EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We have found in the past that even a relatively small investment by the department will support a much needed service for Nunavutmiut with the right partnerships.
For example, in March 2009, we worked with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in organizing a wildlife symposium in Rankin Inlet.
We brought together many stakeholders, including elders, and the result was a successful symposium that led to important discussions regarding wildlife management.
Mr. Chairman, we also leveraged third party funding to complete some of our projects.
In the 2008-09 fiscal year, we received approximately $2.8 million from various organizations in support of our wildlife research, fisheries, and other initiatives.
We will continue to seek third party funding to supplement our available resources.
Mr. Chairman, in the 2009-2010 fiscal year, we plan to distribute $1.89 million as grants and contributions to our partnering organizations, such as hunters and trappers organizations, regional wildlife management organizations, and other groups.
A portion of the contribution is directed to the Fisheries Development and Diversification Program, commercial fish freight subsidies, and the Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium.
My department is working closely with Nunavut hamlets in addressing and managing contaminated site inventory projects. We are partnering with the municipalities of Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Kugluktuk on pilot recycling projects.
We are also developing a blueprint for a Nunavut-wide recycling program. This blueprint will help us understand what is needed to ensure the success of a recycling program for the entire territory.
Right now, our recycling and contaminated site inventory projects are financed through the Northern Strategy funding and we have had supports from our partnering hamlets.
The Northern Strategy Fund is expected to run out at the end of this fiscal year, so alternative funding will be needed.
To ensure residents and visitors have the best possible experience while in Nunavut, we are continuing to upgrade facilities at all of our existing parks and campgrounds, and will complete promotional work for territorial parks and Canadian Heritage Rivers with the development of brochures, websites, maps, and displays.
We also work in partnership with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation and with Nunavut Tourism to promote our tourism industry in the territory.
In the 2009-2010 fiscal year, we will continue with our feasibility studies and development plans for potential parks in the non-decentralized communities of Kugaaruk, Clyde River, and Coral Harbour.
During the 2009-2010 fiscal year, we also plan to enhance the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund, which is a permanent trust fund for education, research, and conservation.
We are also implementing an education and outreach plan. This will help us to engage and inform Nunavutmiut and international audiences on the Department of Environment’s mandate and the Government of Nunavut’s commitment to managing our environment with care and respect.
Mr. Chairman, my department’s 2009-2010 main estimates and business plan support the delivery and achievement of the department’s mandate and the vision of Tamapta. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk.
Chairman: Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort his witnesses in.
Thank you. (interpretation ends) For the record, Minister Shewchuk, please introduce your witnesses.
I would like to introduce on my right, Simon Awa, Deputy Minister of the Department of Environment, and on my left is Camilius Egeni, Director of Corporate Services for the Department of Environment.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Shewchuk. (interpretation ends) Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development have opening comments?
Mr. Komoartok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2009-2010 Main Estimates and Business Plan of the Department of Environment.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2009-2010 operations and maintenance budget of $19,998,000 has increased by approximately 40 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2004-05 main estimates.
The number of positions in the department has increased from 102 PYs in 2004-05 to 121.5 PYs in 2009-2010.
Nunavut’s new Wildlife Act was passed by the First Legislative Assembly in 2003.
Although Wildlife Transitional Regulations were published in Part II of the June 2005 edition of the Nunavut Gazette, a comprehensive set of new regulations has not yet been approved.
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has held a number of hearings since 2003 on proposed new regulations under the Act.
Although the department’s 2009-2010 business plan does not address this issue, members note that NTI’s most recent annual report indicates that it has “outstanding concerns and will continue to work toward resolving these with the NWMB and GN.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to be clear and candid with Members of the Legislative Assembly concerning the areas of disagreement that the government may have with other organizations involved in this process.
Section 160 of the Wildlife Act requires the minister to appoint an advisory committee of elders to “review current, traditional and historical types, methods and technologies of harvesting wildlife in the context of the guiding principles and concepts of Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit and to advise the Minister on those it considers humane and safe.”
On March 24, 2009, the minister announced that the newly-appointed members of this advisory committee would be holding its first meeting in Iqaluit.
The standing committee encourages the minister to keep the Legislative Assembly regularly informed on what recommendations this committee submits to the government.
Section 177 of the Wildlife Act requires the minister to provide an annual report to the Legislative Assembly on the administration of the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund.
To date, no annual reports under this section of the Act have been tabled in the Legislative Assembly.
However, the department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that one of its priorities is to “Build the Natural Resources Conservation Trust Fund as a permanent source of funding for promoting awareness and wise use of wildlife and habitat through initiatives such as education, research and conservation.”
The standing committee looks forward to the tabling of the first annual report under this section of the Act.
Last year, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service listed the polar bear as a “threatened species.” On May 22, 2008, the Minister of Environment informed the Legislative Assembly that the Government of Nunavut will “pursue all available options to ensure that the US listing has a minimum effect on communities relying on income from polar bear sport hunts.”
The standing committee encourages the department to work with appropriate partners to assist impacted communities in identifying new markets with respect to sport hunting.
Mr. Chairman, in March of last year, the government announced that it would be supporting the Hudson Bay Interagency Working Group’s proposal for a Hudson Bay Awareness Summit to be held in 2009.
This was announced as a forum for “communities, aboriginal groups, scientists and politicians to present concerns, issues and research on the Hudson Bay ecosystem.”
The standing committee was advised that this event has been rescheduled to take place in Iqaluit in 2010.
Members also note that the 2009-2010 Business Plan of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs indicates that it will have a role in supporting this event.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that “With Nunavut’s rapidly growing communities come the challenges of managing waste in an arctic environment, particularly given Nunavut’s aging waste management infrastructure.
Many communities are also burdened with abandoned waste sites, some of which are contaminated.”
The business plan also indicates that “A lack of modern community waste management infrastructure impacts compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.”
The standing committee recommends that the minister begin the practice of tabling an annual report in the Legislative Assembly on the government’s activities under the Environmental Protection Act.
This will provide all members and the public with a more clear understanding of the challenges and issues facing the government in this area.
Members note that the department’s business plan indicates that its budget for environmental operations is decreasing from $1,059,000 in 2008-09 to $624,000 in 2009-2010.
It is projected to decrease to $247,000 in 2010-11.
The reasons for this decrease are unclear.
On February 17, 2009, the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment announced that a number of jurisdictions have endorsed the new Canada-wide Strategy for the Management of Municipal Wastewater Effluent and are ready to begin implementation.
The strategy sets out a harmonized framework to manage discharges “from more than 3,500 wastewater facilities in Canada, many of which are currently in need of repair and upgrading.”
The strategy also indicates that “Due to the extreme climatic conditions and remoteness of Canada’s Far North, a viable means to improve human and environmental health protection needs to be carefully considered.
Therefore, a window of up to five years is provided to undertake research into factors that affect performance of wastewater facilities in northern conditions.”
On March 27, 2009, the Minister of Environment tabled a report in the Legislative Assembly concerning this issue.
The minister’s report indicated that “Nunavut, Quebec and Newfoundland did not endorse the document.”
The report also stated that “Nunavut agrees in-principle with the Strategy but is extremely concerned about costs associated with implementation and the lack of direct funding options.
Nunavut will certainly support the Strategy when funding is more definitive.”
During the minister’s appearance before the standing committee, members were advised that it would cost the GN approximately $500 million to implement this new national strategy.
However, members were also advised the Department of Environment is working with the Department of Community and Government Services to build up an inventory of community facilities.
The standing committee encourages the two departments to also work closely together with respect to the development and management of such infrastructure as sewage lagoons.
Mr. Chairman, the final report on the joint review of harvester support programs that was undertaken by the GN and NTI was tabled in the Legislative Assembly on March 13, 2006.
The report contained a number of observations and recommendations concerning the harvester support programs that are administered by both organizations.
The standing committee encourages the department to continue its efforts to work with NTI and the recently established Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Secretariat to enhance the support provided to harvesters and HTOs.
The standing committee notes that the department’s budget for grants and contributions for harvester support programs has remained largely unchanged for a number of years.
Members encourage the minister to periodically review the adequacy of these funding levels.
Mr. Chairman, the standing committee applauds the department’s success in “producing a recruitment video, targeted at Inuit youth, to attract them to careers as conservation officers.
This video is being used at career fairs and in senior high school classes throughout Nunavut.”
The standing committee was also pleased to be advised by the minister that the department plans to hire a summer student in every community where a conservation officer is in place.
In January of this year, the GN participated in a National Polar Bear Round Table hosted by the federal environment minister.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that it has been working to complete polar bear co-management agreements with other Canadian jurisdictions.
The department has “advanced draft language with NWT, Ontario, and Manitoba but a lack of response from the other jurisdictions, particularly Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador is causing delays in finalizing this initiative.”
The department’s business plan also indicates that one of its priorities for 2009-2010 is to complete a “polar bear co-management agreement with Greenland for shared polar bear populations.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to regularly update the Legislative Assembly on the status of these initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, in March of this year, a Nunavut Wildlife Symposium was held in Rankin Inlet.
This event was organized by the Government of Nunavut, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Secretariat, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
The symposium was held to address such issues as the “handling of wildlife in research, and the integration of science and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit in wildlife research and management.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to table a report in the Legislative Assembly on the proceedings of this event and to regularly update the Legislative Assembly on progress achieved in these areas.
It is important that stability be achieved in order to allow the division to focus on its mandate of fostering growth in this important sector of the economy.
Members also agree that the Department of Environment’s ongoing relationship with the federal Department of Fisheries and Oceans has complemented this division’s activities and initiatives.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that it is in the process of completing a Nunavut Sealing Strategy.
Members look forward to the tabling of this important strategy.
Members also note that the Department of Economic Development and Transportation’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that one of its priorities is to “Identify new markets for seal skins.”
Both departments are encouraged to work together closely on this issue.
The Department of Environment’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that its priorities include continuing “inshore fisheries development including a summer turbot test fishery in Cumberland Sound” and expanding the “coastal resource inventory project to more communities across Nunavut.”
Members encourage the department to also explore the development of test fisheries near such communities as Sanikiluaq, where potential exists for the commercial harvesting of such products as scallops.
The department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicates that the department has “helped develop and continue to support the Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium (NFTC) in an effort to provide long-term training to Inuit for participation in all aspects of fisheries development in Nunavut.
The Fisheries Development and Diversification Fund builds the fisheries knowledge-base through such projects as test fisheries, technology transfer, fisheries science, product and marketing development, and feasibility studies.”
The standing committee encourages the minister to table an annual report in the Legislative Assembly on the department’s expenditures under its Fisheries Diversification Program, Commercial Fisheries Freight Subsidy Program, and Fisheries Training Consortium Program.
The standing committee also encourages the minister to regularly update the Legislative Assembly on the government’s efforts with respect to fishing quotas in Nunavut’s adjacent waters.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2009-2010 Main Estimates and Business Plan of the Department of Environment.
According to Rule 77(1), each member will have 10 minutes to speak.
I also thank the Hon. Minister Shewchuk and his officials for coming to present their departmental plan as well.
In your opening statements, you mentioned the protection of territorial parks and the protection of Canadian Heritage Rivers.
I just want to provide information or update to you that in the Baker Lake riding, two or three major rivers are recognized as Heritage Rivers, the Kazan River and the Thelon River.
I believe they generate a lot of economic spin-offs to the region as well as in total, the rest of Nunavut.
Both rivers attract worldwide travellers such as canoeists down the rivers. Yearly, they attract Europeans, Americans, and all other parts of the world to come to our beautiful country of Nunavut.
I just want to thank the minister for addressing that section as well because it’s a vital component to our identity in our riding and it’s one that we’re very proud of. That was a general comment.
Did you want to comment on that, Minister Shewchuk?
Well, I’m glad that the member has identified that because they are both beautiful rivers. I have had the personal opportunity of travelling to the Thelon River and I can tell you that firsthand.
But we realized, as a department, that they are very important rivers in Nunavut and they do promote and encourage tourism and showcase Nunavut to the world.
This is not directly related to your opening comments but yesterday, I asked the minister if he will be able to put forth commercial fishing quotas not only in Nunavut but everywhere. What’s the status of that issue?
Yes, I will take forward the member’s concern.
I had asked him about the percentage because we’re not up to par with the rest of Canada. My question was in regard to the current fisheries quota in Nunavut. Are we are going to be seeing an increase in the commercial fishing quota for Nunavut?
I didn’t realize I was on here.
Just as we look up a little bit of information here, I can provide the member with this answer. Our total quota for turbot right now is 900 tonnes and our quota for shrimp, I’m not sure what it is offhand right now, but we harvest very little shrimp in Nunavut at present.
If there is to be any quota increase, we have been in negotiations with the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and have encouraged him strongly that if there is any increase due to scientific research that take place in Nunavut waters and adjacent waters, we would like to see 100 percent of that quota come to Nunavut.
If you’re going to be making reports to the federal government especially and to other jurisdictions, we will have to have all of the information.
There are 80 to 90 percent quota allocations, but I would like to urge the minister to have meetings with his counterparts so that we can see gradual increases in our quotas. That was the reason why I asked that question.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.
I’m sure the member realizes that you just don’t have gradual increases to quotas; you have increases in quota when the science allows you to have increases in quota.
So when the proper science is done in conjunction with DFO and there is to be a quota increase, we have voiced our interest clearly to the federal government that we want a major share of that quota.
Those are the questions that I wanted to ask for now. There are other items that we will be reviewing.
In your opening comments on page 5, you stated that in 2009-2010, you plan to distribute $1.89 million as grants and contributions to your partnering organizations, such as hunters and trappers organizations, regional wildlife management organizations, and other groups.
We want to make sure that all organizations get their fair portion.
Could you give us a breakdown of this $1.89 million that is going to be distributed to these organizations?
Can we get a breakdown of how much is going to each of these organizations at some point in time?
Yes, I can give the member that breakdown.
For harvester support programs, HTOs get $317,000, regional wildlife boards get $223,000; the Community Hunter Assistance Program is $251,000; community organized hunts is $45,000; and disaster compensation is $80,000.
In partnership programs that we have, to be a member and contribute to the Beverly Qamani’tuaq Caribou Management Board is $15,000 and Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health is $15,000.
And then further fisheries support programs, the Fur Price Program is $70,000, the Fur Institute of Canada is $10,000, the Fisheries Diversification Program is $525,000, the Commercial Fisheries Subsidy is $190,000, and the Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium is $150,000.
I would like to ask another question regarding the… I don’t know what you call it; I think it’s called the disaster program for $80,000.
As I said earlier, when the rivers are starting to open, sometimes the melting starts from the bottom instead of from the top and you can fall through if you’re on your snowmobile.
When you’re trying to cross the river, sometimes they go through the ice.
Could we make a claim under the disaster program or what can you use this disaster program for?
I would like the minister to explain that program in more detail, Mr. Chairman.
I thank the member for the question and I believe he asked the same question in the standing committee.
You can put a claim in under the disaster program for an incident like that.
There are further criteria that would have to be met at the present with the program that we have in place right now.
The maximum funding amount and money amount claim per incident is $10,000 and we have $80,000 in that fund at the present. Very little of it is being used at the present.
I have made a commitment to the standing committee previously that we are going to look at the criteria and consult with resource users, HTOs, RWOs, and the committee to look at our criteria we have in place right now and maybe adjust those criteria.
Mr. Ningark (interpretation): It’s possibly my last question.
You recently stated that there was a case where a claim was made under this program when there was a landslide or an avalanche.
Individuals from Gjoa Haven, Cambridge Bay, Hall Beach, and Arviat will possibly not be able to make a claim under this program.
I think we have to rethink this carefully because at times, some people lose their snowmobiles going through the ice.
Is it possible for the minister to look at this program again?
Yes, I have assured and I will assure the member that we are going to look at the criteria of this program again and the eligibility to it.
And I just stress again that this program is offered to all of Nunavut, all communities and community members of Nunavut, and it varies and it does go up and down from year to year.
So the funding that we have is very rarely all used up at this point.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’m looking at the business plan, I-16, and there’s a 2007-08 priority of completing the Nunavut Climate Change Adaptation Plan. I don’t know if it ever was completed but then if we go to 2009-2010, “Begin implementation of the Climate Change Adaptation Plan.”
So that would be my question: is there such a plan?
It took forever when I was on the other side to try and get anything out of the department. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The progress on this that I can update here right now is that adaptation plans were being done community-to-community. Those plans are complete for the three communities that are listed and the other ones are not complete.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I would like to see those plans if possible and see what else we can do to help implement the plan here in Iqaluit in particular.
The other question I have is: what steps is the department doing?
I know in other governments, departments of environment have led their governments in trying to do their part to reduce emissions, such as testing vehicles for other departments, and some have put in place assistance, like in the NWT, to assist in whether it be solar or wind energy for private homeowners.
I would like to know if the department has looked at that at anytime. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thanks again for the question.