EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): As I stated earlier, thank you, Mr. Chairman, I said, once the implementation contract with the federal government and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is completed, once the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board increases the budgets, then we as a government will reconsider the budget arrangements.
So, according to his comments then, is he saying they have negotiated with the federal government for the increase of those budgets?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): No, we are not negotiating with the federal government. I’m saying the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is in negotiation for the implementation contract.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Once the bill is enacted, the HTO’s will have added responsibilities and they will probably have to hire additional staff and the government will be providing funds.
So, I’m just wondering if there is a consideration for the increase in the funding for those local HTO’s with the added responsibilities.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Kilabuk.
For those questions and responses, just to make sure that we’re at the same level, Mr. Iqaqrialu was asking about who will administer this Act.
I was wondering if Mr. Iqaqrialu was asking about who this Act will apply to.
The wildlife officers, whether they will be administering the Act, so, I’m just wondering if there is a miscommunication between those two.
If I understand his question correctly, yes, the government will administer this Act because it is a Government Act.
That was my response and I’m hoping that was Mr. Iqaqrialu’s question, that’s how I understood it, if this would be a government administered Bill.
It is hard to determine if there will be an increase in the budgets flowing into the HTOs: they do have members at the local level, and they will be versed on this new Act and the chairs of the local HTOs have a very good understanding because they have been involved in the make up of this Bill.
I’m sure that they had passed on all that information to their local HTOs regarding the Bill and how much of an impact it will have on the responsibilities at the local HTO level and we’ve been saying that they have really high expectations of this Bill.
My colleague Kilabuk really cleared it up for me.
Those organizations will help to administer for instance the local HTOs.
He states NWMB and NTI who are additional sources of funding and also help to lobby to ensure there is an increase in the HTO budgets.
I think we have to be really careful that these local HTO’s budgets for the added responsibilities that come from the Bill will really have to be cleared up.
Will that be considered?
Once we go clause by clause, in clause 148 part 6 states, once he gets there it will clear up as who will be directly administering the Bill and what the responsibilities will be for each of those people and we’ll get to that once we get to that clause.
We will clear it up for him once we get there if we are able to get there this evening.
I have now found my list.
Bill 35-The Wildlife Act reprint.
General Provisions Part 1.
Chairman (interpretation): Again.
Chairman (interpretation): Definitions.
Interpretation. Clause 3.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): My apologies.
I had a question in clause 2.
Mr. Chairman if we could go back to that.
Chairman (interpretation): Yes we shouldn’t be rushing through this process.
And if we do rush we will make mistakes.
I’ll allow you to go back to clause 2.
On number 6 and clause 2 in Inuktitut.
Page 7 in Inuktitut, I’ll read it, it is on the top, after all those numbers, 1, harvest means the reduction of wildlife into possession and includes hunting, trapping, netting, egging, picking, collecting, gathering, spearing, killing, casually or taking by any means.
Is that the one, oh no, hunt, the next one, means doing any of the following things to wild animal with the intention of killing or capturing it or while in possession of a trap or weapon, whether or not the wild animal is then or subsequently however vested or wounded changing, driving, flushing, attracting, pursuing, or even following after, I’d just like a further clarification in the last part of that, what you really mean.
This is a definition of hunt that includes not just the action of pulling the trigger say on the rifle, but the process of following it, hunting it, so, these words here are meant to include all the aspects of the hunt.
Not just the final act of shooting the animal, but all the aspects for it, searching for it and actually hunting.
I’m not against the definition, I just wanted clarification.
As a hunter, if I was to go by this Act, I don’t go by any Act at this point so, will the people of Nunavut have to follow this?
Who is this intended for?
Is it for the people of Nunavut?
Can you please clarify who that definition applies to?
Yes, this applies to all of Nunavummiut.
As this is made in Nunavut Act, that section he read will apply to all of the Inuit in Nunavut.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): If he further clarifies very briefly for Nunavummiut, if they were to infringe that definition, are they subject to a court challenge?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): I’ll get Mr. Tigullagaq to respond to that.
I’ll pass the mike over to Mr. Tigullaraq.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Tigullaraq.
Mr. Tigullaraq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just to further clarify that definition, that is mainly for the wildlife officers.
If he saw that definition, if they saw any person hunting, trapping or doing any of those actions, then this wildlife officer who will be enforcing the Act will have a better idea what some hunting activities are.
So, that’s the purpose of this definition and it’s just to further clarify what types of activities there are in a hunt and it applies to people of Nunavut.
I’m sure that all these activities wouldn’t be applied in one hunt.
Okay, if you go further down, I will read just under those 1’s.
Inuk means a person enrolled from time to time under Article 35 of the Agreement.
Inuit of Northern Quebec means Inuit as defined in the James Bay, and Northern Quebec Agreements.
Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit means traditional Inuit values, knowledge, behaviour, perceptions, and expectations.
My colleague from Hall Beach was asking and there was a response that perhaps we do not really know what the regulations will contain so the HTOs will have the ability to help out in that section.
Is that why it is left like that?
I do not really understand his question.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Iqaqrialu, can you clarify your question please?
I am sorry the Minister does not understand his definition in the Bill.
I will not read anything from in there then.
If there was an Inuk coming in from Northern Quebec into Nunavut, does that mean that he will get those rights as soon as he lands in Nunavut?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): According to the Agreement, and once we go to Clause 12, it deals with the rights of other treaty rights, either in Northern Quebec, or in the Northwest Territories, and other jurisdictions.
Chairman (interpretation): Interpretation Inuktitut page 1, Clause 3.
Chairman (interpretation): Passed.
Determining Residents.
Aboriginal and Treaty Rights.
Under that Clause, I will read it.
For greater certainty nothing in this Act shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing Aboriginal or Treaty Rights of the Aboriginal peoples of Canada, under Section 35 of the Constitution Act.
Can you please clarify that Clause?
I seem to understand it that we will let go of our rights.
Can you please clarify that is not so?
No, the purpose of this Clause is to make sure that nothing in this Act takes away from any Aboriginal or Constitutional right.
So you know we have worked very hard to make sure that all the rights of Inuit in the Land Claim are repeated in this document.
If, by any chance, we have made an error, or somehow misinterpreted something, this Clause will make it clear that this Bill is not intended to take away from Aboriginal or Treaty rights.
On page 12 in Inuktitut.
Area of Application.
Binding Effect.
Guiding Principles and Concepts.
Pijitsirniq.
Inuit Right to Harvest.
Right of Access.
Inuit of Northern Quebec.
Aboriginal People of Northwest Territories.
This clause, aboriginal people of Northwest Territories pursuant to the agreement, a member of the aboriginal people of Northwest Territories with proper identification might harvest wildlife within those areas of Nunavut settlement area.
I need a clarification on that one.
For example, people in the Northwest Territories and Northern Quebec, I was wondering if you know their agreement, is that why this clause was put in there?
The agreement, this is included in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement provisions.
It’s evident that the people of Northern Quebec are now negotiating the agreement and this came directly from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Chairman (interpretation): Aboriginal People of the Northwest Territories.
Members of the Manitoba Band or Saskatchewan Band.
Assignees.
Proper identification.
Requirement for Right or License.
Requirement for Licence.
When you have questions please include the numbers or letters in the brackets.
Under Clause 19(1) and there are a, b, c’s in brackets, on the top.
For example, the license that may be required under this Act include license to harvest wildlife, including license for non-residence with aboriginal rights not set in the agreement.
I need clarification on that please.
Mr. Orr will respond to that question.
This is particularly designed to deal with people like the James Bay Cree who have Treaty Rights in Nunavut, but those rights are not set out in Article 40 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Since it is not included in the Land Claims Agreement, perhaps I am just misunderstanding.
I do not have any problems with it, really.
We are not talking about Nunavummiut, are we?
We are talking about other jurisdictions outside of Nunavut.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes, we are not talking about Nunavummiut under this Clause.
Chairman (interpretation): Requirements for License.
Species at Risk License.
Special Exemptions.
Application Requirements.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): It states here under this Clause, application requirements.
An application for a license must under (3) a child who has not attained the age of 16 is ineligible to hold a license unless the child has attained the age of 12 years, and the child’s parent, or guardian endorses the application for a license.
Who are we talking about here?
Yes, this does not really apply to Inuit.
It applies to the non-beneficiaries of Nunavut.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Iqaqrialu, are you finished?
I do not understand his response.
We are not talking about aboriginal people, like there are adopted people living in Nunavut.
I did not understand the Minister’s response.
All he said that it applies to non-natives.
The application of this subsection 22(3) is for children who require a license to do something.
The only children who require a license would be non-beneficiary children who need a hunting license.
An Inuk child would not need a license and would therefore hunt at any age, as far as this Act is concerned.
So the only way this would apply to a beneficiary is if a child wanted a license to engage in some commercial activity, in which case all they need is their physical, they have to be at least 12 years old and their parent, or guardian has to agree to it, which we thought was a reasonable limit, but for normal harvesting, this would not apply to a beneficiary child.
Do you have any additional questions?
In Minister’s Opening Comments, yes, that the people who worked on this Bill have worked all night, all day.
I think that is what is starting to happen to me because I do not understand what Mr. Orr is saying that if an individual comes in here from Montreal who is 12 years old and 16 years old, when they apply for license, is that what we are talking about?
Minister, please introduce your Official who just sat down because it is for the record.
I was going to introduce him as soon as my microphone went on.
Steve Pinksen, he works in the Wildlife Division for Sustainable Development and ever since the beginning of this, ever since the start of this process, he has been working with it.
In regards to Ms. Williams’ question, there is a residence here, there is a requirement for people who come into Nunavut and they have to be orientated, too, about our environment.
We are not just going to hand out a license to a newcomer and we will probably never get to see the individual if we happen to give licenses to individuals coming in from Montreal like tomorrow.
Is what it, if an individual wants to go seal hunting, caribou hunting, we are talking about harvesting here?
What kind of a license are we talking about?
Is that for harvesting license or to build a construction building or whatever?
We are talking about any license and in 19(2) it states that who requires a license.
Chairman (interpretation): Application requirements.
Clause 22. Do you agree?
Harvesting polar bears in Nunavut settlement or sorry, big game guide qualifications 23. Agreed?
Harvesting Polar Bears in Nunavut Settlement Area. Clause 24. do you agree?
I just got a question under 23.
Can I ask a question under 23?
Chairman (interpretation): Big game guide qualifications.
Yes, Mr. McLean.
Under Clause 23(2) different classes of big game guides may be established in the regulations and the qualifications for each class are to be established by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Could the Minister be a little bit more specific in the classifications of big game guides?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Pinksen.
Mr. Pinksen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In the current systems, some people may be familiar with, they have different qualifications depending on the type of animal you are guiding for and the different training requirements for each of those and similarly there are different training requirements for guides who are non-hunting guides.
So we left this open to the possibility that there may be a need for a similar system in the future.
I know there is going to be an Elders’ Advisory Committee, and there is also going to be a group of individuals working under the regulations, working and drafting the regulations.
I just want to caution the Minister that when you are starting to get into classification, the big game hunters, you know, and what that entails, because if you are a big game hunter in Nunavut now, or a big game hunting guide, you are pretty well-rounded.
When they get to that level, where they are guiding for musk-ox, or grizzly bears, or polar bears, or wolves, or even caribou, these guys are usually pretty good, but when they talk about different classifications, like that is why I am saying, may, may, and that word “may” could cause a lot of harm for the simple fact that when we were doing our Nunavut Tourism Tours, quite a few of the communities were saying that they never had any big games courses, big game guide training courses, in a long, long time, and money is always a premium now, and there are shortages. My feeling, and what I am getting to here is that, if the regulations are written and there is not serious consideration made about big game guides then the regulation could say well you need to have this, this, this, this sort of qualification.
To get that in smaller communities like the Clyde Rivers and Arctic Bays and stuff, you have to run guide training courses.
At the end of the day there is always not enough money to run these big games guide training courses for big game animals like Baker Lake has been lucky to have quite a few guide training courses in the last few years, but that is an exception.
What I am getting to here is that there is always a cost; there is always a cost when you are setting the qualifications for people to go do their jobs in Nunavut.
So can you guarantee to this House that the qualification for guides is not going to cost the guides themselves at the day for taking this training?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Pinksen.
Qualification themselves will be set by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board as per the agreement.
I am aware of the fact that the Board has already made that decision.
They have set what those are.
There is a bit of a problem with the availability of training courses, as you have correctly stated.
We have been involved in discussions with Arctic College and Nunavut Tourism towards making more training available for big game guides.
Those discussions have not progressed as far as the cost of the courses.
Certainly there will be an interest in releasing the cost to the individual guide.
Not in that, but under Clause 24, I had a question, Mr. Chairman.
I am sorry. I am ahead of myself.
Chairman (interpretation): Big Game Guide Qualifications.
Ms. Williams (interpretation): Which Clause?
Chairman (interpretation): Harvesting Fur Bearers in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Clause 24.
Under Clause 24, I would like to read Special Harvesting Fur Bearers in Nunavut Settlement Area pursuant to the Agreement and subject to Article 5 of the Agreement, only the following persons are eligible to be issued a license to harvest fur bearers within the Nunavut settlement area.
A person who held a valid General Hunting License on October 27, 1981, and who actually harvested fur bearers in those areas in the Nunavut Settlement area where the person desires to continue to harvest fur bearers after the date of the ratification of the agreement.
Where did you get the October 27, 1981 date from?
This clause is basically taken right out of the Land Claims, Article 5. 6.13.
For the flexibility on the government to change the terms of the date of it, if the Member is interested in how the land claim was negotiated to that date, you might be able to find that out, but we had no flexibility on this when drafting this particular clause.
In the previous pages, in regards to Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, it doesn’t have anything to do with the previous pages or clauses that we just talked about.
In the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement it is already in there.
So, we just follow the date on that.
So, and Mr. Iqaqrialu was also involved in the agreement, so, we have to stick to that date for Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Chairman (interpretation): Harvesting fur bearers in Nunavut settlement areas.
Issuance.
Signature of the holder.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Signature of holder.
It’s the holder of the license; the person who holds the license.
Signature of holder.
Authority of License.
Imposing terms and conditions.
Under example.
Under S. The number, sex, age, or size of wildlife to which the license applies.
What animals or wildlife are we talking about?
Chairman (interpretation): Which one of you?
It’s talking about any wildlife to which the license applies to.
If you have, for polar bears, caribou, whichever wildlife that your license applies to for the non-aboriginal people.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Yes, I understand but does it have to do with sport hunters?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes. Thank you.
Imposing Terms and Conditions.
Amendment of Licence.
Mandatory Refusal.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Under Mandatory Refusal.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): The ones that are refused.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Perhaps the people who want to acquire a licence, people who are not residents of Nunavut, is that what they are talking about?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes. It’s for the people who are non-beneficiaries.
Chairman (interpretation): Mandatory Refusal.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Notice (1), I will read it before refusing to issue a licence respecting commercial activity on discretionary grounds the person making the refusal shall (a) notify the applicant in writing that he or she is considering not issuing the licence.
Under clause 32, seems to be related.
Mr. Orr: Yes, they are related.
So, where you have a discretion in respects to commercial licence then you have to explain then why you are refusing.
Chairman (interpretation): Notice.
Expiry Date.
Void Licences.
Not Transferable.
Assignment of Share of Total Allowable Harvest.
Restrictions on Assigned Right.
Evidence of Assignment.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): From (2) Exception it states; not withstanding subsection 1 (1) a verbal assignment under section 16 will or 37 may be effective for a temporary period not exceeding 48 hours if I could get the clarification on that please.
The idea is if you do not have time to write out an assignment before you go out hunting for an example, because it’s impractical to create the document, you have 48 hours after the assignment takes place to actually write it down.
So, in general if you do an assignment you have to write it down but this is an exception because if it’s not possible because of the circumstances to write it down and those are laid in the exception in subsection 2.
Is that directed to the non-residents of Nunavut?
There are several types of assignment under the land claims; it could be from an Inuk assigning a shared total harvest or assigning their quota to a non-beneficiary who has a license, but it could also be an assignment from one Inuk to another in a situation where there is a limit on the amount of harvesting, for example, polar bear.
So it’s not always a case of non-beneficiary; it could apply to an Inuk as well.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Is it directed to people of Nunavut too as well?
Yes, that’s the way it is.
In Clyde River the HTO’s had a public meeting.
They stated that it didn’t matter where they lived, they had a right to hunt so, if it’s going to be directed to the people of Nunavut it will give them barriers when the communities each has a rule or HTO’s has a rule; is there anyway that we don’t have to use this section?
If I go to Clyde River and if Mr. Iqaqrialu issues me his rights to me to hunt that, that’s possible according to each community’s HTOs rule, so that’s what it means.
Registration of Assignment. Clause 40.
Issuance of a Tag to an Assignee. Clause 41.
Carrying Licence.
Request for Production of Document.
Under clause 43 under (3) delay in production of document a person is not guilty of an offence under subsection 1 if within 48 hours of the request the person, I’m not really sure exactly what that means.
Mr. Chairman, can you give me clarification?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): What it is saying is, say for instance if I produce my drivers’ license, that is what it means.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): It seems like it is talking about the hunting license.
The people of Nunavut, as Jack mentioned earlier on, we do not usually bring along our wallet or identification because I have lost mine before, so I do not like to bring them.
I just want to get more clarification on that; is that what it means?
Mr. Orr: Mr. Chairman, yes, the idea is that the Land Claims seem to imply that people have to take identification with them when they are exercising their rights and what we have done here is that if the person is not guilty in defence, if they fail to have it with them, as long as they, if the request is to show it and they may not be requested, but if they were requested to show it because you are going to see a stranger in the area, they would have 48-hours to produce it and what the Minister was implying was this is similar to when you are driving your car or truck and you do not have your drivers’ license, normally you have a period of time when you can produce it afterwards.
Chairman (interpretation): Request for Production of Document.
Cancellation for Error.
Loss of Qualification.
Chairman (interpretation): Opposed? Carried.
Power to Cancel or Suspend.
Notification, Clause 47.
By Judge or Justice of the Peace.
By Justice of the Peace of 48, just under there, the justice of the peace or judge when convicting a person of an offence under this Act or grant an absolute or conditional discharge in respect of the offence may cancel any license held by that person, suspense any license held by the person for a specified period of time and prohibit the issue or renewal of any license of that person.
How would you know that, Mr. Chairman?