EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
If it’s going to be completed next year, and I believe the minister mentioned that it would start this month, does it mean that the survey will continue all throughout the year, from the spring, summer, fall to winter? If he could elaborate on whom they will be conducting the survey with.
I mentioned that the first aerial survey would be initiated in March.
This issue has been discussed with all community HTOs. When we conduct the aerial survey, we will also have representatives from the HTOs.
It will not be our department, but biologists will be on the aircraft. I don’t know if it will occur throughout the winter and I doubt that it would last the entire year. What I do know is it will start this month.
I know for a fact that they would not conduct this survey throughout the year.
I apologize to the minister because I understood that he meant a year-long survey. If I put words in his mouth, I apologize.
I have a question on the same page in his opening comments, the third page in the English version.
An issue that Mr. Ningark and I spoke about yesterday related to global warming and its impacts. It says here that the Department of Environment has made adaptation plans.
When we were speaking about this issue, all of Nunavut heard the minister’s response that we all have to try to be aware of the changes that are taking place in our environment.
The people most involved in this particular adaptation, who we call wildlife officers in our dialect, I’m not sure what they call them. I believe they call them conservation officers now.
The minister stated they would be one of the resources that could be used for climate change. Have the conservation officers undertaken training on the different types of changes that they have to be observant of?
Have they already received training to be able to discern the impacts?
This training takes place over a couple of years and a lot of the things they are required to know they learn from the Environmental Technology Program. As well, every year, the conservation officers in the regions get together and they include further training on this issue.
I would like to turn to page 4, the last page in the English version. Mr. Chairman, based on the response I receive, I believe this will be my last question.
I just don’t want to state that this is my last question because another question may pop up once I get a response.
It states here that the department plans to “initiate inshore fisheries projects in all regions and conduct assessments to determine the need for fish processing…” Mr. Chairman, I don’t think this is really a question but more of a request for information for my own understanding as to what is meant by this statement.
I will have my Deputy Minister, Mr. Akeeagok, elaborate on that.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) Deputy Akeeagok.
With respect to fish, if the fish will be sold commercially, the lake has to have had prior research. We try to provide funding for conducting research on lakes in order to expand the number of lakes that can be coined as commercial.
Our focus will be to work with the communities to increase the number of commercial lakes. Our fish are in demand outside of Nunavut and the demand is increasing due to our marketing as well as our management techniques. We have to work together in order to grow this fishery.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Deputy. (interpretation) I believe his answer piqued your interest as it seems obvious that you have another question.
I am smiling since I remember earlier when you also kept saying it was your last question.
Perhaps if I had worded my question properly, I wouldn’t have had to raise another question.
With respect to fishery studies, it talks about regional initiatives.
Does it state, for example, here in the Baffin region, how many lakes will be surveyed, this many in the Kivalliq, as well as this many in the Kitikmeot?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we get requests for fish surveys, we try to comply with these requests, wherever they may be.
Additionally, another member referred to a ship. That ship will be conducting surveys throughout the marine areas of Nunavut. At this time, it has completed a survey on several marine areas, as it started the survey last year.
I’m not sure whether I missed it or misunderstood the response.
The deputy minister inferred that the lakes will be surveyed, with our fish being in great demand. Additionally, that ship is an actual ship.
I am kind of confused since we seemed to be talking about two different subjects. I just want clarification on this.
I was using the English definition of fish in my mind and just heard fisheries as opposed to char.
When we get a request to conduct commercial fishery surveys for char in the lakes or if a community wishes to increase their commercial fishing quota in an identified lake, it is done the way it was stated.
This is for my own clarification.
It is written here and I unfortunately can’t find the Inuktitut version, but in the English version, it states that they are planning to initiate a study.
Does this mean that it may not proceed if they don’t receive a request from communities?
No, this population study will continue. If the funding we’re trying to obtain is approved by the House, then it will proceed.
There will be several studies undertaken once the funding is approved.
Are there any more general comments on the opening comments?
In early winter, the news media had several stories about caribou, and concerns were expressed about the population decrease, at least the suspicion was that it is decreasing.
Further, I believe it is now noticeable that it has decreased.
The hunters and trappers association initiated a plan to limit the harvest to ensure that they conserve the caribou. It’s not really stated in this document, but caribou are a concern in Coral Harbour in particular. The department has to reconsider their position, at least according to the chairman of the HTO.
I happened to speak to him over the phone. If, indeed, this will occur, is it possible to make plans for an early spring population study?
Since the HTO is looking at limiting the harvest, we have to know the exact status of our Southampton Island caribou. Since it is an island, this causes the biologists to be even more worried. The chairman of the HTO wanted the status changed to “special concern” for our caribou.
Although he did not ask specifically for this and perhaps it is too late, I wonder if a population study could be undertaken.
We have found that whenever a population study is undertaken, even when it is not an aerial survey, these ground surveys are not as expensive. I wonder whether this matter can be reconsidered by his department to conduct studies in Coral Harbour.
This was, indeed, becoming a concern with the caribou of Southampton Island.
Actually, it has started to become a concern to date.  We all know the history when the caribou population crashed and it showed that the caribou on Southampton Island can crash.
Previously, 80 percent of the cows used to bear calves.
Now the birthrate has changed and the number of cows that can bear calves has dropped to 40 percent. This is part of the reason, as well as what was thought to be an over-harvesting of caribou. So it started to become a real concern and at one point, it was really worrisome.
The HTO held a meeting with the departmental officials yesterday in Coral Harbour and once we have our officials’ report on the decisions, we will know what the HTO requested to manage their caribou population.
Additionally, we are cooperating with the Coral Harbour HTO, as they want to deal with this issue, and they will also be meeting with Nunavut Tunngavik wildlife officials.
I would like to remind you that we’re on general comments at this time. I will allow you to ask your question on page I-5 at the appropriate time.
I don’t want to keep going back and forth, so I would suggest that we stay with the general comments and then ask detailed questions during the page-by-page review.
I would like to remind you once again that we are now on general comments and it seems like we’re starting to ask questions that should be asked when we get to the appropriate page. However, I’ll give you the floor, Mr. Ningeongan.
Yes, indeed, I brought this matter up since there was nothing mentioned in his opening comments and due to the fact that this issue is not included in the document. That was my reason.
As per the minister’s response, yesterday’s meeting between the HTO and DOE was expected to result in a decision regarding the caribou of Southampton Island and an agreement on a caribou management plan. That is our expectation.
Although I am not being fearful of the Chairman’s admonition, I will stop there for now.
Yes, this is just a general comment on the minister’s opening comments.
As the minister stated, they are working with their partners to develop, in English, (interpretation ends) community-specific adaptation plans. (interpretation) The minister spoke to that and additionally, it is mentioned in the Upagiaqtavut document.
Further, I believe that it impacts all federal, territorial, and local government mandates for the Nunavut territory.
Further, it states that Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk are included in the study. In English, it states, “monitoring stations.” It speaks about permafrost and whether the permafrost is melting due to the changing climate.
I’m happy if that was true and I’m thankful that Repulse Bay and Kugaaruk were included in this study and that they’re part of the partnership if included.
I wonder how many stations are in Nunavut for this project, which is called the (interpretation ends) Nunavut Permafrost Monitoring Network (interpretation) in English. I believe that there may be several more, but I’m just commenting on this matter.
Within his opening comments, it also talks about Kugaaruk’s potential park. I wonder if this includes the current situation, as I believe access to the potential Kugaaruk Territorial Park is impossible. The mineral exploration companies have the licence for that land and that may be the barrier.
I’ll just hold my questions for now on that. If the minister wants to respond, he is always free to do so.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Ningark. Further, Minister Arreak, I will give you an opportunity to respond. However, we have been stuck on general comments for quite some time and I think that in order to ensure a smooth review, we should move to the page-by-page review.
I will provide you with an opportunity. No matter, I will set it aside for now and ask that the member direct his question when we reach page I-5. Mr. Oshutapik.
Mr. Oshutapik (interpretation): The minister isn’t looking currently.
In the minister’s opening comments, I have a few general comments related to funding within the Department of Environment when he first started reading his opening comments. Yes, they are identified, and I want an effective outcome from the funding that is appropriated and approved by this legislature. I would like to see the department fulfill their program objectives, especially where it relates to the fur purchasing program, both short fur and long fur.
I believe the term now used is Turrujut.
Many communities are no longer taking advantage of the fur purchase program, so I want to see further efforts or development to encourage more Inuit to harvest furbearers and I would like them to consider that.
In the past, the program was used by a lot of hunters since the price was quite high and it helped people to increase their income. Some people were able to purchase snowmobiles through the long fur program without being a full-time hunter and have transportation in the community.
I want to see more promotion of trapping to our younger generation. Some people are taking advantage of this, but not all communities are taking advantage of this program.
This shows some revenue can be obtained and would allow some Inuit to remain off the welfare list, so I would want to see more promotion by DOE for this program and would support that.  I’m trying to limit my comments.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Oshutapik. Mr. Curley.
I want to comment while on general comments, which I will keep short.
I keep hearing about the wildlife matters, especially related to polar bear studies. However, we are also privy to announcements about future planned studies in such-and-such management areas. With respect to these announced studies, we ought to also receive the results of these studies from the minister responsible, especially when the department is being reviewed in committee.
As an example, last year’s polar bear studies should at least be reported as a draft since the members can at least have an idea of how the study panned out, including the status of the population, whether it is incomplete or if inadequate, at least the department could present them to the members to outline their plans for the future, and not just make a statement about another planned study to announce to the members.
To analogize, last year, the department conducted population studies on several species, including some caribou herds. What were the results of these studies? We need to have (interpretation ends) that information, (interpretation) especially for polar bears, at least I would say that in relation to the Kivalliq region, and I will have questions later on about this issue.
The other aspect is historical.
Last week, I heard on the news that there were concerns about the Coral Harbour caribou population declining drastically and that the hunters were over-harvesting caribou to sell to other Inuit elsewhere. We have to carefully delineate these accusations. The department sponsored a commercial harvest for the last ten years, with some harvests exceeding 8,000 caribou.
This was just for that commercial harvesting.
We started to have expectations of change based on our observations that the Wildlife Division was not cognizant of the effects of the commercial harvest impacting the caribou population. In my opinion, this commercial harvest was a bigger factor in decreasing the population, not just the subsistence harvests.
We know the subsistence hunts were part of the issue, but the commercial harvests were purely for southern markets and it ran for quite a number of years.
I doubt that the small number of caribou sold by the Inuit contributed to this decline.
Another mitigating factor is the diseases suffered by the caribou, such as brucellosis.
We have to also keep in mind that the size of Southampton Island is fairly small compared to Baffin Island, which I consider to be small compared to the mainland, which is a huge swath of tundra.
I believe Southampton Island is approximately 1,000 square miles in size (interpretation ends) or less.
(interpretation) The caribou herd original to the island disappeared in 1953, and this fact is obvious.
Inuit did not cause the herd to disappear.
However, in those days, the dog teams had to be fed, but huskies can eat almost any type of food 365 days a year.
In those days, the dogs consumed more meat than the Inuit.
In that generation, dog teams were iconic and hunters fed them caribou meat since there was no wildlife management system or any government presence which caused the caribou to disappear.
In this day and age, I don’t think we should just blame Inuit harvesters because government policies can exacerbate the problem.
The commercial harvest initiated by the government led to many hunters from the community working for this commercial harvest, with numbers close to 10,000 per annum when it was first started as an economic development activity.
Additionally, the same applies to our polar bear studies.
The members require this information to make proper decisions. I know for a fact since I grew up in Coral Harbour and (interpretation ends) I consider it my home. (interpretation) I live in Rankin Inlet today and not in Coral Harbour. Back then, Inuit harvested more polar bears without the advent of the quota system, as there were numerous polar bears everywhere.
The population has increased to this day.  These are my opening comments.
The research approved and conducted in the past should include tabled result reports on the population studies, including all of the commercial harvest data from the past ten years.
If we have that information, then we would note that Inuit are not the only party to blame when we are dealing with wildlife issues.
We are on Corporate Management.
I-4. $4,277,000.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, let me understand first if we are on page I-4.
Mr. Chairman, if I could raise a few questions on this page because I would like a bit more clarification.
First of all, when it talks about jobs and training, I imagine it refers to current employees, so my question could be in this category.
I don’t wish to give a long preamble, but let me at least provide a bit of a background so that the minister can give me a response without misunderstanding where I am coming from.
I wonder if the majority of the communities have just the one conservation officer, whom we used to term wildlife officers.
Pond Inlet has one conservation officer and I believe every community is in that same status.
This becomes a big problem when the conservation officer, who is the sole conservation officer in the community, has to leave because they have to go for more training in another community or if somebody in another community is sick and they have to substitute for that position. The office completely shuts down.
The hunters who really depend on the conservation officer basically have a shut door and cannot be assisted while the officer is away.
It may be that you never heard of it.
Have you ever thought about trying to make improvements so that there are people available?
Let me ask that question first.
Yes, we have heard about this issue previously and we have heard it on a number of occasions. I can’t recall whether this matter was brought up as a question during a prior committee review. It was expressed as a continuing concern by the members and it is a priority of the department to resolve this.
Additionally, with respect to this, I believe that we have two communities where courses are being taught. We have three communities, I believe, where we are trying to offer these courses to alleviate the shortfalls in the number of employees.
Whenever a community has not had an officer for a protracted period, we look at an interim transfer of an officer to that community to provide services, usually from a community close by. Our main obstacle is the lack of funding to offer salaries to officers since many communities do not have two officers employed.
I can’t recall the other question the member posed, but this challenge is continually being reviewed to try to resolve it.
If I understood the response properly, the department notes these concerns from the communities, that it is a concern, that it is a problem, and that they are aware of this challenge.
With the department fully aware of this concern and problem and understanding the factors causing this, how is this matter being resolved?
We don’t see a continuing problem created by this matter. However, we are apprised of local concerns whenever a community has not had an officer to provide services.
In communities that are clamouring for an officer when an officer hasn’t been hired, we send an officer from another community to serve that community temporarily. In cases where we don’t have that luxury, we can appoint a local person to undertake certain duties within that community. When we hire a temporary local person to provide this service, it is usually to cover the period where the department is trying to hire an officer.
Some of them have continued to serve even after the officer is hired.
I thank the minister for his reply.
The communities with conservation officers or renewable resource officers, in my opinion, suffer a serious problem and to hear the minister claim there don’t seem to be any major problems conflicts with my observation. That is not what I hear from my community. All I hear is that it is a chronic problem.
I wonder who the minister hears from.
It is a serious problem for people who need documents approved. My involvement is to try to help find a solution, so I’m now curious as to how it has been addressed in the past.
When a conservation officer goes out of town for brief periods or extended periods, claiming that they can assign a temporary replacement, who is able to fill that need?
I thank the member for relaying more of those concerns and the problems they face in his community.
When there is a pressing need for conservation officers, we are able to send one of our officers into that community.
We will sometimes appoint a temporary officer who is paid hourly to fill in while the officer is away. We generally look for someone who can do all the paperwork. So we hire whoever can do all of that paperwork.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank the minister for that response.
If they’re going to appoint temporary conservation officers, does the temporary officer need to have all the training required of the position or are you basically getting someone who can do the paperwork?
The temporary conservation officer does not fulfill all the duties of the conservation officer. They’re basically dealing with paperwork and selling or buying sealskins.
They are basically doing the mundane type of activities that a conservation officer undertakes. So anybody who can undertake those duties can be appointed.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): I would like my constituents and fellow residents to fully understand.
If our conservation officer is required to be out of town for some time or for a long period and a replacement officer may have to be sent to our community, does the department have a list handy for that community whereby people can act in that capacity?
Here I mean names from the local community who can act in that capacity, even if they have another position elsewhere. Does the department have a list of names of individuals in every community who can fill in temporarily?
As I stated earlier, they only perform part of the duties of a conservation officer. They don’t carry out the full duties of the incumbent.
Every time we need to search for a temporary officer, we advertise it through the local radio as well as consulting with the HTOs.
What I’m trying to ask is: since there can be temporary conservation officers in the communities, do we already have those individuals living in the communities who can assume part of the duties?
As I stated earlier, if we need to find a temporary conservation officer, we go on the local radio station to advertise and we consult with the local HTO. We did that in the community of Qikiqtarjuaq and found a temporary officer who happened to be the chair of the local HTO.
We don’t have people in the communities readily available to take on the duties of a conservation officer. If there is no conservation officer in the community, we send one in from another community to help.
If I wanted to become a temporary conservation officer in Pond Inlet, what qualifications should I have?
If you went through our local radio station looking for a temporary conservation officer, what qualifications should I have?
When we’re looking for a temporary conservation officer, we inform them of what qualifications are required. They should hold an FAC if the officer is required to use a rifle. The job description is also advertised.
As I understand it, if I have an FAC, I would qualify. That’s good.
The second question I want to raise is: am I correct in saying that there is more than one conservation officer in any given community in Nunavut?
I didn’t say that an FAC is the only qualification we require.
We identify the types of duties that are involved. It’s not just an FAC.
Yes, there are some communities that have more than one conservation officer.
Mr. Enook (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I believe Pond Inlet is one of the largest communities on Baffin Island, perhaps even in Nunavut. There are about 1,600 living in the community.