EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
According to what I just heard, the minister was saying that his department does not work with ED&T on the development partnership agreements.
I was wondering why that would be.
When I sit down and I think about what is going to happen when a big project like Mary River happens, some of the concerns that have been brought up by community members is the caribou that people are worried about, at least from the north with Arctic Bay and down in Igloolik. In Hall Beach, it would be walrus and some other marine mammals down in Steensby.
My understanding of the way the development partnership agreement works is money is generated and money goes to the territory.
There is the IIBA, which has nothing to do with the Government of Nunavut.
In terms of monitoring, possibly, invasive species, with different flora and fauna showing up, maybe walrus populations, is this not something that your department should be at the table to make sure… ?
Again, since we don’t know what’s in the IIBAs, something that would fall under the Department of Environment and the Government of Nunavut is to track and see what species we’re either losing or gaining, whether populations are growing. If it is a mine that is going to be there between 20 and 100 years, I would hope that the department would have some slight interest in what is happening with the animal populations.
Otherwise, we won’t have any information to see what’s there.
As Mr. Curley pointed out earlier, people who were born in 1940 might not be around in 20 years to call upon that traditional knowledge to see if it is there.
We might need to rely on some other type of information to see what is happening with the animals.
I meant to say that we give advice to ED&T on these issues, but we’re not directly involved with them.
If you will allow the Minister of ED&T to speak to it through you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the development partnership agreement is negotiated after a project certificate is issued to the developer. The project certificate identifies who all the departments are going to be monitoring.
It’s usually all the regulators all the way from the federal government, including Environment Canada. All the departments are involved. A development partnership agreement is after the fact, once a project certification has been given to the project proponent.
A development partnership agreement has only to do with fuel tax rebates.
It’s voluntary to the company and of course, it’s got to be beneficial for both the proponent and the Government of Nunavut.
We try and include the eight principles, which are training, employment, infrastructure needs, and so forth, but it has really very little to do with monitoring of wildlife because that’s already stipulated within the project certification for the proponent.
Thank you for that answer. The next question I wanted to ask is in regard to and I know we’re under corporate management in terms of policies and planning for the department.
If the Department of Environment is going to be doing research in one of the areas across the territory, does the Government of Nunavut have to follow the same process as a researcher outside of the territory?
By that, I mean: do they go to the Nunavut Research Institute to apply for a research permit and then, if so, do they have to follow through under the NIRB process?
I will have my Assistant Deputy Minister, Mr. Pinksen, respond to the question.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak Mr. Pinksen.
I think there may have been three separate questions.
The first was: is research by the Government of Nunavut subject to the same conditions and process?
The answer is yes. When one of our research projects goes forward, there are requirements for permits and consultations. Our projects are subject to the same process.
I think the second part was about whether our projects have to go through a NIRB screening for research projects. The answer is that some do and some don’t because we negotiate exemptions for minor issues.
Normally they would go through NIRB for review, but to reduce the volume of minor things going through NIRB, we would negotiate exemptions as per the land claims, which allows for exemptions.
I believe I may have missed the final part of your question. My apologies if there was a final part.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Pinksen.
No, that covered all three in terms of I was just curious to find out if we had to, as a government, follow the NIRB process, but I believe the answer does help.
In terms of projects, such as counting caribou populations and tracking polar bear populations, do the same processes have to follow in terms of those considered and classified as research or are those just day-to-day businesses of the department?
I will have Mr. Pinksen respond to that question.
Mr. Pinksen: Thank you again.
All of our research projects, whether it be counting caribou or polar bears or collecting samples, require permitting. Therefore, they go through the same review process.
For the different types of research projects, what kind of consultation… ? I believe you had mentioned there was a consultation portion in terms of consulting communities. How does the Government of Nunavut do that?
We do require consultations before we issue a research permit and it doesn’t matter if you’re a GN researcher or a non-GN researcher. There is a consultation requirement. The proponents are required to inform affected communities, normally through the HTOs, sometimes one community and sometimes multiple communities.
If communities raise concerns about the project, we normally would ask the researcher to address those concerns.
In the vast majority of cases, the research project is adjusted to meet community concerns.
We do conduct those consultations at each case.
I have no more names on my list for I-4. (interpretation ends) Environment.
Branch Summary. Corporate Management. Total Operations and Maintenance. $4,325,000.
While we are on I-4, I would like to ask a question. Can you give me an opportunity to ask a question on I-4?
My question is about compensation for damaged equipment.
For instance, when someone lost their hunting equipment, there was about $80,000 in funding for compensation. They want to change it to about $40,000. It used to be in the amount of $80,000.
Why do you want to change it to about $40,000?
Your question is on I-5, (interpretation ends) Program Management. (interpretation) So if you can wait until we get to the next page. I have no more names on my list for I-4. (interpretation ends) Environment.
Branch Summary. Corporate Management. Total Operations and Maintenance. $4,325,000. (interpretation) Do you agree?
We are on I-5. The first name that I have is Mr. Curley and then it will be Mr. Enook’s turn.
They talk about the stakeholders who get funding grants and contributions.
I think they’re talking about the HTOs that get grants and contributions.
Does the government have any concerns about the money that is being given to HTOs? It’s very inadequate.
They want to get permits and they want to do research, but the HTOs don’t have any funding or their funding is inadequate.
Do we know exactly what kind of workload they have when they are helping out the government department? Is it just community projects? I would like to find out what kind of workload they have.
They get a small contribution from the Government of Nunavut, but in the land claims agreement, they do get financial support from the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. It’s a requirement for them to provide funds.
I can get my deputy to supplement my response, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. To supplement the response, we provide these funds on a yearly basis. It is now through an agreement and we supplement that.
If there is a requirement to make a report, we pay for their honorarium through another avenue of funds.
For the yearly contribution, it is $120,000 that is not only provided by the Government of Nunavut, but also the federal government.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) It seems like there has been a slight change. When was the last time you made an increment? Of course, you need the help of the HTOs when you’ve got a project going.
When was the last time there was an increase in the funds that are provided to the HTOs?
There has not been an increase in the funding provided since it was established.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) In your opening statement, there is a requirement to increase the funds of the departmental budgets, but with the growing roles and responsibilities of the hunters and trappers organizations, there has never been an increase.
Are we going to see it at the same level forever?
We provide $125,000 in total to the hunters and trappers organizations.
I’ll have Mr. Pinksen supplement that response.
I felt that we don’t have to say this to everybody, but the territorial government provided funding for HTOs prior to the signing of the land claims.
That was their only real source of funding, but with the signing of the land claims, the responsibility for funding HTOs became a federal responsibility and the government has not provided any additions to that because it’s now a federal responsibility.
However, the GN is a part of negotiations to support increased funding for HTOs and those negotiations are currently ongoing to seek adequate funding for HTOs through Canada.
Anyway, I’m going to switch to English because I don’t think it’s all that specifically clear about funding.
The only reason that there was a reference in the agreement is that there was a need to coordinate workloads and services to include community hunters and trappers organizations at that time.
We called them hunters and trappers associations prior to the land claims agreement.
In order to develop consistencies so that all communities have local organizations, the new term was used, “HTOs,” so that they are properly registered and they are properly established.
It was never, ever mentioned that the role and relationship with the GN and the HTO was now “dumped” over to the federal government. That was never the intent.
The intent was to make sure these organizations are registered.
If it didn’t do that, they probably would still not be properly registered and, therefore, functioning, as there were many organizations that were not properly registered prior to the land claims agreement was signed. I was there, so I’m aware of that.
In order to make sure that they were properly registered and functioning, the land claims negotiators took it upon themselves to make sure that they wouldn’t pay, but in terms of the workloads, I don’t think it’s the GN. The GN is not given any less responsibility to ensure funding is adequate. The workloads have increased.
No organization can function with $120,000 overhead if that includes personnel. That’s about one individual within the government’s average job cost or salary.
I’m going to move on. When dealing with the program funding like the community harvest support program, again that hasn’t changed from about roughly $1,000 per community.
We always talk about “We’re going to use poverty reduction,” yet the community harvest allowance is only $1,000.
When can we expect Nunavut community members to have a bit more community allowance funds increase and, if that is going to happen, when will that be?
We’re not prepared to make an increment to the funding we provide to the HTOs.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, perhaps I will ask him directly.
With the community hunters facing many challenges, such as cold weather or when the caribou are long distances away, or other species that are being sought, specifically community-related hunting or fishing trips, can this matter be taken into consideration given the cost of supplies?
I don’t want the government to forget that everything seems to get more expensive.
I know for a fact that real hunters who are more prone to success are stuck in the communities since they can’t afford the purchase costs of snowmobiles, outboard motors, or boats.
There is no place to turn for assistance. There is no program available.
They don’t qualify for bank loans.
How can we provide more assistance to these real hunters, those who are more capable, but who can’t afford to purchase the equipment?
If a hunter is going to buy hunting equipment, he will have to have at least 4 percent, actually one-quarter of the amount for purchase as a down payment.
How can we provide some assistance to those truly in need? Should they continue to have no expectations of financial assistance from the Nunavut government to purchase these items? They can only turn to outside sources, such as banks.
We would like to give financial support to the hunters, but we do have an agreement.
We have no plans to increase the funds, but Mr. Akeeagok can supplement my response, Mr. Chairman.
With the community contributions, we will keep this program going. To date, we haven’t made any changes to the amount.
There is a plan to review the program under our business plan and the hunters’ responsibility is to buy their own hunting equipment.
We don’t have a program for hunting equipment, but there are programs available through the environment section regarding selling of pelts and so on, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, I understand that we are limited in providing funding, but there has been a lot of hype about poverty reduction policies and programs put in place.
The best poverty reduction initiative is to give Nunavutmiut hunters some independence. If they regain their independence rather than depending on the government through income support, they can be better off in providing for their families.
The policy of this government is that the wealthier you are in Nunavut in terms of having a business, the more support you get from this government. If you are not qualified for business grants and assistance, you are at the mercy of the banks or local vendors, Co-ops or Northern, and they will charge you 28 percent for any equipment you buy. I always say that a hunter may end up tripling that amount because he has been defaulting on his payments.
(interpretation) How will our fellow Nunavutmiut be able to purchase boats or outboard motors or snowmobiles, for example, when we’re not relying on dog teams anymore?
I’m keeping my questions as brief as possible.
Thank you for the question. Our hunters work very hard to have adequate supplies.
NTI has the Harvester Support Program, but the government does not provide any financial support directly to the hunters for hunting equipment.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. (interpretation) But (interpretation ends) it is our choice as a government and the cabinet.
The choice is up to us. The land claims agreement does not prevent the government from doing additional or enhancing any other programs that exist.
The NTI program is really not enough. It’s under-funded. It’s probably depleted now.
It doesn’t stop the government from doing any new initiatives.
I can give you an example. The government can choose to provide interest-free loans or it can just agree to pay the interest charges of any machines that they buy and help them out. I can tell you that if I was a cabinet minister and I relocated to Iqaluit, I would have my mortgage expenses covered by the government.
Is there a policy?
We can’t do a thing for hunters. Is that what I’m hearing the minister say?
The government provides monies through different programs, such as the compensation program they have, should there be equipment damaged or destroyed.
I can’t say that we don’t provide any financial support. We provide support through other programs.
I will have Mr. Akeeagok supplement my response.
Under our department, we don’t have anything directly related to subsidizing hunting equipment like snowmobiles, but we do provide subsidies through other programs.
There is a business incentive through Economic Development that can provide financial support, but under Environment, we don’t have anything directly related to providing a subsidy for hunting equipment and we don’t have a hunter support program.
I understand your response and I thank you, but I think we need to provide more financial assistance to the people of Nunavut. There is not enough support provided by the government.
We have to look at innovative ways on how we can provide more subsidies. There has to be a lead minister representing the hunters so that their case can be fought for and their real needs can be met. Many of these programs are antiquated and we should make improvements to the system in place.
Hunters also have expectations of assistance much like business owners who are eligible for their programs. (interpretation ends) Whether you be a co-op, a large company, a small company, a medium-size company, there are many Inuit hunters too who are looking for help.
To say that we can’t do anything and we’re satisfied with what we have is really not acceptable in the long run.
I will have other questions later with respect to some of the items, so I will close for now.
I know my time has exhausted. (interpretation) Thank you.
Minister, would you like to comment on that?
Those were sage words of advice that we can take into consideration. We won’t just toss them aside and if we have room for improvements, we will try to take action.
I had an earlier question I want to ask again, but prior to asking it, I would like some clarification on the written material here.
With respect to fisheries, it speaks of supporting a multi-year research program on fish resources with assistance from the fisheries and oceans department of Canada. It also speaks of marketing assistance for growing fisheries throughout Nunavut or something along those lines, as I am directly reading from the English version.
Can an answer be provided to clarify the situation for us Nunavummiut? What does this mean exactly?
What is the purpose of this fine program?
Perhaps Mr. Pinksen can respond to that question. Thank you.
We’re just clarifying the question.
If I understood the question correctly, it is: what are the activities of the Fisheries Division under the Fisheries Development and Diversification Program? This is a very broad program that provides support to fisheries development; fisheries stock assessments. It has included actively fishing as well as the purchase of licensing and fisheries vessels.
I don’t know if I got the entire question, so I better leave it there and I’ll provide additional information if there’s clarification needed.
I apologize as I don’t think he got the gist of my question.
I will try to make it clear, so let me speak to the issue in Inuktitut for clarity’s sake.
The department is “Supporting major multi-year Arctic char research project with Fisheries and Oceans Canada (DFO) aimed at increasing commercial supply in all regions.” What is the scope of work exactly entailed in this program?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that clarification. I’ll have Mr. Pinksen respond to the question.
The project aims to work with Fisheries and Oceans and several other stakeholders to improve access to fish, including doing stock assessments, getting ideas of stock size, and to support marketing efforts. So it is to increase the supply of fish available for commercial usage and to increase and improve markets.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that response.
Are select communities going to be surveyed or are you going to be including all the communities? How long is this project for?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will have Mr. Akeeagok respond to that question.
We have not selected any of the communities yet, but if you would like further information, we are available.
We will not be able to include all the communities under this project. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans has to do assessments on inland fish.
If the communities want to participate, they can contact you. Has this project been started yet and how many communities have asked to be a part of this project?
How does it work? Do the communities have to make that request? Have there been any requests?
You may respond again, Mr. Akeeagok, as it is on the same subject.
Some communities have started this project. There is more demand for turbot. If the communities are interested, we would like to hear from them.
We’re looking at the communities.
From what I can remember, there is one study being done near Cape Dorset.
NTI and DFO are participating there. There are Igloolik and Hall Beach fish being sent to the Rankin Inlet fish plant.
This project is growing. There is more and more demand for our fish, and we are very pleased that it is going very well.
If the communities have not heard about this project, they can take the initiative and contact us. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I think I understand that all communities have been informed about this project.
This is very interesting and it is going to affect all the communities of Nunavut. Even if we don’t take the initiative or ask questions, is it possible to ask the minister to keep us updated on this project?
Yes, we can provide that information to the members.
I will be expecting that information from the minister.
I would like to go back to my first question, Mr. Chairman, if you allow me.
I stated that there was an amount of $80,000 for compensation of hunting equipment, but they’re trying to decrease it to $40,000. Can we get some information as to why that amount has been reduced?
Yes, it used to be in the amount of $80,000 for loss of equipment by hunters and for replacement of equipment.
This was for equipment destroyed by wildlife.
It has been reduced because we use the amount of money for equipment destroyed by wildlife.
Why is it being reduced by $40,000?
Does it have anything to do with that $80,000 that was allotted not being used completely or does it have something to do with more polar bears destroying equipment?
The member is right. They didn’t request that amount from that funding, so some of them have been allotted for the animals destroying the equipment.
I can have Mr. Pinksen elaborate on that response.
It’s correct that the $80,000 budget for disaster compensation was not being used completely; it was being used about a little less than half.
A lot of the claims were denied because they were wildlife damage claims or bear damage. We identified a need to create a program to deal with damage by wildlife, in particular, bears.
We created two new programs. One is the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program, which compensates individuals for wildlife damage.
There is another similar program that is the Wildlife Damage Prevention Program, which provides individuals with financial support to prevent wildlife damage.
So the $40,000 was removed from the Disaster Compensation Program and used to partially fund these two new programs, with some additional new money we put in there.
We hear many times that the government has compensation programs, but you can’t access them.
That’s what the public is saying. When a person wants to get some compensation, they have so many forms to fill out. They just give up because all of the paperwork that they have to go complete.
There is funding available, but people just give up on them. It seems like they don’t want the hunters to have that money.
What compensation can I get if my machinery is no longer working?
We have that money available. We’re not trying to stop people from getting that funding, but we have rules with respect to getting funding from that money. There are forms to fill out, but if they don’t get approved, they can keep on applying for some funding for equipment loss.
Perhaps I can get Mr. Pinksen to elaborate further.
There are two compensation programs.
One is called the Disaster Compensation Program and it compensates individuals for equipment losses due to natural disasters, so major storms and incidents of that nature.
To qualify for that program, an individual has to earn a portion of their income from harvesting and there is a process to go through to figure that out.
It is 25 percent; it is quite low.
That’s a statutory number that comes from the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Act.