EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The standing committee continues to encourage the department to work with his federal and provincial counterparts to explore options that will allow all co-management partners to perform comprehensive population surveys that do not disturb the migration patterns and behaviour of wildlife in the territory.
In its proposed 2017-2020 business plan, the department also indicates that one of its goals for the upcoming 2017-18 fiscal year is to finalize the Baffin Island Caribou Management Plan.
Mr. Chairman, the Environmental Protection Branch of the department is responsible for protecting people, wildlife, and natural spaces in Nunavut through its environmental compliance, land use and environmental assessment, and pollution prevention programs.
The department is also responsible for the government’s Contaminated Sites program, which undertakes work relating to contaminated sites, and identifying and assessing the government’s environmental liabilities.
During the minister’s recent appearance, members raised a number of concerns regarding the need for disposal sites for contaminants within the communities that may be established under the Environmental Protection Act.
The standing committee strongly encourages the minister to work with municipalities to identify and address each community’s need for such disposal sites.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the proposed 2017-18 main estimates and draft 2017-2020 business plan of the Department of Environment.
Go to page I-4. Environment.
Corporate Management. (interpretation ends) Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. Mr. Enook.
I welcome Minister Savikataaq and his officials.
If I’m asking out of line, Mr. Chairman, please let me know.
I will be basing my questions on the minister’s opening comments. On page 2 it speaks to the issue of polar bear abundance around the communities.
Mr. Chairman, I apologize to you if I’m not in line.
However, I heard last winter about the polar bears that can be harvested. I also heard about the Nunavik residents who took the matter to court because they were not happy about the total allowable harvest on polar bears.
Can you explain a little bit about what happened?
I would like to hear your side of this story so that we can better understand of what it was about.
As this could possibly be going in front of the courts, I can’t talk too much on the matter.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Enook, do you have another question aside from what the minister just indicated?
Minister, is it prohibited to give the reason why they are taking the government to court?
Chairman: Mr. Enook, I may have to rule your question out of order as it is before the courts, but if the minister wishes to reply, Mr. Savikataaq.
All I can say is that the court case is involved. They don’t agree with the process that is used to come up with the total allowable harvest for polar bears.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you. I probably understand and I don’t know if that’s already in front of the courts, but that’s okay.
We have heard that they are trying to get this through the court, but it’s okay if you don’t want to talk about it.
In your documents, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and the Nunavut government made an announcement that they would be working together to address climate change and the impacts to Nunavummiut. You also stated on November 7, 2016 that Nunavut Tunngavik and the Nunavut government sent a delegation to the 2016 United Nations Climate Change Conference.
Can you describe the specific outcomes of this conference?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We sent one delegate to that meeting.
I think they talked a lot about climate change. All I have right now is that they had a lot of talk.
A lot of talk but no action? (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I guess the most I can say about that is they agreed to reduce the greenhouse gases that each country produced. I’m sure they talked about the Paris accord and the targets there that have to be met.
With the new carbon tax that’s going to be implemented by the federal government, that’s part of the strategy.
On November 7, 2016, at the same time, a joint news release was announced that “NTI and the GN will co-host the largest climate change adaptation initiative in Nunavut’s history, and involve participation and input from Inuit from across the territory.”
According to the news release, this initiative was set to take place in Iqaluit during January 2017.
If that went ahead, can you list the specific organizations that attended this event and can you describe the outcome of this initiative?
I can say that that conference did go ahead and I did attend it for a short while.
There were two representatives from each community in Nunavut or supposed to be, but some candidates didn’t come due to weather.
It was a productive conference. A lot of it was from Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, traditional knowledge. There has been an audio and video recording of it.
The elders made a lot of recommendations. This audio and video will be produced and will be available in the future. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you clarify who was responsible for covering the cost of this event?
The federal government department, INAC, gave the funds to NTI and then NTI funded the workshop.
According to your department’s 2017-2020 draft business plan... . I’m trying to side translate this myself and I’m not sure of the actual terminology.
The Climate Change Secretariat is responsible for the clean energy aspect of the Government of Nunavut’s Energy Strategy.
Can you describe what specific clean energy initiatives your department has undertaken to date, particularly for the 2017-18 fiscal year?
The Climate Change Secretariat is more involved in the tracking of the emissions and effects of climate change. I believe that the member is about energy-producing stuff like solar panels or wind generator.
That might be more under the QEC. We are involved, but we don’t have any programs in terms of funding stuff like that at the moment.
This is a very new secretariat and we’re just starting to get the positions filled and getting the secretariat up and running.
According to its draft 2017-2020 business plan one of your department’s priorities for the 2017-18 fiscal year is to “Expand the delivery of the climate change adaptation training course to additional users beyond GN departments.”
Can you describe what the climate change adaptation training course involves?
If I understand the member’s question correctly, I believe he’s talking about the climate change adaptation course that was put on to government employees.
What it is, is it’s stuff like make them aware of the permafrost and the permafrost databank that we’re creating and other stuff so that they will know that, for example, if you have the permafrost databank and you know that permafrost is really active in one area, you might not want to build houses there because then the houses will move or you might have to want to put a bigger pad or the roads have to be thicker.
It’s just a course to try to mitigate any effects that climate change could have or will have on our infrastructure.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is probably my last question. For the transition of the Energy Secretariat into the new Climate Change Secretariat, perhaps it’s just a name transfer.
When will the transfer of the Energy Secretariat be finalized?
We took four positions from ED&T from their Energy Secretariat and we added them to the three positions we had in climate change.
Currently we have seven positions in the Climate Change Secretariat and jobs are being advertised, but currently all seven positions are filled, four with casuals and three with permanent employees.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Environment. Corporate Management. Following the list of names, Mr. Shooyook.
Welcome to the Minister of Environment, along with my sister’s son-in-law and the other official.
I would like to know if I can ask question on the minister’s opening comments. Yes?
His opening comments refer to Devon Island that we are familiar with, but I would like some clarification on the four adjacent communities listed. I know it refers to their rights to harvest muskox and it lists Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, and Resolute Bay.
Grise Fiord has a lot of muskoxen in their area. I wonder where the right to harvest muskox is stemming from and I would like to ask when this harvest will be allowed.
In reading the opening comments, will this occur next year or this summer?
I would like to know when this will be implemented. That is my first question that I would like an explanation on.
The Devon Island muskox quota has been increased recently as it was scheduled to be increased.
The studies have been completed and the quota now stands at 100 muskoxen.
However, that is in front of the Qikiqtaaluk Wildlife Board, who will decide on the allocation between the communities and the number of tags per community. The QWB will determine the allocation of the 100 tags among the communities.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also appreciate the response from the minister.
However, you stated that it hasn’t been finalized yet. Did I understand that correctly?
I do understand that the allocation hasn’t been finalized, for example, amongst these four communities as to how many tags they will each receive for harvesting muskoxen.
What may become a problem is the access through Lancaster Sound to Devon Island, as it rarely ever freezes over anymore.
We used to travel via snowmobile to Devon Island in the past, but for the last three or four years now the sound hasn’t frozen to its historic places.
Further, in the summer the sound becomes quite windy. That may present a problem to our communities wishing to harvest muskoxen due to the lack of caribou in our areas.
Who was that, maybe the Kiviuq? It can be used to access the island, but if it were to stop, then how would we be supported to harvest muskoxen when the hunting season is officially opened in our future?
Perhaps the minister can explain that.
Hon. Joe Savikataaq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the member for that question.
Currently my officials are working with the Department of Economic Development on ways to support the communities and the application process for funding assistance to use for accessing Devon Island to harvest the muskox.
It hasn’t been completely identified at this time, but discussions are ongoing.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for that information as I really wanted to understand the process.
I will move to an entirely different matter in your business plan. I believe we are on page Ji-4 in the Inuktitut version. Are we on that page?
I will keep it short, but I have a question on the Department of Environment’s plans for 2016-17 regarding the improvements to the harvester support programs and it was for training hunters, as it is written. What sort of training will this be?
I’m just following the Inuktitut version, as it states a training program for harvesters. Can the minister provide the details on what type of training is being contemplated here? Please clarify that for me.
Regarding the question raised by the member on training, at this time it would involve classroom classes on various species. The Department of Environment created several training programs, for example, how to hunt for caribou or seals and how to properly butcher and prepare the meat after the harvest.
Also, there are several other training modules under development related to polar bear and narwhal harvesting.
They film various aspects of the hunts, which are viewed in a classroom setting.
There are only two modules that have been completed.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Further, what group is being targeted for the training program? Is it for youth, which I imagine would be the category, or is it also for older hunters?
It is for the youth.
I really love the idea of a training program as this plan is laid out very well, at least from my perspective, especially the focus on larger species such as polar bear or narwhal due to the work required.
Do you have an idea how long the training program would last or would it become an ongoing program that would last as long as funding is available? Will this become a permanent program?
I would like to hear the explanation from the minister.
Two modules have been completed for two species. There are two more modules being developed for two more species. We anticipate developing two modules every year by filming and teaching the youth about proper harvesting techniques.
By using them, it teaches the proper hunting methods.
Yes, it would be ongoing until we have the training modules available for all the large species. That is what we would like to try to accomplish.
Mr. Shooyook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am grateful to the minister for explaining that to my satisfaction.
This will be my last question on the training subject.
Will Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit be incorporated and will elder experts on these species be included? There are some Inuit who may be young, but who possess a lot of knowledge and could teach others about certain species.
I would like to have elders involved so are they included as possible expert resources for these training programs.
Are those the goals of this program?
Yes, the goal is to include elders as well as Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit as filming takes place. The elders who are recognized experts on certain species are used to hunt these species.
The elders will be both in the video or serve as instructors. However, when the video has been completed and training commences in the classrooms, they will also invite elders to view the video and add anecdotal evidence on the species. It will be left to the instructors on their inclusion.
I just have one question under this division and it’s to do with the distribution of the operations and maintenance budget on page I-7 where it says under headquarters for travel and transportation, a little over $2 million.
I’m wondering why that amount is so high.
The reason it’s that high is the research budget is there and any surveys that are done usually entail helicopters and aircraft.
They are very expensive to use. Generally wildlife surveys are very expensive.
Can the minister give us an idea of how many surveys that will buy him?
I believe, for the coming year, for 2017-18, two polar bear surveys and one caribou survey. These are population estimate surveys, but there is other travel in there. That will buy us three surveys.
Corporate Management. Total Operations and Maintenance, to be Voted. $5,880,000.
Onto page I-5. Environment. Program Management.
I probably have just one question here.
Mr. Chairman, the NWMB had a hearing in Pond Inlet about harvesting narwhals at Albert Harbour and Admiralty Inlet. I’m not sure what that inlet is called in Inuktitut.
One of your staff was there at that hearing.
Can you tell us why your department didn’t provide a written or oral report about the NWMB hearing?
Narwhals are managed by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
They were the presenters. The Department of Environment had an observer.
All the data was DFO data and we had no input on that data, but we did send an observer to the meetings.
For clarity, if they’re going to be holding hearings on narwhal or any other marine species, you have never participated because it’s run by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
We work with the DFO, but it is their mandate to manage all marine wildlife.
As it stands, your department only has observer status.
You can’t make any suggestions as to how a hearing should proceed because you only have observer status.
It is usually their data and unless we have something otherwise that would… . We can say something if we have data that is different, but we are just observers when it is a DFO matter.
Anyone from the public can voice their concerns, I believe, when they’re having these public consultations in the communities.
As if I would understand it right away.
With respect to the term that you stated in English, “something otherwise,” when would that apply?
If it’s a marine species, it’s the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
You seem to be saying that you’re involved sometimes.
It is their mandate and we can voice our concerns, but it is their mandate to manage marine wildlife.
I clearly understand that it’s the responsibility of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans.
What I want clarified is if you have ever been involved or not involved in making recommendations or suggestions because it’s the mandate of the DFO.
I seem to hear that you were never involved because it’s the responsibility of the DFO, but you’re now saying that you can get involved if it’s “something otherwise” or make recommendations or suggestions.
Now I’m totally confused.
If I can explain a little further, it is their mandate, but we work with them and with NTI as co-managers. When the DFO makes a decision, they don’t make it in a bubble.
They do consultations. They work with the GN. They work with NTI. We talk and then they make a decision.
That’s about as simple as I can put it.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) At the end of the day your department is always and only an observer.
You don’t make recommendations.
You don’t make any suggestions because it’s a DFO issue. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The member has it pretty well right.
The only time that we might have had recommendations might have been with fish quotas. Other than that, the member has it right.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) Environment. Program Management. Next on my list, Mr. Rumbolt.
According to the department’s 2017-2020 business plan, one of your department’s priorities for 2017-18 is to “Provide a new population estimate and total allowable harvest recommendation for the...Southern Hudson Bay polar bear population to the NWMB based on survey results and community consultations.” That’s a quote from your business plan.
On January 19 of 2017 the Makivik Corporation issued a news release announcing that it had filed a judicial review application with the Nunavut Court of Justice concerning the total allowable harvest decisions that were made by the Government of Nunavut and Canada in October of 2016.
Can you clarify what decisions you made regarding the total allowable harvest for the southern Hudson Bay subpopulation, and can you explain what factors lead you to make this decision?
The calculation of the TAH for southern Hudson Bay, we would use more or less the same formula for any polar bear subpopulations we have in Nunavut there. They do a population estimate count.
They plug it into a formula which is very complicated and cumbersome, and then a number comes out on the other end which is the recommended TAH.
Earlier somebody was asking about the budget for over $2 million for researching and whatnot.
Are there any plans to do a new survey for the southern Hudson Bay polar bear population?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Savikataaq.
The southern Hudson Bay polar bear population survey was done in 2016.
Mr. Rumbolt: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How long before another one is done? How many years have to go by before you do another population study?
The schedule is every 15 years. That’s what we strive for, but there are many different polar bear populations, so what we strive for is 15 years.
On September 4 of 2015 the NWMB provided public notice that it would conduct a written public hearing to consider the Department of Environment’s proposal for a decision on its proposed Nunavut polar bear co-management plan.
Can you provide an update on the status of this Nunavut polar bear co-management plan?
The NWMB will be holding public hearings on the polar bear management plan.
I would like to start by asking about this subject.
Members have previously asked the minister about hunters who lose equipment due to wildlife damages, in particular equipment damaged by polar bears, as many hunters have had their equipment destroyed by bears.
I would like to ask if his department will be looking to simplify that, as members have alluded to the fact that the application process is too complicated and many hunters are reluctant to complete these forms.
Has the Department of Environment prepared new policies or amendments to the application process for wildlife damages?
Has this process been started?
Perhaps to state it in English, (interpretation ends) wildlife damage compensation, (interpretation) it is currently running and the application forms are in the conservation offices.
Anyone can submit an application if their cabin or other equipment is damaged.
The harvester should approach the conservation officer for assistance in filling out the form and sending it out.
If anyone’s cabin is damaged by wildlife, they have that right.
The funds to replace the damaged materials are available, but some communities have pointed out that due to the complexity of the application forms and required information, people are not comfortable providing that information.
This would apply more to unilingual Inuit, as many of them give up trying to complete the forms.
I wonder if the funds for wildlife damage compensation have been expended for the fiscal year or if they were even accessed this year.
At this time the current process is that an elder or unilingual Inuk who cannot complete the form should approach the conservation officer.
If the officer is unable to converse in Inuktitut, then they would call their supervisor in Iqaluit and second an officer who is bilingual or another employee and they would assist the person.
With respect to the fund, the annual amount is set at $40,000 and there are still funds available. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Has this compensation funding been increasing or has the fund had growing surpluses every year or does the fund get spent quicker for compensating damages annually? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As more applications are being submitted to date compared to prior years, the surplus funds have been dwindling every year since the program started.
Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome the minister and his officials.
I have three questions on his opening comments starting with page 204.
The second paragraph refers to caribou herds. I will read the herd names in English. I want to get some clarification on the herd written as the (interpretation ends) Bluenose East caribou herd. (interpretation) I imagine that population estimates are known, but I would like to get the current information on the population of the herd, if a population study has been completed and, if not, an estimate so that I can know what the status is.
The Bluenose East caribou herd is situated near Kugluktuk and they cross over to the Northwest Territories. They did a population survey recently and the estimate is 38,000.
What about the population estimates for the (interpretation ends) Bathurst and Baffin Island herds? (interpretation) What would the population estimates be for those herds?
Hon. Joe Savikataaq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Bathurst herd is presently around 20,000 and the caribou comprising the (interpretation ends) Baffin Island herd (interpretation) based on the last survey only totals around 5,000.
It’s still estimated to be around there.
This is in regard to the communities of Grise Fiord, Resolute Bay, Arctic Bay, and Pond Inlet.
This region faces a drastic scarcity of caribou that can be harvested.
Our colleague from the High Arctic spoke earlier about the plans for the muskoxen populations that have increased in the areas around Grise Fiord, I imagine.
In the area around the interior mainland we call Iluilik (Adelaide Peninsula), the muskox populations are increasing. I wonder what plans the department has to assist hunters to hunt other species that are not in decline so that pressure isn’t applied to them by supporting harvests of the other species. I am thinking of caribou here.