EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The Chair of the Standing Committee opening comments states that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit will be incorporated in the Bill and if it’s not written there it’s going to be neglected, if it’s not written in the Bill or in the Act even though they mention Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
We have to make it clear during the deliberation of this Bill.
I know that this Bill will have to apply to everyone in Nunavut and that it should state as to who it will be applied to, and once we start using this Act we will find out where the problem areas are and I’m sure that if it’s reviewed again after five years it would be ideal.
Our life and our land are changing and it is evident that we neglected our young in the past.
When we heard the two female Members of the Legislative Assembly earlier today talk about Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and that it should be taught it was good to hear.
As Inuit we will always remain hunters and the north is going to remain north even though the weather is changing, but, winter will always come to the north there.
I will give Mr. Havioyak an opportunity to speak.
I have a short comment regarding this Wildlife Act, Bill35.
It’s nice to see that we are incorporating an Act that we will be using.
I know many of our people are going to be using this Wildlife Act to benefit us and also there are enough renewable resource.
We know that we work with Kitikmeot Hunters and Trappers Association and they’ve informed all the community members regarding this Act that they will be using and it’s nice to see the people being informed.
A comment I wanted to make, and it is something that David had already said, is if we use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, it would be greatly beneficial to all the Nunavut beneficiaries, clause 8 and 9.
I’m glad that it is written in Inuinnaaqtun because all of the communities want to have it translated into Inuinnaaqtun so that we can continue our writing system and our language.
I know that if the last generation that will be using this that they will be benefiting using this in Inuinnaaqtun if they see this in Inuinnaaqtun and it will be greatly beneficial to them.
I think that all the translations have to be translated into Inuinnaaqtun and Inuktitut.
I would like to see that done and I have asked all my constituents and committee members of that they would like to see this translated into our language as well.
When it was written in Inuinnaqtun then they were really pleased about that, but also maybe some of the translation should have a better meaning.
Maybe not today, but in some of the translations should be corrected so that we can utilize it once it’s properly translated.
And also, I’m concerned, we were concerned that how they are going to see this document by DST, maybe review it.
How it’s going to be used, maybe whether it will be used in Inuinnaqtun or in English.
For example, for courts that they might use either language, Inuinnaqtun or English and also I would like to see that, I know the government can’t legislate everything by themselves and they have to use the Inuit people because many people have some more knowledge about the land and their wildlife.
Still, I am glad that this is becoming a reality.
I will be asking questions later when question period is on regarding this wildlife act.
I’m going to be helpful in any way that I can to get this act put into place, but maybe sometimes I may not be perfect; I’m going to try and support this document and a lot of people are waiting to see this Act coming to stream and I know the Minister had mentioned that the people are patiently waiting for this Act to come into being.
And they’ve been expecting this for quite a while so people are anxiously waiting for it.
I will be asking some other questions regarding some of the questions that I need to ask the Minister and his officials.
Some of the items that whether if I like it, if I hear something that I might like to comment on it if I have some problems with that I will let the minister know later on.
Bill 35 is a lengthy document, a lengthy Act and I’m happy to finally receive such legislation for the benefit of the hunters.
Here, they were given a chance to give feedback to the government in regards to the Wildlife Act. This was one of the very first concerns that they had, the Wildlife Act, as they had some long standing concerns before.
This is the first time that there is such an Act that involved a lot of people in the North.
Northern people and Inuit were given a chance to express their views.
I don’t have a lengthy comment to make but it is good to see that you have given people a chance to express their views before the legislation was put into place.
I will be asking further questions in this regard. I will be in support of Bill 35 as we have had community consultations on it.
Chairman (interpretation): Just before I continue with general comments, I would like to recognize the people who helped with the Wildlife Act.
Under the Minister’s opening remarks, and the opening remarks made by the committee chairperson, in regards to the Act, I have a few comments to make.
I know that they have gone to three communities in trying to get feedback from the communities regarding the Wildlife Act.
The people in the North, in Nunavut, know about the Wildlife Act, and that is an important piece of legislation that the Nunavut Government has introduced because it affects our livelihood.
We use their skins and all parts of the animals are used.
It is our way of life because it clothes us and feeds us.
So it was very important to Nunavummiut and when something happens in regards to wildlife in the North, then it is all over the media, especially by the animal activists who hear about it right away.
If we manage our wildlife properly, then we will not hear from those animal activists.
If we abandon meat and abandon other wildlife that we kill then we will hear about it.
As long as we manage them properly and prepare them, and bring them home, then we will not be hearing from them.
The Chairman of the committee mentioned regulations and that the Minister holds quite a bit of power in reference to this Bill.
What will happen is that it will not go back to the MLAs, if they want to change the regulations, they can change the regulations anytime.
That is a concern that I have.
The Hunters and Trappers’ Organizations should be involved if they have to do the changes to the regulations.
That would be a better way of doing things.
The Minister could probably establish a committee from each hunters and trappers when they are going to make changes to the regulations.
I would like to see that happen because we are going to agree to the Act, but then they can make changes to the regulations.
That is the only concern that I have that the Department can change the regulations at any time. I do not want them to do it alone; I want them to involve the committee from each Hunters’ and Trappers’ Organizations in the communities, because they are not always Ministers of that certain Department; they always change their portfolios.
I feel that they should have another Committee from the communities, from Hunters and Trappers Organizations to involve them if they are going to do the changes of the regulations.
And, Mr. Chairman, someone said that, I am not saying that the Member who spoke earlier on made a mistake, but he was saying that Qallunaat, the non-aboriginal hunt to extinction, but this is not so.
Some Qallunaat, non-aboriginal people appreciate and want to manage wildlife properly and it is not completely correct what the Member said.
Everybody is the same and some non-aboriginal people are very responsible when it comes to wildlife.
When the time comes, I will have questions to ask the Department in regards to the Act and I would like to say that this is very much appreciated.
I would like to urge the Minister that when they are going to make changes to the regulations that they consult the Hunters and Trappers Organizations because I do not want the Department by itself to be able to change the regulation.
It is going to have a great impact on the people of Nunavut if they make the changes to the regulations.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes, we will have a Question Period later on.
We are under General Comments at this time.
Ever since legislation emerged in the North, some people have campaigned against certain Acts while some people are for it.
For instance, assigning quota system to hunt polar bear and narwhales and yet we had no say in the laws that they made quite some years ago.
We used to think that if that is the way they are going to, if they are going to make laws and we used to feel that we are not, why cannot we get involved?
We used to think that as long as they do not stop us from hunting altogether when the laws first started coming into Nunavut, that is what we felt, that is how we felt because we did not really get involved in the making of legislation.
If somebody shoots a polar bear in the summertime, they take away the hide right away, or if you get a grizzly bear, shoot a grizzly bear, say for instance, around Repulse Bay, they took away the hide because they did not have a tag for killing grizzly.
And when they shot a narwhal around Rankin Inlet, Fisheries and Oceans took it away because they did not have a tag, again.
Like if the narwhals could state to Inuit, “I am going over here, so make sure that you have a tag so you can get me.”, and stuff like that.
It is that kind of a farfetched concept.
Just a little while ago there was an individual who shot a polar bear outside the boundary and it was taken away as well.
It just seems like if the polar bear knows that it is going to be outside this hunter’s boundary, then he would have said, “You know, I will try to stay within the boundary so you can shoot me so you would not have to go to court and my hide would not have to be taken away.”
It is just sort of that idea.
Like a polar bear is not going to go beyond the boundary so as not to be shot.
Now that we have a Wildlife Act, I would like to support it and I’m going to support it but have we asked the Inuit, for example under clause three, it states that under the Inuktitut or appropriate dialect of Inuktitut may be used to interpret the meaning of any guiding principles or concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit used in this act.
Or will the Inuktitut language be less powerful than the English?
It says that the Inuktitut was not done properly in the Wildlife Act, the translation was not properly done.
You already know that Inuktitut is always the secondary language in any legislation.
Inuktitut should take precedence over the English language.
That’s my feeling.
Although some Members were saying that Inuktitut translation at this Act was not done properly.
It is evident that even if it is written in Inuktitut it will not carry as much weight.
I have looked at some of the clauses in the legislation, for instance, somebody shot a polar bear in Chesterfield Inlet, in part two-ten, an Inuk with the proper identification may harvest wildlife without any license or the imposition of any form of tax or fee if in case, in the case where the total allowable harvest for a stock or population of the wildlife is not established.
The harvesting does not exceed the full level of the Inuk’s economic, social and cultural needs.
It doesn’t seem to make too much sense in that clause.
And under clause 22, it states, an applicant for a license must make an application in a form, in terms of it being directed to Inuit I don’t have much to say on it but if someone had broken Fisheries and Oceans regulations they would not be able to attain a license.
If it is not directed toward Inuit then that is okay but if it is it would go something like this; they had caught a bowhead whale in Igloolik following the wishes of an elder who wanted some bowhead whale meat and so what they did was they hunted for a bowhead without a license, but they broke the laws of Fisheries and Oceans.
Is that what would occur if that is the case, would they be charged, would they be questioned?
I can’t really understand clause 24 which states that under Article 5 of the agreement only the following persons are eligible to be issued a license to all this fur barriers within the Nunavut settlement area in these dates.
In these dates like a person who has a valid general hunting license on October 27, 1981.
Where is, are we talking about people that previously had a GHL or is it people born before October 27, 1981?
Those kinds of things have to be questioned and under Clause 42, we were told already that we do not have to have a license inside Nunavut in order to hunt, but under 42-2 in the carrying of identification, an Inuk, or any other person exercising his or her right to harvest wildlife under Section 12, 13, and 14 shall carry his or her proper identification while harvesting that wildlife.
So those kinds of things in these Clauses that I mentioned seem to be contradictory, and under Clause 44, the Superintendent may cancel any license issued in error.
The Superintendent should be able to ask the Chairman of the Hunters and Trappers’ Association before they cancel the license.
Those types of things in this Act seem to be contradicting Inuit rights.
I am not trying to be against the Act by picking on those clauses, but Inuit were given a chance to consult or to be involved in the consultation of this Wildlife Act only because they asked to, because they were asking to be involved.
They were not consulted at the beginning when the Wildlife Act was being drafted.
One has to wonder if Inuit were consulted adequately.
Often, they were consulted only after insisting that they be heard.
Often such meetings were rushed, and organized at the last minute, sometimes with only 3 days notice.
Were they given a proper chance to be involved fully?
I am not really sure at this point.
So it would be good for the Government to be able to agree to the amendments that we would like to pose to the department and to the Minister.
At the appropriate time during Question Period, I will be asking questions on that.
I will make my comments brief regarding Bill 35.
There has been a lot of work put into it by HTO Chairs and others in the communities who were appointed to review Bill 35.
I too would like to say that I am proud for the hard work that was put into this.
We really have all worked hard on this collectively, through the committees with different concerns and amendments dealt with throughout the process.
I heard that there were some inconsistencies in the translation by the Chair, and so we reviewed some of the contents and made some suggestions in some of the minor typos that were in the Bill, and we met with the Minister as a Committee.
Some of the typos have been fixed and it looks a lot better than we have seen in Inuktitut.
This Bill recognizes the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement’s Article 5 regarding Inuit harvesting rights and the local HTO’s have more of an authority.
I would like to see that implemented as soon as possible.
And reading through the different Clauses, you get a better understanding what some of those authorities are that will be turned over to those HTOs.
That is encouraging.
There are people expecting the enactment of Bill 35.
I think many people will breathe a sigh of relief once it is passed.
Those include the HTO Chairs, and many of those people have put in long hours into this work.
There is going to be an election in December for some of those HTOs and I think they are to be commended for their hard work.
I will be in support of Bill 35 because we have the opportunity after five years to review the problems, or the lack thereof, in Bill 35.
Once implemented, we will still have the opportunity to get back into it and review its contents.
Bill 35, general comments.
Just like to remind you that during the questions you’ll have time allowed for each Member.
I’ll give 10 minutes for each Member to ask questions to the Minister on Bill 35.
The floor is open for any questions.
Try and keep it to the point.
Questions to the Bill.
The floor is now open, or would you like to go clause by clause.
Regarding Bill 35, I have some questions.
It states that on page one, part two, the Wildlife Act reprint.
The commissioner of Nunavut by and with the advice and concern of the Legislative Assembly in act as follows: I’ll read this first part.
It states;
The purpose of this Act is to establish a comprehensive regime for the management of wildlife and habitat in Nunavut including the conservation protection and recovery of species at risk in a manner that implements provision of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement respecting wildlife habitat and the rights of Inuit in relation to wildlife and habitat.
But if this is to Inuit and in reading that part do I understand it correctly that this Bill applies to all Inuit in Nunavut.
Can the Minister please respond to that?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Akesuk.
Yes, this Bill is for Nunavut.
Other jurisdictions in Canada have their own wildlife acts.
This Bill is for Inuit of Nunavut.
In his response, do I understand it then that this will only apply to Inuit of Nunavut.
There is something I’m disagreeing with so if he can please clarify that once more.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. So, I’ll ask the question clause by clause.
Mr. Havioyak (interpretation): During my opening comments in regards to the translation of the Bill in Inuinnaqtun.
I don’t mind the English version of the Bill as we all have seen it with the standing committee.
I have concerns in regards to the Inuinnaqtun version.
As I stated earlier, in some of the areas in terms of the words or terms of the translations, some of the words or translations should be corrected.
I am not stating that it is not understandable, but all I am saying is that some of the words should be corrected to use better terms so that the Inuinnaqtun unilingual people can understand the Bill.
Again, I am stating that in the English version, it is very understandable, but in the Inuinnaqtun version of it, it has to be corrected.
Yes, I think the question is will the corrections be made in the future?
For example, one word, I will use one word for example.
The term for example, in English translation ‘applications’ because in Inuinnaqtun there is another term.
Although, I want you to understand we make corrections to the Inuinnaqtun version so that our elders can understand it, we do not want to exclude our elders who speak Inuinnaqtun.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Perhaps on the Inuinnaqtun version, there may be some inconsistencies with the different dialects according to what community you are from.
That may be the case.
However, we have done the best we can to get them translated as adequately as possible and yes, there are some corrections to be made because we want the best possible Act and because we need residents to understand its contents, then I think part of it may be due to dialect differences.
So, there may be other sections in the Act that may be questioned through court challenges and may become an issue and there may be some contradictions between the translations.
And so, we, if it ever comes to that, then we will have to really start discussing the differences in our dialects and the language issues that surround this and because there are some dialectical differences, that may be a big part of why there are some inconsistencies.
Mr. Havioyak (interpretation): I understand your response very clearly.
I think what you were saying, yes, we can correct the translations and the terms in the future.
Yes, I will commit to that.
I am very pleased with your response.
That is what I wanted to hear.
Aside from that, I wanted to raise another question in regards to another Committee in the community, perhaps.
For example, 159, Clause 159, I will get there later, but that is all, I am using that for example.
I would like to hear you state that, for example, this is Kitikmeot, Kivalliq, Rankin or in the three regions we use that for an example, the three regions in Nunavut.
As we know in different communities in the three regions although the hunting techniques are similar, there are some hunting techniques that are different.
Will you consider what the different hunting techniques are in the different regions?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman Yes I’m sure there’ll be some recognition of some of different hunting techniques within the community.
We do recognize that although they are somewhat similar we will make the effort to recognize the different hunting techniques of the different communities within this Act.
With consultation with the HTOs and with more authority given to the HTOs we will be more consistent in recognizing the different needs of the regions within Nunavut and once we are going clause by clause I’m sure you will have more detailed questions and we’ll try to clear it up for you.
When Mr. Anawak was discussing the issue about polar bears, I support his comments.
The Bill that was introduced, once there was a polar bear kill if it’s a big male polar bear, if they don’t see the penis they won’t acknowledge it as male or if they had lost that polar bear and it’s a male polar bear they use that tag and identify it as a female although they have been told that it was a male polar bear because we are not given the respect as hunters.
I’m wondering if you have heard of any cases or if you have dealt within your department with the proposed Bill 35.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Thank you. Yes we worked on this Bill for quite some time, and Ms. Williams’ comments regarding regulations within this Bill are going to be set and once we discuss those regulations, once the Bill has been passed it is not necessary to include consultation however we will commit to include NTI, NWMB and other Inuit organizations once we start dealing with regulations, and Mr. Netser’s comments will be dealt with through regulation as to how the management of wildlife will be dealt with under those regulations.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you; anything else?
There’s also an ongoing problem, when there is a female polar bear caught they take four out of the quota for that one female polar bear and some hunters sometimes aren’t responsible when they are hunting for polar bear, some of the tags are used up because the hunter might have caught a female polar bear so that causes problems for the whole community, and the whole community is scolded for that one persons actions.
That has been an ongoing problem because we are not all irresponsible.
There are only a select few who do not follow the rules, so it causes problems for the whole community, and if a female polar bear was caught the whole community is scolded and quotas taken out of their community allotment of four.
I think there should be an option that if this hunter caught a polar bear on purpose, then they should take away that hunter’s right and privilege to hunt, because the whole community ends up paying for that one irresponsible hunter’s actions.
So I would like to see that in the regulations dealt with where the whole community should not pay for that one person’s actions.
Yes, with the Bill that is before us if it was enacted in the future the regulations will also have to be dealt with to be better suited to Nunavut.
I am sure that would be one of the items on the agenda for people to work on with the help of local HTOs and we will ensure there is proper consultation.
Once those consultations that currently are in place, that were enacted in 1974, are quite outdated and if this new Act is enacted in 2003, the regulations will also have to be updated as well.
As I said those regulations will not only come from the Government.
We will ensure that there is consultation with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, NTI, and Inuit to ensure that the regulations are made in Nunavut as well.
So we will take your comments and take them seriously because I am sure that once the regulations are worked on, there will be some involvement at the community level.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Today during Question Period as Members we have one hour for Oral Questions, and I never had the opportunity, so before we start I have two main questions.