EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Report 026 – 1(6): Bill 54 – An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act to Committee of The Whole
I wish to report that Bill 54-An Act to Amend the Access to Information and Protection of Privacy Act change of precedence has been reviewed by the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Services and that the Bill is ready for consideration in Committee of the Whole.
And Mr. Speaker I seek unanimous consent to waive rule 68 (5) and have Bill 54 moved into Committee of the Whole for today.
Speaker: There is a request to waive 68 (5) so the Standing Committee report on Bill 54 can be immediately referred to Committee of the Whole.
Bill 54 is referred to Committee of the Whole for today.
Tabled Document 166 – 1(6): Eulogy for Mr. Ralph Ritchey
Just recently there was a death in Ottawa, Ralph Ritchey.
He’s done a lot of good service for the education of Inuit, our Commissioner was able to do a eulogy at the service regarding Ralph Ritchey and how much contribution he’s made to the north through the education system.
I would like to table this translation of the Inuktitut eulogy.
Tabled Document 167 – 1(6): Fire Prevention Brochure
I rise today to table our Fire Prevention Brochure that has been adopted for use by public.
This brochure is being used by my officials to ensure that all GN-owned and leased buildings are safe from fire as possible.
Given the very popular reception these have generated, Cabinet has decided to make available a public version of this brochure.
Tabling of Document.
Tabled Document 168 – 1(6): Sustainable Infrastructure for Nunavut
Hon Peter Kilabuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
I wish to table the following document Sustainable Infrastructure for Nunavut Making the Socio-Economic and Environmental Case for Infrastructure Investment.
Tabled Document 169 – 1(6): Maligarnit Qimirrujiit Nunavut Law Review Commission Second Report to the Premier
I would like to table a document The Law Review Board of Nunavut Second Annual Report, forwarded to me.
Tabled Document 170 – 1(6): Government of Nunavut Department of Education Student Loan Revolving Fund for the Years Ended March 31, 2002, March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2000
Hon. Manitok Thompson (interpretation): Mr. Speaker, I would like to table the Department of Education Student Loan Revolving Fund from March 31, 2000 to March 31, 2001 and March 31, 2002.
Do we have any further tabling of documents?
Tabled Document 171 – 1(6): Report on the Review of the 2002 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut
The Government Response to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Services Report on the Review of the 2002 Report of the Auditor General Canada’s Report to the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut.
Minister Ng. Item 13.
Are there any further tabling of documents?
Tabled Document 172 – 1(6): Nunavut Business Credit Corporation 2000-2001, 2001-2002
Tabled Document 173 – 1(6): Nunavut Development Corporation Annual Report 2002-2003
I wish to table the following document Nunavut Development Corporation Annual Report 2002-2003 and I wish to table the other document the Nunavut Business Credit Corporation 2001-2002 Report.
We are just slowing down the pace so that we can properly record the documents as they come in.
Tabled Document 174 – 1(6): The First Report on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in the Government of Nunavut 1999-2003
Hon Peter Kilabuk (interpretation): Mr. Speaker I would like to table this document for the first time a report on Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, what the concepts are and what the discussions were in applying this to government from 1993-2003.
Tabled Document 175 – 1(6): Pension Administration Report for the Year Ending March 31, 2003
Tabled Document 176 – 1(6): Annual Report on the Information and Privacy Commission for the Year Ending March 31, 2003
A surprise.
Members I wish to table the Pension Administration Report for the Year Ending March 31, 2003 Pursuant to the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances and Supplementary Retirement Allowances Act.
Also Members I wish to table the Annual Report on the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Year Ending March 31, 2003.
Consideration of Committee of the Whole of Bills and Other Matters. Bill 35. Bill 50.
Bill 51. Bill 52. Bill 53 and Bill 54.
With Mr. Irqittuq in the Chair and in accordance with the authority provided to me by Motion 2-1 (6) the Committee of the Whole will stay in session until it reports itself out.
Before we proceed to Committee of the Whole, we’ll take a short five minutes break so that we can get set up for the following meetings.
>>House recessed at 14:47 resumed at 15:10
Chairman (interpretation): We will start our Committee of the Whole.
Today, on our Orders are Bill 35, 50, 51, 52, 53 and 54.
The Committee would like to proceed with what we dealt with yesterday in reviewing Bill 35, the Wildlife Act.
For those, welcome to those that have gone to listen to the proceedings.
If you can please provide hearing aids for Raymond.
We will start off from what we finished off yesterday.
Mr. Akesuk, please take your seat and Sergeant-at-arms, please assist the Officials.
Can you please introduce your Officials for the record?
To my right, Director of Wildlife in the Department and has been involved in the makeup of this Bill, Steve Pinksen and to my left, Patrick Orr, Legislative Drafter at the Department of Justice, borrowed from that Department to Department of Sustainable Development on this Bill.
As well, here with me is Raymond, I would like to welcome Raymond and the elders and those who assisted in the translations and to allow smooth, smooth work on this Bill.
Chairman (interpretation): Okay, we will start on Page 4.
Bill 35, Page 38 in Inuktitut, 34 in English.
Clause, Significant disturbance, Clause 73, is it agreed?
Pursuit of Wild Animals. Clause 74. Agreed?
Chairman (interpretation): Humane Treatment. Mr. Iqaqrialu.
Humane treatment, No person shall chase, harass or molest a wild animal.
That is quite a statement there.
For those that do research on the wildlife will be affected by this Clause.
Can you please clarify what or who this applies to?
For those researchers on wildlife and biologists that they do not intend to harass or chase the wildlife.
This is for everybody, this applies to the public, it is for malice, for people who harass wildlife on purpose and that this Section will prevent that.
Chairman (interpretation): Pursuit of Wild Animals. Clause 74.
Retrieval of Dead or Wounded Game. Clause 76.
Clause 76, (c) takes the edible portions of the carcass to the person's dwelling or a place where they can be safely stored or processed.
(interpretation) In the Kivalliq region, they cache caribou and age it.
So, does that prevent us from continuing that tradition, once this Act is passed?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Not whatsoever.
Yes, we traditionally eat cached caribou, so that does not apply to that.
Chairman (interpretation): Retrieval of dead or wounded game. Clause 76.
Chairman (interpretation): Prescribed Standards.
Clause 77.
Chairman (interpretation): Feeding Meat to Animals. Clause 78.
Mr. Puqiqnak (interpretation): Mr. Chairman, I would just like a clarification, I think I misunderstand that Clause.
I have two main questions for Clause 78(1).
First of all, no person shall feed the edible portions of the game to any domestic animal or to a captive wild animal.
I have a misunderstanding there, that no person shall feed the edible portions of game, what does that mean?
…to any domestic animal or to a captive animal…Can you please give an example where there would be a captive animal, what type of animal are you referring to?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): Patrick, Mr. Orr will respond to that.
What constitutes edible game is established either by regulation or by the Hunters and Trappers Organization.
So, certain parts of animals are considered inedible and that could be established by the local Hunters and Trappers Organization or Wildlife Organization.
If it is considered edible, you are not supposed to feed it to dogs or captive wild animals.
There are a few cases where there might be a captive animal, for example, if a Gyrfalcon say, was in captivity or something like that, but the main purpose of this Section is to deal with domestic animals like dogs.
The other Subsections 2 and 3 deal with the cases of where dogs are being used for dog sledding or where a Hunters and Trappers Organization has authorized its members to feed meat to dogs and Subsection 3 deals with feeding game to wild animals, which can be authorized by regulations.
And thank you, for the response. Just a further clarification, it states in (2) say the dogs are being used in the course of transportation when they are fed and are at least eight km from a municipality or settlement; or
(b) the person is a member of a HTO that has, by by-law, authorized its members to  feed that meat to dogs.
Mr. Chairman, earlier he responded that it would be for captive wild animals, either they would be Gyrfalcons or sled dogs, what do you mean by eight kilometers.
In the NWT, there was a provision in the old Act that this eight kilometers radius and we were impacted in our community where caribou meat was fed to a dog team and that was against the current Wildlife Act and there was an information campaign to avoid that.
And we need ways to ensure the survival of our dogs because they were an integral part of our lives, what if we have no other means to feed those dogs?
They would have to starve if they were too stringent on this provision.
As Inuit hunters, we have to tend to our dogs and ensure that we are able to feed our dogs and in (b) that the person is a member of a HTO that has, by by-law, authorized its members to feed that meat to dogs.
Does that mean then if I want to be able to feed my dogs, I would have to go to the HTO through application to get permission?
Yes, exactly, yes, in the communities, it is the discretion of the Hunters and Trappers Organization or the community as a whole who will take on that further authority and jurisdiction in that matter.
So, it would be up to the local Hunters and Trappers Organizations where you can get permission to do so.
Have you stated whether you are not allowing caribou meat or fish, I would like to let the communities know what you cannot allow?
As we stated that the locals officials will now have the authority and through its by-laws can identify which of the meat can be fed.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): My apologies, Mr. Chairman.
I had a question in Clause 77(3), can I go back to that?
Chairman (interpretation): He is seeking unanimous consent to return to 77.
Mr. Anawak, proceed.
It states in (3) in Clause 77 Inedible meat, I disagree with (3), it states, subject to any standards made under this section, all portions of a bear, …I am not sure if they are talking about grizzly bear or polar bear, coyote, wolf or wolverine are deemed to be inedible for the purpose of this Act.
Polar bear is a part of our diet.
What does this mean then?
There are different kinds of bears.
So, it is very general.
It is either polar bear, grizzly bear, but we have kept it general and, but it does not disallow people or it does not say that polar bear meat is inedible, but because there are different types of bears, there are grizzly bears and stuff.
So, we have tried to keep it general.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): It is very open to interpretation.
If I was to catch a polar bear and if I left all of the meat, then it would be okay with you because you consider it inedible.
So, I never tried grizzly bear meat, but I think it is edible in some parts of the country.
So, I do not like that section there because it is not defined properly.
In Clause 76, it states, Clause 76 (c) the edible portions… it just states in there that perhaps we cannot eat the liver of the polar bear because we know it is lethal and I have never seen anyone do so, so we can just throw that part away.
For those inedible parts of the meat, it is what it refers to.
Mr. Anawak (interpretation): Yes, it may mean that, but the way it is written that all portions of a bear, coyote, wolf or wolverine are deemed to be inedible for this purpose of the Act.
We need to fix that section, I believe, because we are aware of people leaving even edible parts of any carcass and we know that polar bears are managed through the quota system, but the meat, because it is such a delicacy, I do not think it should be included in there, it is open to interpretation that we can leave behind meat like that.
I am sure responsible hunters will not go that low, but there are new hunters who are not aware of some of the traditions and they may think that they can leave that good part of the meat.
So, I think we need to clear this up in the future.
Just above that in Clause 72, 77(2), RWO and HTO standards, it states that by by-law, establish standards of what constitutes wastage…
According to each community and because we are not all polar bear meat eaters, we have to remember that, but this Act is also at the discretion of the HTOs in that section for your concerns in Clause 3 or (3).
Chairman (interpretation): Prescribed standards, Mr. Alakannuark.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): Are we in Clause 78?
Chairman (interpretation): Would you like to go to Clause 78?
I would like further clarification, although they asked a question already.
The way it is written, I do not really understand what they mean in, no person shall feed the edible portions of game to any domestic animal or to a captive wild animal.
I would like to ask for those elders out there, and the elders in here are well aware that when you have a dog team, we either feed them fish that is edible to humans or seal meat, which is edible to humans.
We feed those to the dog team traditionally.
So, I’d like to get a further clarification whether this will be totally disallowed through this clause, because it goes against Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.
So, can you please clear that up for me?
I’m sorry for his misunderstanding.
Fish and seal meat or walrus meat have no bearing on this Act.
I stated earlier that the communities will have added authority in this Act as to what can be fed to dogs and it’ll be at the discretion of each community, what can be fed to dog teams.
And inedible parts as well are covered in there.
So, we just wanted to cover all our grounds.
I hope you understand my response, Mr. Chairman.
I understand his response, but to further ask him, yes, that the local HTO’s will have authority and discretion on this.
A dog team owner, if he was to feed meat to his dogs, they have to get permission through the HTO’s?
Or, through this Act, they’re allowed to do it anyway?
If this Bill was passed, I’m sure the communities, local HTO’s will have to adjust their by-laws and it’ll be at their discretion in accordance with this Act.
So, that is how it is and I hope the HTO’s do their best in keeping with this Act.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): I still don’t really understand.
This dog-team owner, if he wants to feed his dogs, he has to go through the permission process or is it up to him?
For those dog-teams, it’s fine to feed them anything you would like.
Chairman (interpretation): Feeding meat to animals.
Clause 79.
General rights.
Chairman (interpretation): General prohibitions.
Clause 80.
In 80(1) any bait, unless it is for harvesting fur bearers for those who are going fishing, does that mean that they can’t use bait on their hooks?
Yes, the way it’s written it is referring to fur bearers.
That has nothing to do with fish.
General Prohibitions.
We do you use bait when we’re trapping for foxes and that is the only way you can trap foxes.
So, does that prohibit us from doing so?
No, it will not impact on trapping and using bait.
Chairman (interpretation): General Prohibitions.
Chairman (interpretation): Compliance with regulations.
Clause 81.
Chairman (interpretation): Using Certified Traps.
Clause 82.
Certified traps in 82(2) the Minister made by order with or without conditions, certified traps in accordance with the agreement on international humane trapping standards.
And (b) certified traps, with the advice of the elders’ committee established under sub-section 160(1) as humane and safe for the use on species of game that are not subject to the agreement on international humane trapping standards.
Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask those first types of traps that were introduced to Nunavummiut were banned and the trappers who have survived by supplementing their incomes through trapping, they were banned, those old traps were banned, and soon after that we were provided with great big ones and quick kill traps.
So, I’m wondering currently if there are new types of traps that have been introduced that are considered humane.
Those first traps that we used and were introduced to the north at this point, have they been certified once again?
And what authority does the Minister have in certifying traps and does the local HTO have the authority in certifying those traps?
We still haven’t stated the certified traps.
So, we would have to work on this and certify those traps, once this bill is enacted.
It states in there that the elders’ committee would have a big role in how to determine what types of traps to use.
Chairman (interpretation): Okay, thank you.
That clears it up for me.
At the next government, we don’t know if you’re going to be Minister and the Minister for the Department of Sustainable Development, those trappers and hunters and elders in Nunavut, if they were to propose a certain type of trap, in accordance with this Act, will they have that authority to request different types of traps?
Mr. Akesuk, just to clear it up further.
He read Clause 82(b) elders committee will be established under sub-section 161 can help identify what traps to certify with the help from the Minister.
But when we’re looking at the Act, it seems like we’re favouring the animal rights activists.
And, as my colleagues stated earlier, and in light of the response that was made, if the elders’ committee should say that we can only use leg hold traps.
I use to be a trapper when I was a child and as in adolescent.
It didn’t seem to do much harm when we were using the leg hold traps.
I don’t know whether they’re out there in the market or not, but my question is, can we use those leg hold traps and are they considered humane and safe?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): We use the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit on the advice of the elders’ committee.
But I think that we should also note that they might also have repercussions out there in the international level.
So, we’ll have to make proper decisions and from the lessons that we’ve learned from what had happened in the past, we’ll have to make sure that this issue is considered carefully and also on the possible repercussions that we might get from the outside world.
And of course, we as Inuit, safety is the number one priority and we’ll be considering all those.
Chairman (interpretation): Certifying Traps.
Chairman (interpretation): Possession Limits.
Clause 83.
Chairman (interpretation): Live Wild Animal.
Clause 84.
I think if I read it all I might understand it.
Number 84.
No person shall possess, keep captive, or feed any live wild animal of any prescribed animal except in accordance with the regulations.
So, my question and for clarification you have to have a permit to capture or feed any live wild animal?
We’re not talking about dogs. We’re talking about live wild animals and there are also regulations mentioned here that would be drafted and they would identify what kind of wildlife animals would be considered under this clause.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Mr. Alakannuark.
Mr. Alakannuark (interpretation): And again for further clarification.
Keep captive, in the Inuktitut it says a captive or possession.
Could you clarify that please?
Hon. Olayuk Akesuk (interpretation): We’re talking about live wild animals.
It doesn’t define what animal we’re talking about, but like I mentioned earlier, these animals will be identified under the regulations.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Anawak, you had your hand up.
Live wild animals.
Chairman (interpretation): Possession of Dead Wild Animals.
Clause 85.
Chairman (interpretation): Application.
Chairman (interpretation): Clause 87.
Prohibited uses.
Mr. McLean: Can I go back to 86?
Chairman (interpretation): Go ahead Mr. McLean.
Mr. McLean: On attaching tags, Minister, I had an instance in my community where a polar bear was given to an elder and the elder had been airing it out in the spring, like they usually do on a clothesline, and the wildlife officer seized it.
There is no polar bear quota in my community, they have to go.
Mr. Pinksen: As you are probably all aware, we regulate polar bears on a very tightly controlled quota system at present.
The way we keep track of how many are taken is by assigning a tag to each bear.
That is how we generally tell that the number of bears harvested is the same number that the quota allows.
When there is a bear without a tag on it, there would normally be some investigation to determine that it was taken as part of a quota and that would have been the purpose of the seizure was to determine where the bear came from and was it under a quota.
So if an individual shoots a polar bear in Gjoa Haven and does the home tanning to it and decides that he needs a couple pieces of it for pants or boots or mitts and then he’s got half of it left, the half that is left, that is there that might have been harvested five or ten years ago, does the tag still have to be attached?
Mr. Pinksen: The current system, a tan hide is no longer wildlife once it has been processed, so in that case, no.
Once it is processed into clothing, it would not require a tag because it is no longer wildlife in the definition of the Act.
What I mean by that is country tanned, not factory tanned.
I would probably have to find out exactly what the circumstance of that case was before I can project what might happen in the future.
It is my understanding that the way we define wildlife is that once that bear hide I cut up and made into clothing, it is no longer subjected to the tagging requirements.
But I will look into it.
Mr. McLean: That is why I am asking the question.
Because if, for example, this individual does get his skin back and he decides to cut a piece off of it again and give it to me as a gesture of friendship and then the wildlife officer comes along and then there is no tag on that part of it, I’ll be fined right to the hilt.
It’s an extreme case, but it’s not an extreme case if the skin is harvested legally, which I’m getting to, and then it’s given from a son to an elder in another community. In the meantime they use half of it to make something, gloves, or pants, or boots, and the tag gets lost after, you know, seven or eight years.
Does the Wildlife Officer have the authority to take the remaining part of the skin and seize it if the tag is not available?
Mr. Orr: Thank you. The way we drafted Section 86, it applies to wild animals and not to wildlife.
The distinction being that wild animal is the animals, when you harvest it, you have to apply the tag to it.
The possession in the future would be also covered by Section 85 where if you lawfully harvested it, your possession would be alright.
All the minute exceptions and variations would be dealt with in the regulations. Subsection 2 of Clause 86 says that the tagging has to be done in accordance with the regulation, so we probably deal with the case of lost tags can be replaced and things like that.
If the person lawfully harvested it, and originally attached the tag to the animal when harvesting it, if tagging was required.
I do not see any of problems in the future.
Mr. McLean: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a problem, and that is why I am being a little vigilant on this one, is that, you know, when somebody harvests a polar bear and it is used for whatever, on the qamutik, or for other issues, and you know you get a new Wildlife Officer in the community and he is going by this elder’s house and he sees a half of a skin, or three quarters of a skin, and seizes it, and takes it to his office.
You know, he explains to an elder that this should not happen.