EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
As long as your question is under the $25,000 item.
Mr. Enook: No.
First of all I’d like to ask if the department has considered hiring harvesters with a salary?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could do that, we wouldn’t be here, and Joe as well.
This issue, as a minister for this department, I have not seen anything like that.
I’m sure if it was the case many of us wouldn’t be here.
I’m sure Steve Mapsalak wouldn’t be here either.
Therefore I’ll have my deputy elaborate on that further, Mr. Chairman.
As I understand the question, it’s have we considered paying harvesters to harvest. With the exception of the Harvester Support Program that we have under the grants and contributions, the answer to the question is no.
I understand. A lot of us wouldn’t be here because if they just wanted to hunt.
The reason why I’m asking this question is because many people in the community are just hunters and harvesters. I was wondering if you can consider this aspect in view of the fact that we have community freezers and Inuit crave country food. I was wondering why you have not considered harvesters or hunters?
That’s why I alluded to it.
If you could make a comment in regards to my comment.
We have not looked at that in the past as the Department of Environment.
Our mandate is for wildlife management, environmental protection, creating parks and more recently, fisheries development. That’s where our mandate lies. To expand the government’s role into paying people to harvest would be a huge policy shift with immense financial implications for the government and we are not looking at it at this time.
I thank them for the answer.
It is just something to think about.
On another angle, I don’t know if this is related to this.
We heard recently that the government had a contest in terms of naming the Sylvia Grinnell River.
When the people would think the ice would go away, was this project initiated by your department or is this done by some other organization?
My acting deputy minister will answer this.
That was a public outreach initiative that was sponsored by our Parks division.
We have a position that does heritage appreciation and community outreach and it was a little fun initiative to encourage interest in the parks program.
When this was initiated it appeared to be geared for Iqaluit residents only. That is why I am asking about it.
I don’t think too many Nunavut residents are aware of where this river is or how far it is from Iqaluit.
It appears to be geared for Iqaluit residents and that was my concern. I would like to see the other communities included if the government is to have contests. If these could be open to Nunavut residents, it would be better.
I do recognize the concern but we actually do have various public outreach initiatives that happen all over Nunavut.
We have parks support staff in each region and they each run little initiatives like this on a community and a regional basis.
It’s not as much a Nunavut-wide program as it is a…people customize their program delivery according to regional needs.
They don’t necessarily happen everywhere and we don’t have territorial parks everywhere but we do try to make sure that our initiatives are spread around the territory.
We are on page I-4.
To be voted. $4,408,000.
Defeated.
We’re on page I-5. Branch Summary. Environment.
Program Management. Mr. Mikkungwak.
First of all, it got defeated so take that.
On a serious note here, the Department of Environment.
I’d like to make a serious correction on page 141.
Utilizing Inuit knowledge and seeing that my community is also listed.
On the fourth bullet, under priorities 2013-14. Page 141.
With the support of residents from Gjoa Haven and Baker Lake, develop formal nomination documents for Uqqusiksalik Back River. That is a serious mistake.
Whether it be a typo or not, having been on search and rescue and maintaining Inuit knowledge, our place names in our hunting grounds.
If an individual or an employee from the Department of Environment gets hurt in that area you will mislead an individual to that particular land area to try and save a person’s life, if the case may be.
I would like to make a correction. Uqqusiksalik is Wager Bay.
I presume that the majority of the Members of the Legislative Assembly will agree with me. I want to make a correction here.
Back River in Baker Lake is Hannigajuk. I do hope that will be corrected in all of the documents by the Department of Environment.
That will be my first comment.
If the minister wants to answer.
I thank my colleague for this.
I believe him. The correction will be made.
If those proper corrections are going to be made, I’d really appreciate that because that is a vast landmass when you are traveling on the land between Hannigajuk and Uqqusiksalik, between Wager Bay and Back River.
That is quite a landmass when you are traveling on the land.
Moving on, I’ll be very direct.
My questions concern the issue of heritage rivers.
Page 141, again, of the department’s business plan indicates that one of the department’s ongoing priorities has been to complete negotiations for an umbrella Inuit impact and benefits agreement for Canadian Heritage Rivers and Nunavut. However, the Business Plan also indicates that negotiations have stalled due to disagreements between Canada and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the regional Inuit associations over implementation funding.
Yesterday, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated announced that it will exercise its ability, under the Nunavut Land Claim’s Agreement to have a conciliator appointed to resolve this matter.
This issue is of great importance to my constituents in Baker Lake.
For the benefit of public record, could the minister or his officials clearly explain what the Government of Nunavut’s position is on the development?
Most definitely in this Assembly when the same MLA had asked this question in relation to the benefits that would have accrued to the Inuit.
It needs to be put forward first. Looking at the benefits, if there were to be an agreement, and that the creation of the agreement should be the first priority instead of just... .
The issue can be clarified more if the finances were talked about. I would like my acting deputy minister to respond.
As the members are aware, the department has been pursuing the Heritage Rivers program for some time and we’re pleased to see at least some progress by NTI’s insistence on a conciliator.
Negotiations have been stalled for too long and if the conciliator can assist in moving things forward, it’s a very positive development.
Next name on the list, Mr. Hickes.
I’ve just got a few questions under the environmental protection section.
I’m sure minister will know where I’m going with this. In the past week and a half, I’ve asked him a number of questions regarding this topic, but I want to generalize it a little bit more than just the Iqaluit landfill fire here.
In the enforcement, compliance, and pollution prevention category, it talks about the environmental monitoring, inspection, investigations, potential enforcement action, and promoting pollution prevention activities. As well as know, as I know the minister knows, a lot of communities have controlled burns at their landfill sites.
We all realize that the Minister of Community and Government Services has a tough role to hold as well, getting proper infrastructure in place across the territory with regard to landfills and solid waste management.
What type of activities in pollution prevention regarding landfills is your department doing? Would there be a possibility of banning burning altogether at landfill sites?
In response to the latter part of the question, in theory, it would be possible to ban controlled landfill burns, but for many Nunavut communities, it seems to be a choice that they’re stuck with having to make that choice to burn to reduce volume. It doesn’t seem to be a feasible solution across the board at this time.
I would fear, actually, if they did stop burning, then they would end up with a huge scale like has been referred to in Iqaluit.
We have taken some steps to assist communities in managing waste, but we have actually focused more on hazardous waste. We supported the development of a hazardous waste training program for landfill operators and similar initiatives to that more focused on hazardous waste as opposed to household waste.
That has been our focus. CGS works with communities on solid waste in general.
To be honest, I anticipated that response.
What I was going to lead to with the response they provided is: is there an opportunity to work with the municipalities on separation into “burnables”? Like you said, there is hazardous, but there is also a lot of chemical reaction to fire in a lot of the waste that we have, diapers, plastics, electronics, you name it.
Those might not be termed hazardous until it is burning and it’s not healthy for our populous, it’s not healthy for our children, it’s not healthy for us.
I’m just wondering: what type of initiatives are possible from your department to work with the Community and Government Services on having separation plans or strategies at our landfills?
I would like my acting deputy minister to respond to that, please.
We have focused primarily on hazardous material management recognizing that communities do their own solid waste management with the support from CGS.
We do continue to work closely with our colleagues at CGS and municipalities on solid waste management but we don’t have any other initiatives on solid waste management at this time.
I am aware that there is training provided to municipal landfill operators for proper landfill management, including separation but we don’t play a direct role in that training.
On page 133 of the business plan under the category of environmental protection, it takes about some of the key functions of the Environmental Protection Division, including the following and if you look at the fourth bullet there, “Undertake preventative programs directed towards protecting the environment and mitigating any negative impacts resulting from human activity, industrial, or domestic.”
Would not landfill fires fit that category?
Environmental stewardship or protection and because Nunavut’s landmass is extremely large and mining companies and other resource companies are becoming more active in Nunavut all the time and looking at our future Nunavut is being looked at by a lot of people that want to make money out of it and what was just read, that’s part of it.
And, I know that, in the communities the garbage is becoming larger and larger and because of that situation, we have to try to take care of our environment and it is getting harder and harder.
We, at the Department of Environment are aware that we cannot do this on our own.
For example, there was an online petition. It has been another indicator to the department that the people in the communities are expressing their concerns about pollution and dumps.
It’s great that they are becoming active in trying to do something this and trying to preserve the environment, and the fact that we have to be stewards of the environment.
I see it and read about environmental protection.
I would like my acting deputy minister to expand on this.
The dump fire in Iqaluit is an example of what can happen, it really is a catastrophic event. It’s not an everyday event.
Most of our programs were designed around ongoing management non-environmental issues. As opposed to responding to what can be referred to as a catastrophic event, it was unplanned.
You could say that you could capture a burning dump as a pollution source, but responding to it as an enforcement-type matter doesn’t really match the circumstances for the city. I hope that helps.
I think there might be some misunderstanding here.
While I do appreciate the concern with the Iqaluit dump fire, I’m talking about a more territorial-wide basis.
You both of you have stated, there are a number of communities that have controlled burns. Basically, they’re in a situation where they’re forced to do so, as you have stated.
My concern is the type of materials that are burning in those dumps.
As the minister is more than aware, when the wind shifts in Pangnirtung, when their dump is burning, that smoke goes right back into town.
What I’m suggesting under your key functions is undertaking a preventative program toward protecting the environment and mitigating any negative impacts by working with the municipalities and communities on separating the garbage into “burnables” and “non-burnables.”
It may fill the landfill, but it will do it at a slower pace; where cardboard, woods, and combustible materials that aren’t toxic can be, more or less, safely burned; protecting us and our environment.
That’s where I was going with that question.
Maybe if you guys want to re-consider your answer.
Environmental protection and making sure that people don’t go into hazardous areas has to be dealt with through partnerships.
The Department of Environment is trying to do what it can by working with the municipal governments and the Department of Health.
I can use an example of the DEW line sites. When the former DEW sites were starting to be cleaned up, we heard that they had PCBs in them.
There were old DEW line sites in the High Arctic that were totally contaminated. There was some initial planning done in Iqaluit to try and burn all the PCBs. It is one of the hardest things to incinerate.
You need really high temperatures to do that. They tried to plan a disposal facility for PCBs for Iqaluit, but they looked at the costs and it didn’t happen. I’m just using those PCB-contaminated sites as an example.
We started talking about PCB at that time and it was considered very hazardous to our bodies.
At that time, there was no problem in shipping out those PCBs to incinerating facilities in the south because they exist down there.
We’re starting to think along those lines for the town dumps. We can try to work with the communities especially outside of Iqaluit.
Pangnirtung was used as an example. We live in the plateau. The Iqaluit dump smoke came up to the plateau and it was like being back at home in Pangnirtung.
I’m not saying it’s good; it just reminded me of being back home in Pangnirtung.
People should not have to live in conditions like that.
In the Department of Environment, we’re doing our part and doing what we can within the policies.
On page 137 of your business plan under the Fur Pricing Program, there’s a budget of $645,000 and it was the same in 2013-14.
Was that budget used up?
My interim deputy minister will respond to that.
Chairman: Ms. Nweze.
Ms. Nweze: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The budget is for the Fur Pricing Program. We pay subsidies that go to the auction house down south. We also use this budget to pay for the fisheries organizations that provide the equipment and so forth.
Chairman: Go ahead, Ms. Nweze.  Ms. Nweze: Thank you.
As mentioned in the budget, we felt we found a lot of good things.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question was if that budget of $645,000 was used up in the 2013-14 year.
The finance person will respond.
Ms. Nweze: Yes, we spent the whole budget in 2013-14.
I don’t know if you have that level of detail, but how much of that was used for shipping fur out to the auction house?
If you don’t have it here, I’ll understand it, but do you have it?
We don’t have the information, but if you need it, we could provide it to the House.
What I’m going towards is on [page] 136 of your business plan, the Fishing and Sealing Strategy, it states here that “The Fisheries and Sealing division focuses on developing viable and sustainable fisheries, sealing and fur industries that maximize the revenues and opportunities derived from the sustainable harvest of Nunavut’s renewable resources for the benefit Nunavummiut.”
I asked the minister in the House once if he would pay for the shipping of fur to other places other than the only fur auction house that they pay the shipping of fur to, so I’ll ask again.
Will the minister pay for the shipping of fur to other places other than the one auction house?
This issue, those who use the fur and seals or the auction house to purchase through there, at this time, it remains the status quo that the funding…I have not seen or heard of any changes to this program but we are now reviewing this program.
The Harvester Support Program is still being reviewed at this time.
I have already stated that maybe in October this coming fall during the fall session, I will be able to table information on this.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) I would like to ask the minister, do I understand correctly that this coming fall, that they will be able to pay for the freight to send the fur and seals to another auction house?
In Arviat and Kivalliq, they only send them to one auction house.
If I understood the minister correctly, that this coming fall, that the minister is going to come up with a program to send fur and seal other than this one auction house?
As I stated earlier, we are reviewing the Harvester Support Program for the fall session.
We are reviewing right now and once the review is completed, then at the time, I will be able to announce the results of the review.
If that is clear and understandable, I don’t think how it will explain how we will be doing it but we will see the results after the review.
At the fall session, I will be able to provide the results at that time.
Mr. Savikataaq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Let me ask the minister. I am talking about asking questions in regards to program management.
If you are going to review all the programs, will the minister not be able to respond to my question as long as the program is being reviewed?
I would like to thank my colleague for asking that question.
The main estimates that we are reviewing now. Main estimates for the Department of Environment and the business plan. It states in there it does not change if there is going to be any changes for the Fur and Sealing Program but I can only tell you at this time that we are reviewing this program for harvesters support, but we will go ahead according to the plan that is in front of you.
It’s not the plans.
Some will be utilized.
Can the minister indicate to us now which programs are being reviewed so that we will know that we won’t get an answer on those programs?
My deputy minister will elaborate on that.
The programs that we are conducting a review on other than the current year are the harvester support programs, which includes disaster compensation, the Community Harvesters Assistance Program, the Community Hunt Program, the Fur Pricing Program, and the Fisheries Development and Diversification Program. That’s the block of them.
Also included are the two polar bear programs, the Polar Bear Damage Prevention Program and the Polar Bear Damage Compensation Program.
So it’s all of the programs that come under the umbrella of harvester support.
I thank Mr. Pinksen for the candid response and I have no more questions because all the programs I want to question are under review.
I have a question on page 137. When the shipping vessel, Nuliajuk, was doing research over here, how much did it cost per day?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have my deputy respond.
I don’t have that level of detail with me for the minister, but we do have it in our office and we would be pleased to provide it to the committee.
I would also like to ask in regard to the vessel. In the wintertime, does the vessel stay somewhere idle? Where does it stay during the winter?
If it stays idle in the wintertime, I’m sure it cots money. How much money would it cost per day for it to sit idling?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll have my deputy minister respond.
The vessel does sit idle in the winter. It’s stored at a shipyard in Newfoundland.
There is a cost associated with the winter storage, but I don’t have that level of detail with me at this time and I’ll be happy to provide it to the committee.
Yes, we will be expecting that information.
I would also like to ask a question under page I-6 and I believe it is included in I-5 in regard to disaster compensation.
I do believe that I’ll be receiving the same response as Mr. Savikataaq, but let me ask a question.
This line item used to be $70,000, but it was reduced down to $40,000 for disaster compensation.
Did you consult with the harvesters who experienced disasters? It was reduced from $70,000 to $40,000 because it was not utilized enough. Did you consult fully on why it was not utilized, or how it could have been used more?
We made the change to this line item because it was not completely utilized.
That is why we make changes so that it can be more accurate.
Who requested to make it more accurate?
Those individuals who are impacted…Pangnirtung was affected also by this.
I believe that they didn’t know where to go.
I can’t tell you whether Pangnirtung was the reason why it was changed. There are other issues why it was changed. With good reason, I’m sure they made those changes.
I believe it’s a bit too much if you based your decision on one community.
It’s a very important program. There are 25 communities in Nunavut.
It seems like they were not considered.
This is an issue that has been raised and the one thing that I cannot understand is in Pond Inlet there have been quite a few disasters and also in other communities. I have also heard of incidents in Arctic Bay in the summertime.
Many hunters have told us that when they’re trying to get compensation and beforehand, if they get confused with all the questions they just give up. I have been told this many times.
They also say that there is no one to turn to.
Which is truer? They just give up because of the hassle.
You have to fill out a questionnaire, write a letter, and notarized. There are many obstacles. That is what I don’t understand.
I am happy that the Hon. Minister stated that these are being reviewed. I also understand that you will take into consider all communities and not just one community. I anticipate that the funding for this program is going to be increased.
That was just a comment. Next name on my list. Ms. Angnakak.
I’d like to ask a little about environmental protection, you monitor and investigate spills. How do you go about monitoring spills in the communities?
I will have my acting deputy minister respond.
We have two very different ways that we track what’s happening in the communities.
One, of course, is our staff who are trained and tasked with paying attention to what’s going around. They provide any information about spill incidents in the communities.
In each region we have an environmental protection officer that there to support the community based staff and that’s a technical expert to provide them with advice.
More recently, we started about two years ago and it’s been rolled out across Nunavut now is what we call a Complimentary Heating Oil Tank Inspection Program where our staff are going around at no cost to anybody and conducting inspections of fuel storage areas and providing a report to the building owner or resident on if there are any deficiencies in their fuel storage system. That’s how we monitor.
I would like to say that I think you guys are doing a great job with that.
You actually notified us of a drip in our oil tank before it got too bad. That’s really good to hear that is continuing.
Last week I tabled a letter in the House from a Mr. Adam Malcolm, he’s from Gjoa Haven. He was the principal there. He talked about a recycling program.
As you know, I’ve raised this in the House a few times now.
I believe that we all have our part to play when it comes to recycling. I think I’ve spoken with the minister about this before.
I would like to know what is your department doing about recycling? Do you have a plan in place? And if so, if you’re starting to think about implanting a plan, who have you been working with to implement the plan?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. No, those groups we work mainly with are in the communities.
The Arctic Cooperatives Limited who collect pop cans that are recyclable.