EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Instead of livelihood, would they have to, it’s only about $4,000 of compensation that the hunter can receive.
How hard would it be to change this?
What we have to do is we have to change the policy and it could be changed if there are more people that wish to have more than that amount.
In the future, the policy could be changed by the Members of the Legislative Assembly.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley, your time is up, but I have no more names on my list.
The reason why I asked that question is because the disaster compensation policy states that the harvesters have to be able to make at least 25 percent, but they are harvesting for their food and they can’t be helped.
Some of the trappers are having a hard time and also their hunting that 25 percent for harvest compensation, the disaster compensation, you said that it was only 25 percent and it’s very, very small because what the harvesters do is they hunt for their food and their clothing and some of them are not even successful at times.
It seems like it’s not very much because looking at the minister’s travel budget, it’s about $475,000 as opposed to the disaster compensation.
If we could change the policy, if you were to agree, I would like to be able to make a recommendation that if we take it out of your travel budget and give more to the hunters, would you be in agreement?
If we can find the best possible way to amend this or if we can verify as to why we need to change it, and where we would take that amount from our budget, but we would have to work in the policy and to find out where the money will come from.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): I just wanted to tell you that we can support this and we all agree.
Just as an example in Panniqtuuq, there are a lot of hunters who lose their equipment or boats.
A lot of times they don’t have anybody else to turn to and I know that there was a group of hunters who went out and got stuck because the ice broke up and the fishermen in Panniqtuuq can’t even get insurance.
The problem will be from your staff if we don’t decrease your budget on your travel and transportation.
If we can reduce $479,000 so we can put it towards compensation, I can make a motion to decrease that amount and put it under compensation.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes, I definitely agree that we need to increase that amount.
Just last year, in 2004/05, we have given only $4,500 and we definitely need to increase and we are in agreement to increase it.
The policy or the guidelines to follow what is needed by those people like the prices of snowmobiles, boats, outboard motors, or the travel budget is mainly for the training of the wildlife officers.
Maybe we can decrease an amount somewhere else and put it under compensation.
We can look at all kinds of different sections, but we would not know where to get it from.
Looking at your budget, I feel that travel and transportation is way too much and we can’t really deduct from the contributions that we give to the Hunters and Trappers Organizations.
For one department, $479,000, that’s quite a lot.
If we can’t decrease it by $150,000, can you agree to that?
We have been working on how it will be used, but we will have to decrease that amount and I am sure that we can find some way at the present time.
Within the department, some people want that budget decreased, but the $479,000 is to pay for the airfares because the airfare is so expensive and it’s all the wildlife officers from different regions, but it is so expensive.
If we were to take $150,000 from that amount then maybe we can find an alternative source where to get it from.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): We are proud of what we do but if we just agree to what is presented in front of us and not try to make changes and looking at the compensation, there is only 25 percent of the income, only if they sold skins.
For those people who go out hunting for sustenance only then that is not very much.
So I am going to make a motion to reduce that amount.
Committee Motion 005 – 2(2): Deletion of $150,000 from the 2005-06 Main Estimates of the Department of the Environment
I move that to deduct $150,000 from the 2005/06 Main Estimates for the Department of Environment’s Travel and Transportation Division under Corporate Management.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Curley made a motion.
You want the copy.
He is bringing it up.
Mr. Curley made a motion, but it is not translated so we are going to have a ten minute break.
>>Committee recessed at 16:57 and resumed at 17:16
Before we proceed, a few comments to make as to the procedures:
Every member has a right to speak once to the motion for a total time of 20 minutes.
The mover of the motion speaks first.
The mover of the motion has the right to reply last which closes the debate.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you. When I was asking questions we have been sitting here for a month and the contribution that the government gives, the $20,000, is insufficient.
So that is why I made a motion because we can make a recommendation.
The reason I wanted to move that was that there are not that many Wildlife Officers.
They don’t travel to our communities, especially in our region.
Maybe only to the headquarters.
For that reason even if we delete $150,000, there is still over $300,000 for Travel and Transportation.
We are not too sure what it was used for.
The minister had stated that we want to assist the hunters and if we delete that from the Travel and Transportation and put it somewhere else.
My reasoning behind is its getting shameful that the hunters equipment gets lost but they don’t get any kind of compensation.
That is why I wanted to delete $150,000.
Even if we take that $150,000 there is still over $300,000.
For that reason the department’s responsibilities will be used more wisely.
Even if we decrease the number for Travel and Transportation, over $300,000, that is still quite a bit.
For that reason, we are not against the ministers. The money will not be lost but it will be put into a better use.
The Minister of Environment stated that if we support him that he can try to put them for better uses.
That is why I felt that we should do that.
Maybe tomorrow we can indicate where we want to see it.
The Premier has indicated that he supports the Inuit and we should use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the elders and our hunters are important.
That money will not disappear.
I will also support this motion.
Back in 1999, in my constituency there were hunters who lost all their equipment due to the harsh weather.
Because they are unemployed and they are subsistence hunters, they get a bit of income from hunting; we felt that $20,000 is insufficient.
I can use an example where two hunters lost their skidoos and all their hunting equipment.
They couldn’t really do anything about it after.
I stated earlier that if they had a dog team, then there wouldn’t be such a big loss.
The hunters who lose all their equipment, we’re happy that they’re still alive but they lost all their hunting equipment, their qamutik, their skidoos, their rifles, all their hunting gear was gone.
Luckily, the men survived.
There was an incident where a four wheeler went through the ice.
The hunters usually bring their hunting equipment like rifles and other things.
This four wheeler sank and the hunter lost all his equipment. We can only increase the amount. The First Assembly also felt that there isn’t much you can do with $20,000.
What the mover to the motion stated is true.
It’s shameful that as Members of the Legislative Assembly we know what the amounts are designated for.
Maybe it can buy one skidoo because they’re very expensive.
Or they can buy two four wheelers or two skidoos and that’s all you can buy with $20,000.
Hunters individually have maybe about $28,000 worth of assets.
Not every Nunavutmiut will benefit from this, but at least it will assist those who have lost their hunting equipment. At least it will be used in a better way and that is why I’m supporting this motion.
I’m urging the ministers to support the motion because we always think we want to be closer to the community, to the people.
As the minister stated, we can find some other money.
So if that’s the case, I am urging the ministers support the motion.
I would also like to support the motion.
I have seen cases and I have been involved in some incidences that happened out there when there’s a requirement for search and rescue and either to use aircrafts or helicopters, you have to leave all of your equipment; snowmobiles, qamutiks, and everything else and then the helicopter or the aircraft takes you out to the land.
A lot of the hunters don’t have insurance and they don’t have the surplus funds to buy snowmobiles or to replace their equipment.
In the communities that I represent, there have been incidences of canoes or Peterheads completely smashed and equipment getting lost during a polar bear hunt, and they can’t replace their equipment right away.
Because of those, I think that it’s up to the House to support this motion.
When you lose hunting equipment, and especially in the High Arctic where the cost of living and equipment is higher and the cost of transportation is extremely high, even if you use the ship, it’s essential to increase this amount.
We don’t have the required support from the government, and because of all of those, I will state my support to the motion.
I would also like to state my support.
Since Arviat and during the fishing season in the summer and polar bear hunts in the winter, there are a lot of incidences where we lose or damage our equipment.
We have problems when it’s icing of equipment or snowmobiles have been exposed to salt water, you can’t start it if it’s not completely overhauled since they are aluminum and because they have been exposed to salt water you can’t use them anymore; they rust up.
I just spoke in Arviarmiutitut, they become rusted and you need money to buy the equipment and once the equipment’s gone and the trapping season is in, then again, you don’t have the funds to replace what you lost.
I think it would be proper for the government to increase that emergency funds by $150,000 and I think we need more to put into that pot.
I think it’s especially essential to increase that amount because the purchase of equipment, ATVs, canoes, our rifles have increased dramatically since that pot of money was found.
You now have to pay taxes and GST and if you need guns and ammunition, then you need a federally issued registry.
We will have to keep up with the cost of living.
I do have a lot to say, but I think that it would be good if we state our intent to this motion.
I would also like to state my support for this motion.
We see damages or losses to equipment that are essential.
There are people out there who do not have the money to replace that equipment out of their pockets.
A lot of them don’t have insurance.
It is very expensive to buy insurance.
The main reason why I support this motion is with the increase in the population of polar bears in my community the polar bear population has increased dramatically.
They are breaking snowmobiles that have been left only for a short period of time.
That is especially when you are out sealing in the flow edge.
There are a lot of polar bears in the summer also that are damaging the sheds or the cabins and damaging the contents of those cabins.
You cannot hunt polar bears in the summer because they are saying that there is a decrease in the population of the polar bear.
They’re damaging equipment and sometimes the polar bears come in when the inhabitants are sleeping and breaking the equipment, the canoes, the Peter heads the tents while the people are right there.
It would be very important to have this pot of money that Mr. Alagalak had stated earlier.
I would like to see more money re-profiled from other items to this item, just to keep it short I think it is very important to have something within the government that would help the people out there.
I would also like to state my support to this motion.
I am urging all the members of the House to support this motion.
We have to properly represent our constituents out there.
When people ask us if there are any compensation funds within the government, we just say that there is a tiny little pot of money, which is next to nothing, $20,000 is nothing if it’s meant to last the whole year and for 26 communities.
Those who have lost all their equipment, I think that it’s better if we move additional dollars from other line items to here.
We have to look at least $500,000 to move to this pot.
We have to make sure that there are enough funds.
The hunters are the ones who are hunting for their sustenance and for their livelihood and they’re dependent for their snowmobiles, their guns and other equipment that are required to go out there.
We just recently heard about an individual from Pangnirtung who lost approximately $35,000 in one disaster, or one emergency case.
It is up to us as the government to help them.
I think everything else has been covered by the other members.
One of the members said there is the damages that are done by wildlife such as polar bears.
I urge all members to support this motion.
I, too, would like to support this motion.
I think I have been here going on six years, five years, it seems like an eternity sometimes, but a lot of times we hear people, Nunavummiut say, ‘There’s nothing there for me.’, and I think this is an opportunity we have as a government to say, ‘Look here we want to make something available to those of you who need it.’, and I think that that’s important because too many people, that’s one concern that they have and they never have money for this or that or things that the ordinary Nunavummiut and the communities, and here in Iqaluit, that was trying to find funding for something or come up with a program in the community or whatever and there’s never any money there.
I think this is an example where we can show that we are thinking about them and we are willing to put some resources aside to address those needs if, I mean you hope that they never need it.
At least there will be some resources there in the case that it’s needed and it will not be just a little amount that was taken up just in one shot in some cases and then everyone else would go there, ‘Sorry we have nothing left for you.’
So I think it’s a good step.
I think when we get to the appropriate time in dealing with the recommendation on this that I don’t know what exactly the guidelines underneath that program are, but because they should be looked at on and reviewed it with this to try and make it more susceptible and fit for people that do need this type of funding.
Mr. Akesuk, just a minute, Mr. Evyagotailak.
I, too, would like to support this motion as I know too well our hunters try very hard to support their family with sustainable development on the land because there are times when the hunters and the families don’t have food to put on the table.
As we know, $20,000 is not sufficient enough for a disasters fund and it’s not sufficient enough for hunters to replace the equipment.
So when we recommend that we delete $150,000 from the Main Estimates of the Department of Environment that would be put to good use.
That a substantial amount for Travel and Transportation from the Department of Environment.
This is a disaster that happened in Pangnirtung, it’s heartbreaking when you are think about what the hunters try to do, trying to make money to make ends meet to support their families.
I am going to urge all members to support this recommendation and I, too, will support that.
Chairman: Minister Akesuk.
We are concerned about hunters who lose their equipment and especially individuals who run private businesses.
I am not in support of this motion because we’ll have to review the disaster compensation line item to find out how we can improve it and to consult with the communities in terms of what they’d like to see regarding the policy.
This deletion for Travel and Transportation of Renewable Resource Officers is very beneficial to all the communities of Nunavut because our Renewable Resources Officers have to be trained properly with the Act and regulations.
There are 35 Renewable Resource Officers and within this year, if this funding was adequate, we would have had 38 Renewable Resource Officers and it would also include individuals in training.
The Renewable Resource Officers take part in training, including how we can deal with health and safety issues and also to make sure that they can log all the species that have diseases or illnesses.
They have to be taught first aid and CPR.
The entry level staff needs training as well and that includes the Environmental Technology Students.
Renewable Resource Officers are trained using their equipment and they also give them training programs on fire safety and also they train them on polar bear deterrents.
They are also trained in search and rescue.
If this is deleted, it’s going to have a negative impact on Nunavummiut.
The training programs that I mentioned are not all the training programs that they attend.
There are other programs also made available to Renewable Resource Officers.
They are very important to the communities and with the new draft regulations we will have to do more training.
This deletion is going to have a negative impact on all the communities of Nunavut.
It’s going to reduce the amount of money that we use to train the Renewable Resource Officers.
In regards to having the new Renewable Resource Officer training program, this training program for Inuit, after their entry to work in our workforce, this deletion is going to have an impact on their travel and transportation.
That is how it’s going to affect the Renewable Resource Officers.
It reduces the training the amount of training requirement for the Renewable Resource Officers in Nunavut.
We teach them survival skills, such as surviving in the cold weather.
This is going to have a negative impact all Nunavummiut if this deletion occurs.
We would like to see our Renewable Resource Officers trained properly and qualified.
This funding line item was to give support to the Renewable Resource Officers to make sure that they’re properly trained.
They do their development training
Perhaps if we look into this further and if we can understand the fact that this motion is going to have a negative impact on all the communities of Nunavut, especially when they look for other alternatives to give support and assistance to the Renewable Resource Officers.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated do have a Harvesters’ Support Program.
So therefore we would like to have a close working relationship with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
In regards to the motion, it is also going to affect the communities and potential Inuit employees that will become Renewable Resource Officers; their training program is going to reduce, especially for the three individuals that will be training on the job.
Perhaps one individual costs for $1,500 if they go to take their training outside of Iqaluit.
So this is going to have an impact on the training of the three individuals who would like to become Renewable Resource Officers.
Inuit people are always unsatisfied with the non-beneficiary Renewable Resource Officers.
So therefore, we are trying to set up a training program for the three individuals to get into Renewable Resource Officer trainee.
So this motion is going to have a negative impact on all the communities into this program line item.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. I have no more names on my list.
No members of the Cabinet would like to make a comment to the motion.
I thank the members who made their comments.
The government is not going to go broke by deleting this funding.
This funding is going to provide more benefits to the Inuit, if we open it by another page, there is over $1 million for Travel and Transportation.
In the next line item, there is another line item for Travel and Transportation, $1,131,000.
It is not going to close the government.
So therefore I would like a recorded vote on the motion so that we could show the harvesters who is in support or not.
A recorded vote has been requested.
All those in favour of the motion, please rise.
When I call you name please sit down.
No one is rising.
All those abstained, please rise.
There are nine in favour of the motion.
Opposed, zero.
Abstentions, there are seven. The motion has been carried.
We are going to have a half hour break.
>>Committee recessed at 17:50 and resumed at 18:26
Chairman (interpretation): I hope you had a good supper.
Record Management.
Revised total of $3,706,000.
We are going to I-6.
Environmental.
Operations and Maintenance. $12,422,000.
I would like to ask a question on I-6.
Will Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit be used whenever they are doing work on polar bears?
Chairman (interpretation): Just before I ask for a response, I-6, 7, 8, and 9 are all together, including I-10.
We would like to use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into our researching.
We want to make sure that we recognize Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit into our researching.
I think that is the important part to make sure that we do the right thing and work closely with the communities that are nearby that are affected by the service.
Under I-9, under fisheries the Qikiqtarjuaq residents, would they be getting assistance while they are doing a Business Plan?
Will they be getting assistance through the Fisheries Development and Diversification Program?
The Business Plan would be dealt with by Economic Development, but the money that we have here on Fisheries Development and Diversification is to be used for that type of thing.
If you want funding, it comes from Economic Development.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Arreak.
When will there be a study done and where?
There are different researches that have to be done that should be done with the $525,000.
The community that the member has, Broughton Island has been assisted by this fisheries development and the diversification program and it will be available for the research for a study done in Broughton Island.
My last question; if there was a motion that was carried a while ago and the minister stated that it would be used for renewable resources technology programs’ travel budget.
What is that amount of money, $1,131,000, for under I-6?
Can the member state where that page is?
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Arreak could you tell him the page?
Mr. Arreak (interpretation): I-6 under travel and transportation, under program development. Thank you.
It’s to deal with fisheries, for parks, and for travel and transportation for those people.
The first page has to do with corporate management and the other one is program development and wildlife is under there for the wildlife management’s travel.
I just thought that wildlife management people were the ones that used that for traveling, isn’t that so?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Mr. Awa will respond to that question.
That $1,130,000, like the minister said, has to do with...and sometimes there are no wildlife officers in all of the communities.
They have to share a wildlife officer and it’s for their travel, and when a wildlife officer from a community goes on holidays and the other wildlife officers travel back and forth to the communities where they don’t have a wildlife officer.
That’s what it’s used for.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Awa.
I would like to ask a question in regards to biologists because there are no biologists here.
I wonder why the biologists’ work never show, like there’s no paperwork that ever comes out.
They do a lot of studies in the north in Nunavut and I wanted to be able to ask them questions in regards to polar bears especially.
I know that the polar bear population is increasing, but I have wanted to ask the biologists about scientific stuff because the information that the biologist provides is very helpful for the people down south, but there are a lot of estimates that they do and I think they make a lot of mistakes.
I wanted to ask the minister when those biologists would be available?
The biologists can be invited by the Standing Committee of the committees would like to ask questions of them.
We could make them available at any time during their committee meetings in regards to the estimates of those biologists.