EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The purpose of the board here, function may have under the Land Claim which is if there is a total allowable harvest on a species, then there is a level called a basic needs level that have established for Inuit hunters and the board is responsible for establishing that and the harvest studies, for example, one of the mechanisms for which they would establish that in the future, if they need to.
Mr. Orr: That’s the Inuit of Northern Quebec, aboriginal people of the Northwest Territories and the Dene of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, those bands identified in article 40.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 152.
NWMB functions.
Confidentiality.
Clause 153.
Chairman (interpretation): Other Wildlife Management Boards.
Clause 154. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Minister’s initiative.
Clause 155.
Chairman (interpretation): NWMB decisions.
Clause 156.
Chairman (interpretation): Do you agree that we have 100 more clauses to go through before we conclude at the Bill?
Implementation of Accepted Decisions of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
Clause 157.
Chairman (interpretation): Nunavut Wildlife Management Board review of orders.
Clause 158.
Chairman (interpretation): Nunavut Species of Risk Committee established.
Clause 159.
Chairman (interpretation): Elders advisory committee.
Clause 160.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 160.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): I am sorry, I forgot to ask my question on this Clause.
As you stated earlier, we are going to be setting up a Committee.
I had thought that the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth had already, was responsible for the establishment of the Elders’ Advisory Committee.
Chairman (interpretation): Anyone?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): This Elders’ Advisory Committee would be responsible to current and traditional historical types and technologies of harvesting wildlife.
The Department of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth has appointed an Elders’ Advisory Committee that would be responsible for all traditional knowledge and traditional methods in culture.
This would be specific to wildlife.
I have, I also had a question regarding the Elders’ Advisory Committee.
They would just be, these Elders’ Committee would just give advice to the Minister and will not be holding any authority or power.
Could the Minister elaborate on the terms of reference that would be held by this Elders’ Advisory Committee?
They will be holding no authority or power, they will only be an Advisory Committee and they will be appointed directly by the Minister.
I would like the Minister to elaborate what kind of authority or power Elders’ Advisory Committee would holds because we do not just want to set up a Committee that could not make any decisions that did not have decision making powers.
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): It would be foolish if we just use elders.
This Elders’ Advisory Committee would give advice to our Department and to the Minister in regards to wildlife and management and we will be taking the recommendations seriously because of course, we want to see a properly functioning management system.
We do not just want to listen to their advice and not heed it, which would be useless if that would be the case.
Looking at the present Government, usually what happens is that there usually are changes in portfolio in the life of an Assembly and there might be a Minister who might just use his Committee as an advisory body and nothing else and not take the recommendations seriously.
The word ‘advisory’ means that this would be just an advisory body and it does not necessarily mean that the recommendations would be implemented somewhere along the way.
Chairman: Akesuk.
I see this is as a very important Committee who, where the elders would give us advice and make the recommendations.
We have to have the proper management system set up here and it says here that the elders would have the knowledge on the harvesting of wildlife in the contents of the guiding principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and to advise the Minister on those issues.
Under Clause 160, we would set up an Elders’ Advisory Committee with the cooperation of Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the local Hunters and Trappers Organizations.
We would like to give the elders the same, the power to make recommendations and because of course, there are different cultures in the regions, the Minister, through the use of this advisory committee, would implement what is recommended.
Once this Bill is passed or enacted, this would give us an excellent tool for setting up a management system that would have a base in Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the NWMB and the local Hunters and Trappers Organizations recommended that we strike an elder’s advisory committee.
Last question, under Clause 160 on (1).
The Minister may appoint, if I said it in English, if the word may is there, the Minister doesn’t necessarily have to strike an elder’s advisory committee.
It would be at his discretion whether to strike a committee or not.
The use of the may here, it’s a style to choose from legislative drafting.
The provision elsewhere that talks about dealing with methods and technology of harvesting it says that the decision of the Minister with the advice of the committee.
The rest of the Act expects that this committee be appointed.
So, even though it says “may”, it is technically a style of language that’s used to authorize the Minister to make the appointment.
The rest of the Act requires that this be done.
You’re in a rush.
But is it possible to change the wording under 160 (1) that it reads the Minister shall.
It is possible. That’s the pleasure of this House to be the style of, the way the legislation is drafted in Nunavut is to use the word may when authorizing or giving a power to a person.
For example, the Minister.
The Interpretation Act says that the word “may” is to confer power and “shall” is an obligation.
So, in respect for public government and the authority administered, the style is to use “may” when dealing with appointment of committees and so on.
Clause 160 (3) was also mentioned.
To be eligible to be a member of the advisory committee of elders referred to in sub-section 1, a person must be recognized by the Minister, but when we are on it gets a little bit hairier.
Chairman (interpretation): At this time we will have to be taking a break for the Christmas light ceremony.
We have a Christmas lighting ceremony at 5:15 and at 6:30 we’ll break for supper and resume the sitting at 7:00 o’clock this evening.
>> Committee recessed at 17:00 and resumed at 19:27
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you for coming back to the Chamber, Members of the Legislative Assembly.
At this time we have a Motion to be tabled.
Committee Motion 022 – 1(6): Clause 160 (1) of Bill 35 of the Wildlife Act be Amended to Delete the Word “may” and Substitute the word “must”
I move that Clause 160(1) of Bill 35 be amended to delete the word ‘may’ and substitute the word ‘must’.
Chairman (interpretation): There is a Motion on the Floor.
I just have a question for the Law Clerk.
On this Clause if we delete the word ‘may’ and substitute the word ‘must’, does that mean that we have to do it everywhere else on the Bill, or is it just specific to this Clause?
I cannot think of any reason why that would be necessary.
It would seem that indeed some of the language does confer discretionary power and some confers obligations.
That would want to be maintained, I presume, throughout the balance of the Bill.
In regards to the proposed amendment, I have a concern.
I do not want to leave the intent of this Clause where the Minister may appoint an advisory committee of elders.
They would be reviewing the current and traditional and historical methods and technologies of harvesting wildlife and they would utilize the advisory committee.
It would be an excellent tool for the Minister.
It is something that will be taken seriously and with the safety factor in it.
For example, Mr. Chairman, if the Minister should appoint an advisory committee of elders in Nunavut, in the regions, or otherwise, the people in the Kitikmeot, for example in Cambridge Bay, the Minister could utilize the elders or committee that would specialize in musk-ox, because of course, in the Baffin or Sanikiluaq we don’t have any musk-ox and we don’t have the traditional knowledge or technologies of harvesting musk-ox.
We want to water down the importance of this advisory committee and I would not want to support this motion because there is a different expertise in the regions and accordance to the region where they come from and the methods that they use.
It would be a better tool if there was a ‘may’ in there instead of ‘must’.
The word ‘may’ can apply and I’m perfectly happy with this clause because it would be the advisory committee to the Minister and if there was a ‘must’, I think that we would lose the intent of this clause.
From what I understand and being a traditional hunter and seeing the word ‘may’ in appointing an advisory council, I would understand it as meaning this elders council going to a meeting, making a recommendation and then the government not implementing the recommendations that came out of this advisory council.
So the word may leaves too many options for the Minister and too much discretion.
We would like to see this advisory committee who would be advised and the recommendations implemented.
Ms. Cooper: I thank you Mr. Chair.
I just want to clarify that even if the motion was successful and the wording changed, it is still an advisory committee and the Minister is not under an obligation to implement any of the directions of the committee.
We consulted with the communities on this bill and we also involved the elders when we were reviewing the bill and this clause was approved and in (4) the Minister shall seek advice and consider the advice of the RWO’s for the names of the persons they believe would be suitable for appointment and under 4, there is a clause in there on the advice of appointments.
From what I understand, the Minister would appoint the Advisory Council, Advisory Committee of Elders and we would also use the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and the Advisory Committee would have the authority and I would oppose the Motion as such.
Chairman (interpretation): A question is being called; Minister Ng.
Mr. Chairman, I am, I do not think anybody disputes or disagrees with the involvement of elders in any portions of Legislation, any consultations that this Government has undertaken for program changes, legislation, policies, etc.
It has all taken place.
There is a commitment that has been made politically. There is political accountability to any Minister that oversees the Legislation and Policies when they are making changes to ensure that there is maximum consultation and input and that includes elders all the time.
And I do not think changing the one word in this case would change that, both circumstances for this Government or for any future Government or for any future Minister that would oversee the Wildlife Act.
Now, we all know that this Bill was put together over a course of a couple of years with extensive involvement of NTI, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, Hunters and Trappers Organizations, the Standing Committee.
All of these organizations that have come together on numerous occasions to get this to the point that we are at now and I do not think right now that I give support in changing that given all of the work that has been done.
If it has been seen there is a problem with this, the Government just isn’t recognizing it, the next Legislature could deal with that matter.
They can make the amendments, but as it stands now, I think that the Bill is good.
There has been a lot of work put into it.
Let us work with what we have now and then move forward from there, let the next Government prove that they can live up to it, to their obligations and if there are problems, and then amend them at that time.
So, I cannot support the Motion as it comes forward.
Chairman: Puqiqnak.
In regards to Bill 35 and what we are proposing to do is to delete the word ‘may’ and substituting the word ‘must’.
This word, and if we make that amendment and if we did make that change, is that going to make, is that going to have a huge impact on the rest of the Bill or what would be implication of making that change?
The word ‘we might’ seems like a small word, but there are some who oppose to the Motion and some who are not.
Ms. Cooper: Well, in my view, it would make it mandatory for an Elders’ Advisory Committee to be established and in my view that would be the extent of the impact.
And, but my question is, if we change the word from ‘may’ to ‘must’, would it have an affect on the Bill as a whole or is it just going to be this particular Clause that would have to change?
In my view it would just be this Clause.
Listening to the people who are opposing the Bill, it is not going to have a major impact, but it does not seem to make much of a change.
We are representing the people and we are trying to give as much authority and power at the community level, including the Elders’ Advisory Committee that we are proposing here.
That is why I would like to say that I would support the passage of the Motion.
I just wanted to comment in regards to the concerns of the Kitikmeot HTO President.
In reviewing what is in the Wildlife Act and raising concerns with the HTOs in the Kitikmeot, it seems that they are in support of it.
Even though you make minor changes into the Act, that is fine, as long as we do not put a lot of emphasis on making changes, because the Act is already a tool as it is and it will give the HTO’s the powers and the authority to make decisions.
In regards to the amended ‘may’ substituted with ‘must’, that would make it I think stronger for the HTO’s to go to their authority in regards to wildlife.
Chairman (interpretation): I have no other names on my list.
Just a show of hands.
It reads, ‘that Clause 16(1) of Bill 35 be amended to delete the word ‘may’ and substitute the word ‘must’.
The Elders’ Advisory Committee.
Clause 160(1). Agreed as amended?
Chairman (interpretation): Remunerations.
Clause 161.
Chairman (interpretation): Appointments.
Clause 162.
I realized the intent of it, but the Superintendent, I would like to know exactly what that position is.
The Minister is myself and the superintendent is the director of wildlife.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): There are different organizations dealing with wildlife matters.
Wouldn’t it be giving too much power to this particular position?
This person would just be doing the responsibilities as it states in the job description.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 162.
Chairman (interpretation): Conservation Officers.
Clause 163.
Chairman (interpretation): Main Duty.
Clause 164.
Chairman (interpretation): Wildlife Guardians.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): I was going to be asking this question on 163, but it defines that the superintendent may appoint a person or designate, where does it give this person the power to appoint?
Chairman (interpretation): You’re question is in Clause 163 or 164?
Mr. Anawak: I should have asked this at 163, I guess, but at 165, the superintendent may appoint with suitable qualifications and experience, I’m just wondering where the explanation for that particular suitable qualifications and experience would be.
The different communities have been given the authority and through the conservation officers, the superintendent may appoint persons with suitable qualifications.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 165.
Wildlife Guardians.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 166.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, pursuant to the agreement, each community or each outpost camp is mentioned.
Their representatives would be the HTO’s, would the outpost camps have a separate organization?
Pursuant to the agreement, this came directly from the NLCA and it’s up to the outpost camps to become a part of the HTO’s or have their separate organization.
Chairman (interpretation): Requirements.
Clause 166.
Chairman (interpretation): Hunters and Trappers Organization Authority.
Clause 167.
Chairman (interpretation): Requirement for RWOs.
Chairman (interpretation): Exercise of Authority.
Clause 169.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): RWO Authority.
What number was that?
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 168.
Mr. Nutarak (interpretation): Yes.
Chairman (interpretation): Joint Actions.
Clause 170.
Chairman (interpretation): Guidelines on Conformity of HTOs.
Clause 171. Agreed?
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): In 171, is that where we are?
In (3) Individual consumption needs.
Can you please clarify that.
It says ‘Pursuant to the Agreement no by-law, or a decision of an HTO, or RWO shall unreasonably prevent an individual Inuk from harvesting for the purpose of meeting the consumption needs.
Earlier in the Clauses, there was a question, I think, regarding this, so I would like to pursue this matter.
I think that is part of that.
For instance, if he was traveling, the individual consumption needs of Inuit, Mr. Chairman, can you please have that clarified to see what it actually means or whether it comes from the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement?
I would like clarification please.
This is straight out of the Land Claim.
My understanding of it is that it means that HTO and RWO by-laws cannot stop an individual Inuk from harvesting to feed himself, or herself, or their families.
Chairman (interpretation): Discipline of Members.
Clause 172.
Chairman (interpretation): Recommendations.
Clause 173.
Chairman (interpretation): Makivik.
Clause 174.
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): I would like to ask a question to have it further clarified regarding Makivik.
The powers and duties of an HTO, or an RWO in respect of Inuit of Northern Quebec are to be exercised and performed by the Makivik Corporation, which represents the Inuit of Northern Quebec.
I think that our Premier was on the CBC Radio regarding the Northern Quebec Inuit, and the Federal Government allocated the lot to the Northern Quebec in our adjacent waters.
The allocation of quotas were too small and so the Premier went to the Federal Government on behalf of the Government of Nunavut, and with that in mind, and with this Act in place, I hope that it will not abolish some of our rights.
It states that through agreement we will work with those organizations.
I would like to get a clarification regarding the recognition of Makivik.
As a part of Canada, I am worried about whether or not more powers will be given out to those people.
Under the Agreement in 40.2.6, that is where it comes from, regarding Makivik, to work with them in the management of wildlife.
It comes right out of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and copied right into our Act, according to the Agreement, to encourage further cooperation with those other jurisdictions such as a Government and Makivik Corporation.
And if it is going to be in there, it felt like we were being walked all over as a Nunavut Territory and a lot of the allocations were taken away from us, from what I understood.
And if we are going to commit to closer cooperation between the Government of Nunavut and the Makivik Government, will there be more fair allocations given out to each of the jurisdictions?
Sorry, Mr. Okalik.
That mainly pertains to those islands that are used by the people of Nunavut.
Those are also the hunting grounds for the Makivik people.
It is not for the marine resources, it has nothing to do with the fisheries.
So, we still disagree with those allocations, but this is for wildlife and it is regarding those islands and working together in management of those wildlife on those islands.
Chairman (interpretation): Does that clear it up for you?
Makivik, Clause 174.
Chairman (interpretation): Parts of an Administrative Matters Agreements. Clause 175.
Chairman (interpretation): Five Year Report. Clause 176.
Chairman (interpretation): Annual Fund Report.
Clause 177.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Thank you. The annual fund report, who will be overseeing that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Myself as the Minister.
Chairman (interpretation): Okay, Mr. Iqaqrialu.
The annual fund report, the Auditor General’s reports once a year, will that be apart of that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Yes, and it will not only be overseen by me, but the Cabinet as well will also ensure that the whole process is approved through Cabinet.
Chairman (interpretation): Annual Fund Report. Clause 177. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Government Liability.
Clause 178. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Fees and Royalties.
Clause 179. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Sale of Products and Services. Clause 180. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Continuation of Fund. Clause 181. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Administration. Clause 182. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Capital Deposits.
Clause 183.
Chairman (interpretation): Payments.
Clause 184.
Chairman (interpretation): Submission.
Chairman (interpretation): Fiscal year.
Clause 186.
Chairman (interpretation): Forms.
Clause 187.
Chairman (interpretation): Method of Notice.
Clause 188.
Chairman (interpretation): Posting Signs and Notices.
Clause 189.
Chairman (interpretation): NWMB Responsibilities.
Clause 190.
Chairman (interpretation): I’m a little bit behind.
Licences and Tags.
Clause 191.
Chairman (interpretation): Trafficking.
Clause 192.
Chairman (interpretation): Education.
Clause 193.
Chairman (interpretation): Species at risk.
Clause 194.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): For that species at risk, I’d like to get a better understanding in the communities, the HTO’s, will they be involved in that process?
The communities have the best knowledge in their environment about the wildlife and its environment, so we would consult with those HTO’s to get information which wildlife they think may be at risk.
For further clarification, either by plane or helicopter, surveys are quite expensive, that will be a part of that?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Species at risks for planes and helicopters?
How can they be at risk?
They are not endangered.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): Yes, we can do away with all aircraft so that the local HTO’s can be the only organization that has exclusive authority.
We will do the best we can because of the different ways we deal with the different wildlife.
We’ll do the best we can to ensure the best methods are used for studying them.
Mr. Iqaqrialu (interpretation): If the local HTO wanted to do their own study, would this apply through the funding application process?
If the communities had a concern, any HTO and the wildlife officers can work together to figure out how the funding arrangements can be dealt with on the issue of wildlife research.
Perhaps, if the government wouldn’t be the only funding agency, we would help them to find further funds from other agencies if the communities had concerns for species at risk.
Chairman (interpretation): Species at Risk. Clause 194. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Harvesting. Clause 195. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Commercial and Other Activities. Clause 196. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Management. Clause 197. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Habitat. Clause 198. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Enforcement. Clause 199. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Clause 200. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): General Matters. Clause 201. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Scope of Regulations. Clause 202. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Status of orders. Clause 203. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Entry. Clause 204. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Power of Arrest. Clause 205. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Protections. Clause 206. Agreed?
Protections.
Officers exempted, there is a Motion on the Floor.
Committee Motion 023 – 1(6): Clause 207 of Bill 35 of the Wildlife Act be Amended
Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Clause 207 be amended by
striking out where the superintendent in Sub-Clause 2 and by substituting subject to Subsection (3) where the superintendent and