EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
I have worked with those mayors and they have written me many letters of concern as the MLA for the High Arctic.
I have met with them, and we have worked very well together.
Return to Oral Question 073 – 2(3): Status of Economic Development Strategy Recommendations (Kilabuk)
I would like to give a return to the oral question posed by the Member from Cambridge Bay, Question 073 – 2(3).
Mr. Speaker, because the responses are very long, I have passed out the return to the Clerks at the table.
I will pass it on to the Clerk’s table at this time.
It gives me great pleasure to welcome to the House today, Mr. Charlie Evalik from our riding of Cambridge Bay.
Mr. Evalik and I have been friends for many years and I have worked for him in many capacities.
He is a consultant now, but prior to that I think he spent 10 years in the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. He did a lot of great work for the Inuit of Kitikmeot, and he is a very key and integral person involved in negotiating a lot of Inuit Impact Benefit Agreements and DEW Line clean up contracts.
Welcome to the House, Charlie.
If I don’t pronounce the names properly it’s because I don’t speak French, but I would also like to recognize the people that work for Isuma.
First of all, I would like to recognize Zacharias Kunnuk, Director; Paul Irngaut, Interviewer; and Katrina Sonkup, the producer. Also, there are some camera people out there, and also the people that do recording as well, notably Francois Beauchemin, Cameraman and Marcel Fraser, Soundman.
I would like to recognize people from my riding.
These are the people that filmed Atanarjuat, the Fast Runner.
We also have another film that is going to be coming pretty soon. I would like to recognize Paul Irngaut, and Katrina to the House.
Just a reminder that the members are only allowed to recognize individuals once.
I would like to take this opportunity to recognize a constituent of mine. Mr. Speaker, the constituent is sitting behind me in the gallery here, Jotanie Davidee, with his funny looking hat.
Mr. Speaker, I know over the weekend he was just as frustrated as some Honourable Members from the other side at the results of a particular hockey game this weekend. Maybe that’s the reason why our Premier is wearing blue and white today.
So, I would like to recognize him and thank him for coming and also, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to recognize an individual that just stepped out, and that’s Mr. Bobby Gunn, who is a former long time public servant for the Government of Nunavut.
I know you just sent out a reminder to recognize a person only once in the Gallery, but it’s not often that we have a person from the Kitikmeot in this House. I want to take the opportunity to also recognize Charlie Evalik who is a friend of mine, and also my cousin.
He is no stranger to this House and the members of this House, and I welcome him to the Gallery.
Question 090 – 2(3): Fishing Quotas in Davis Strait (Tootoo)
My question is for the Minister responsible for fish; I assume that is the Minister of Environment and fish quotas.
Mr. Speaker, recently it was reported in the media that the Government of Nunavut has reached a deal with the Makivik Corporation.
My question to the Minister is, in what area of Davis Straight? I am wondering if you could be more specific as to the location of these fish that the deal is referring to.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister for Environment.
Which of you will be responding?
Mr. Premier?
Can the Member please rephrase his question? I thought he was going to ask about fish and fish quotas.
Please rephrase your question.
Mr. Tootoo can you please rephrase your question.
I’d be happy to, as long it doesn’t count as a supp. Mr. Speaker, recently in the media there was an article that referred to a deal over fish quotas with the Makivik Corporation and Government of Nunavut.
It referred just to the Davis Strait area, which is quite a large area.
I am wondering if the Minister of Environment responsible for fisheries could give us a better idea of exactly where the geographic location of that deal is.
That area of Davis Straight is a large area so I can’t pinpoint the location. It is the general waters in Nunavut and just a percentage. The only condition we approved it on was the Inuit in Nunavut will always get the largest portion of any location so that is why we endorsed the agreement.
We also felt that the Inuit of Nunavik have been waiting far too long to get an agreement and we don’t want to stand in the way of their agreement.
I know that it is a large area. My understanding is 0A, or 1A, 0A, oh no I am not sure what area or what zone it is.
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that area runs from roughly Pangnirtung up to Grise Fiord.
I am wondering, since these waters are adjacent to Greenland and Nunavut, why we are making a deal with Quebec to give our fish away. We have companies in Nunavut that are struggling to develop fisheries along with our government.
We are giving away our fish when it has been reported in the past by Members of this House and the Ministers of this government that we don’t already have our fair share.
So why are we dealing some away when we say we don’t have enough, considering it is not even waters adjacent to Northern Quebec.
We don’t have control over fisheries, so we can’t give away our portion, but what we did was approve an agreement in principal that they are currently getting those allocations in our waters, and they’re not the issue for us.
They’re very small.
But our issue is with southern Canadian fishers that are getting up to 80 percent of our commercial fisheries here in Nunavut waters.
So, that’s where our main opposition is.
But, the only way that we could agree to this is that if we are guaranteed a larger portion of any allocation to other fisheries.
So, that’s the language that we accepted to ensure that the federal government continues to recognize that Inuit in Nunavut deserve and should get the largest portion of any fisheries in our waters.
I guess my question then is for the minister.
I know in May of 2003, the Premier had indicated that there was a warning coming from the Government of Nunavut of a possible lawsuit over shrimp quotas.
In that, the minister indicated that the decision was a setback for a potential fishing industry.
Is this in the same zone, or the same fishing area, or the same deal that the minister has now agreed to?
No, the shrimp situation was to try and protect our interests in the shrimp fisheries against southern fishers.
This situation is to try and make sure that we get an agreement with the offshore claim of the Nunavik Inuit.
The percentage that is guaranteed in their agreement does not affect the overall outcome of any agreement that we’re trying to seek from the federal government.
So, I will continue to press this matter with the federal government so that we get our rightful share in our waters.
I’m sure that the Premier will have no problem getting support from all the members of this House on that.
I think that we are ready to take control of our own resources. Hopefully we’ll have better luck with the new government in Ottawa after February 23, I believe it is, or January.
But I guess, given that the minister never answered my question, my question was not so much on the deal, or what the law suit was over, the shrimp quotas, but the area that’s talked about in the current issue with the shrimp, or the current deal with the fish, and the area that was talked about, in dispute over the shrimp quotas.
Is that the same zone or, whether it’s 0A, or oh no, O1.
Is it the same geographical aquatic area?
The areas are generally described as: 0A, which is the water south of Kimmirut and 0B is from Kimmirut, north up to Resolute Bay areas.
So those are zones that are called 0A and 0B.
As I said, the agreement does not affect the overall quota of fisheries because the amount we’re seeking is around 80 to 90 percent and even with their agreement, it would not affect our goals of acquiring that in the long run.
So, that’s why we agreed to it and the agreement supports our claim that we are entitled to a larger share of the commercial fisheries in those zones.
Question 091 – 2(3): Update on Changes to Polar Bear Quotas (Barnabas)
My questions are for the Minister of Environment.
Earlier this year, the GN issued a news release on January 7 concerning polar bear MOUs.
The news release, at that time, indicated that the total allowable harvest and allocations for different populations would be changing.
Can the minister update the House on if there have been any changes to the quotas since that time, and if there have been changes, what are the changes, and have the communities been consulted?
I would suggest to the member to ask just one question instead of a few.
We have been consulting with the communities, including the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, and we asked the communities what they would prefer to see. We will leave it at the discretion of the communities.
I believe the total count was 512 and there are no changes to date; there has been no decrease or increase in the total allowable harvest and allocations.
It will be up to the communities to make those decisions.
Speaker (interpretation): If you are going to be asking a question, please ask one.
Yes, I will ask one question. (interpretation ends) The GN issued news releases in April and October of this year concerning Greenland’s management of polar bear populations.
Can the minister tell the House whether the GN is satisfied with Greenland’s polar bear management program?
Yes, we are satisfied with what they are trying to do with the management program.
Again, the lead for the negotiations between Greenland and Canada, Canada’s the lead for us, although we have a seat at the negotiating table.
So, we are happy with what they are trying to do and we are going to work very closely with them to make sure that we also have proper polar bear management in our territory.
There have been news reports, in the last year, indicating that the United States Government is considering banning the importation of polar bear trophies into the U.S. We have heard that the U.S. Government wrote a letter to the GN on this issue.
If the U.S. banned imports, this would seriously affect our important sport hunting industry, which brings much-needed dollars into the communities.
Can the minister update the House on what discussions the GN has had with the U.S. Government on this issue?
I believe the purpose of the MOU going community to community is to make sure that we educate our people first before we actually get into our negotiations with the U.S.
Again, I think the communities...that’s why we have community-to-community consultations on the MOU’s. How they want to manage their polar bears, it’s really up to the communities.
Once we have the MOU’s signed and decided, I believe we will have a better idea of how we are going to approach the U.S. wildlife people.
Question 092 – 2(3): Passports for Arctic Winter Games Participants (Evyagotailak)
My question is to the Minister of Culture, Language, Elders and Youth who is responsible for sports.
Mr. Speaker, many of our youth are looking forward to participating in the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska next March.
I have noticed that in the newspaper letters to coaches and information to hopeful athletes that passports will be required to enter the United States.
My colleague from Quttiktuq has raised the issue of passports a number of times in this House.
He has highlighted the dilemma Nunavummiut have been facing in obtaining passports since September 11.
Mr. Speaker, my question for the minister is this.
What steps has his department taken to address the issue of passport requirements for athletes and coaches in planning to attend the Arctic Winter Games in Alaska.
Speaker (interpretation): Minister responsible for Arctic Sports, Mr. Tapardjuk.
Hon. Louis Tapardjuk (interpretation): If you are going to be traveling outside of Canada and if you are going to be going to other communities outside of Canada...I don’t have the information with me but I would like to take this question as notice.
Question 093 – 2(3): Devolution Agreement (Peterson)
My question is for the Minister responsible for Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs.
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago the Commissioner’s address raised the important issue of devolution.
The address stated on page 4, and I will read, “We will ensure that terms for that transfer do not adversely affect Nunavut’s formula financing arrangement.
In other words, there has to be a real net fiscal benefit for Nunavut, otherwise devolution will not make sense.”
My question for the minister, Mr. Speaker, can the minister update us today on his department’s efforts to set up a Devolution Secretariat in his department and designate a chief negotiator.
Hon. Paul Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. What we have done is gone through a competition and we are just in the process of reviewing applicants.
So that’s what we are trying to do as a government, we are putting our team together but on the other side unfortunately the election has been called, so I don’t know if they’ll be as prepared as we are when it comes down to negotiating in the near future.
Mr. Speaker, the Premier is in close contact with the Premiers of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
The Yukon already has a devolution agreement and the Northwest Territories is working on one.
Can the Minister share with us what lessons we can use from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories experience in negotiating with Ottawa.
Hon. Paul Okalik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are some aspects that we can learn from.
The two governments are very helpful in advising us at the level of support that is required once negotiations commits.
So on that basis we put together a team and a budget that we will require, hopefully just for the next two years. So, that’s what we were able to work out.
As well, we are facing different challenges in terms of the offshore islands for example.
The other jurisdictions don’t have those challenges before them. So, that’s something that we’ll work hard on, to ensure that there is a deal that is unique to Nunavut.
But, at the same time, we are seeking the same benefits of the provinces, where we get to collect all royalties in our lands and waters throughout Nunavut.
So, that’s something that we want to make sure is worked out. To date the Yukon has an agreement, but there are some limitations on royalties, and they advised us that if we get an agreement just like the provinces, then they’ll be seeking the same.
So, that’s our goal: is to be on our own and manage our own affairs and not have to go to Ottawa every year asking for more money, and running our own affairs.
Mr. Peterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the Premier for that answer.
I agree with him on his last statement; we don’t want to be going to Ottawa every year.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Yukon negotiations took 10 years or longer as I recall.
Realistically our devolution negotiations could take longer than two to three years as well, possibly as long as 10 years.
In the mean time, perhaps the minister can explain to us what the potential magnitude of the net fiscal benefit would be to Nunavummiut, as mentioned in the Commissioner’s address.
The benefit that we have in going later is that precedents have been set, so parties know what to expect, and avoid pitfalls that may delay discussions.
So, that’s the advantage of going a little later and it gives us benchmarks that have already been set. So it makes it easier to negotiate agreements.
But, as I said, we’re facing different challenges in certain areas.
Currently there is no mining taking place in Nunavut, so, so far, we don’t have any loss in terms of potential revenue, but I would like a good speedy agreement so that we don’t lose out in any potential royalties that should be flowing through Nunavut.
Yes, I agree with that. We will have a mine opening next year in the Kitikmeot and hopefully we’ll have another mine open by the end of 2008.
We have a couple of mines coming and it’s important to have a devolution agreement in place by then.
Mr. Speaker, in the Yukon, devolution resulted in a number of federal employees being transferred to the Yukon Territorial Government.
Can the minister tell me: are we looking at something similar happening in Nunavut? If so, how many positions will likely transfer to the Kitikmeot?
I don’t know the exact numbers as to how many. We’re not at that stage yet, as to how many positions would be transferred to Nunavut.
Hopefully none, so we can take on those jobs ourselves, with Nunavummiut.
So, that’s a discussion that we’ll have to have in our negotiations later on, but, it’s quite well known that we have enough challenges trying to meet capacity here in Iqaluit.
So, I’m sure the jobs will be spread out when the time comes so that the benefits are spread out where the most activity is taking place.
I’ll keep an open mind, but I’m looking forward to having good negotiations on this matter.
Question 094 – 2(3): Additional Support for Hunters (Curley)
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister Responsible for Environment.
I would like to thank him for the fuel pricing program because this is very beneficial and I would like to thank him for that.
But, my question is, last winter the fur prices seemed like they were the lowest prices since I don’t know when.
Because there are a lot of hunters who want to go fox trapping and they need to purchase capital assets.
At times they have to travel for many days and they don’t want to just sleep in the snow any more. They would prefer to sleep in a building.
Has the government considered additional subsidies on furs?
Perhaps how do I put this? The harvesters’ support program, we are now working on this issue along with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and we are working close with them and we are in the final stages.
The hunters support program addresses hunter’s needs and we are trying to look at improving the hunters support program for Nunavut harvesters.
To date there is no form of assistance within our department to assist the harvesters.
But we have decided to make changes so that it could reflect the full time hunters of Nunavut.
Perhaps in the new fiscal year we will have more detailed information at that time.
So we are in the process of working on it.
Because there is interest rising out there in regard to the hunters support program, the hunters support program was very beneficial to the hunters especially it had many benefits for the hunters.
Some non-harvesters were getting benefits from that.
I would urge the government when there are businesses going bankrupt the government would have to assist them.
Perhaps the fur trappers cannot afford a big building or big expensive unit.
Perhaps if you can consider that Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated does not cover those things and perhaps you can consider the idea of covering the harvesters.
Perhaps you can respond to that question.
Yes, we will work on this diligently. The HTO’s and HTA’s and I will want to work closely with them to make sure that have shacks built out on the hinterland so that the hunters can use them for shelters. So I would like to review this very carefully.
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Yes, in the Baffin region I understand there are more outpost camps in Baffin than Kitikmeot.
And there were outpost camps that were given some assistance to establish an outpost camps because the individuals want to live traditionally in an outpost camp.
Minister, I would like to ask you if you can consider it, it doesn’t necessarily have to be just shacks now. These buildings could also be used for training purposes, they could be used for inmates, and we need to get a bigger hunting ground.
It could be used for hunting and fishing.
I am trying to urge the Minister that it not adequate when you get band aid solutions.
I am wondering if you can consider this.
We will consider this carefully and diligently. We would like to find out ways to provide more assistance and benefits to Nunavut to our Nunavummiut constituents.
I will want to work closely with the Members of the Legislature on how we can reflect the needs of our constituents. We don’t want to just set things up endlessly, but since we are a new government and we have a heavy task ahead of us, we want to review ways to give support to Nunavummiut. We will consider it carefully because this is going to have an impact on all Nunavummiut.
Question 095 – 2(3): Contractors and Inuit Employment (Tootoo)
My question is for the Minister responsible for Community and Government Services, and specifically for the NNI Policy and contract monitoring.
Mr. Speaker, earlier this month, I received some very disturbing information about a southern contractor that’s in town here doing a couple of major projects.
I would like to ask the minister if she was aware of any of this information, and that information, Mr. Speaker, is something I know that this government is strongly behind and that is the Inuit employment levels and government contracts.
Those are stipulated in the contract, I know we heard the minister, last week, indicate that a penalty for this can be substantial.
In this case, Mr. Speaker, I was informed that this company was paying Inuit to stay at home, knowing full well that they were not going to be on the job.
So, they would have them on their books so that they could show, on paper, that they are meeting their Inuit employment levels.
So, I’m just wondering if the minister is aware of any concerns like this if they have been brought to the department’s attention.
Hon. Levinia Brown (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation ends) No, I’m not aware of such things and I will have my staff check into that area.
I think any policy, nothing is perfect, and that this is possibly, I would like to find out if there’s a confirmation that this is happening; a loophole within the policy.
Obviously, it’s more cost-effective for these companies to do that than be penalized for not meeting their Inuit employment levels.
So, I guess, the minister indicated that this is something that she will have her officials look into, and if there is nothing in the policy that allows them to do that, would they look at options or ways to be able to monitor or identify situations like that under the NNI Policy and contract monitoring?
That is the very purpose of why we have a policy under NNI; to encourage the use of Inuit and northern labour in supplying the GN construction process.
But if that is happening, then I would say there’s a penalty to be given here because that should not be happening and it’s unacceptable.
I agree with the minister that it is unacceptable.
I don’t know if there is any clause in the contract for contractors who are trying to manipulate and deceive the government, to the contractee if you want to put it that way, in that.
So, I think that that’s something that should be addressed and it should be taken very, very seriously.
If this is going to continue to happen, we will never have a home-grown workforce.
It will always just pay people to stay home, not learn anything, and continue to bring their cheap, southern labour that are just here to do the job and get out as quickly as possible.
So, will the minister commit to looking at that and maybe bring forward different options for penalties, or maybe there is something already in the contract that will allow for the government to act on such moves.
So, is she willing to do that if it’s not there?
I’m certainly sad to hear this news this afternoon and of course, we will look into that as soon as we can.
The NNI Policy states that any Nunavut entity receiving more than 51 percent of their total contract or operating funds from the Government of Nunavut must apply the NNI Policy to all contracts.
So, I would say that it’s covered under that, and if there is to be a penalty imposed, then I would make sure that that’s imposed also.
Mr. Tootoo: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I’m glad you’re keeping track.
I seem to have lost count.  Mr. Speaker, given this information and the minister has indicated that she is going to get her department officials to look into it, will the minister report back as to her findings to this House?