2015, at 9:00 a.m.
>>House adjourned at 18:22
Friday, March 13, 2015
Pages 2485 – 2564
Opening Prayer 2485
Ministers’ Statements 2485
Members’ Statements 2487
Oral Questions 2489
First Reading of Bills 2503
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters 2503
Report of the Committee of the Whole 2563
Third Reading of Bills 2563
Orders of the Day 2563
Friday, March 13, 2015 2485
132 – 4(2): Nunavut Apprenticeship Successes (Ugyuk) 2485
133 – 4(2): Economic Council of Canada’s Inuit Perspectives on Canada’s Arctic Future (Taptuna) 2486
134 – 4(2): Certificate in Aboriginal Language Revitalization (CALR) (Quassa) 2486
265 – 4(2): Firearms Licensing in Baker Lake (Mikkungwak) 2487
266 – 4(2): Cape Dorset Walrus Hunting Rescue (Joanasie) 2487
267 – 4(2): Congratulations to Pangnirtung Hockey Players (Mike) 2488
268 – 4(2): Questions about Senior Management Positions in Health (Hickes) 2489
452 – 4(2): Access to Medical Specialists (Shooyook) 2489
453 – 4(2): Budget for Fuel Resupply (Hickes) 2492
454 – 4(2): Liquor Licensing (Enook) 2494
455 – 4(2): Patient Relations Office (Angnakak) 2495
456 – 4(2): Unilingual Elders Medical Policy (Joanasie) 2496
457 – 4(2): Issues with Medical Boarding Homes (Keyootak) 2497
458 – 4(2): Contaminated Site in Baker Lake (Mikkungwak) 2499
459 – 4(2): Issues with Francophone School (Hickes) 2501
123 – 4(2): Government of Nunavut’s Privacy Management Manual (Taptuna) 2502
124 – 4(2): QEC’s 13th Annual Report 2013-2014 (Peterson) 2502
125 – 4(2): Minimum Wage Annual Report for 2014 (Okalik) 2502
Bill 21 – An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act, the Legislative Assembly Retiring Allowance Act and the Supplementary Retiring Allowance Act – First Reading 2503
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2015-2016 –Environment – Consideration in Committee 2503
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2015-2016 –Culture and Heritage – Consideration in Committee 2543
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2015-2016 –Legislative Assembly – Consideration in Committee 2558
Bill 16 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2015-2016 – Third Reading 2563
Speaker (interpretation): Good morning, Nunavummiut, members, ministers, (interpretation ends) Premier, (interpretation) as well as our interpreters and staff.
I say “good morning” to you.
Item 2. (interpretation ends) Hon. Minister of Family Services, Ms. Ugyuk.
Minister’s Statement 132 – 4(2): Nunavut Apprenticeship Successes (Ugyuk)
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share good news about apprentices in Nunavut.
Recently, we had four graduates of the apprenticeship program who became journeypersons in their trades:
one heavy duty equipment technician from Pond Inlet
one carpenter from Kugluktuk
one electrician from Arviat, and
one housing maintainer from Arviat.
An additional eight people in Nunavut are undergoing the final steps of their apprenticeship training to become journeypersons.
There are two plumbers, two carpenters, one power line electrician, and three heavy equipment technicians.
They will finish their training by this summer.
Mr. Speaker, please join me in encouraging these individuals to continue on as mentors in their trades in Nunavut so that more Nunavummiut can pursue a career in trades through apprenticeship.
I would also like to thank the businesses and industry that support these individuals by providing the training hours for our apprentices.
We encourage others to do the same.
Mr. Speaker, supporting the success of apprentices is a key priority in Sivumut Abluqta.
My department encourages more Nunavummiut to participate in trades-related training to fill vacant jobs.
Minister’s Statement 133 – 4(2): Economic Council of Canada’s Inuit Perspectives on Canada’s Arctic Future (Taptuna)
Uplaakkut, colleagues, Kuglukturmiut, and Nunavummiut.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform my colleagues about a recent panel I was part of in Ottawa.