EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Since the compensation assistance provided is considered inadequate, the funds were moved from this line item to alleviate the funding challenges and it was moved from (interpretation ends) the community organized hunt (interpretation) funds to their general funds for that reason.
Now, with respect to your departmental review of the programs, when do you expect to table the report outlining the review findings?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): With respect to the review, we have planned to complete the report and make it available by April 1 and that is still our goal.
Some issues have surfaced leading us to believe that it will be completed not too long after April 1, within a few weeks.
The recommendation was to table this by April 1.
You won’t reach this target date, but you added that it should not be too long after that date when the report can become available.
Can you provide an indication of what new support programs you are planning to implement?
There really are not any new support programs. We have focused on the needs identified by the communities, such as increasing the funding provided from the current amounts. The budget allocated to the organizations will not change, as it does not increase nor decrease.
The only possible new program that I expect would be specific to full-time hunters who depend solely on their harvests to support their lifestyle and how the Department of Environment can better support them.
We have explored ways to try to assist them and that would be the only new initiative that has come out of the review.
I’ll return to this matter once again.
As I seem to understand that there are no specific new programs, I heard that the department will not seek additional funding nor did you request any increases.
Now that leads me to ask about your existing programs and the proposed amended programs related to the policy applications. Is that regulations or departmental objectives?
Have you had to change the program criteria?
I would like to cite this example based on the minister’s comments. We received correspondence from Pond Inlet about an elder who is 73 years old, who is a full-time hunter, and who lost their snowmobile.
The letter this elder received stated that loss suffered due to personal risk-taking or hunting during times of dangerous conditions does not qualify for compensation.
This was the response given to a 73-year-old elder, who has been hunting his entire life, and you belittle him with that type of bureaucratic nonsense? This elder was identified by the local HTO as qualifying for compensation, as well as by the conservation officer, but this is too much.
Are you going to remove these barriers when you implement changes?
This, indeed, is a complicated matter and we all know that. In this day and age, compared to then and today, conditions sometimes cause incidents.
After the review, we expect to have some recommendations to improve the current programs that tended to be barriers in the past. That is my expectation.
Will this just be another expectation, as you stated, or will this actually occur?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): The budget for compensation to hunters who lose their equipment will be increased quite a bit.
We know that it’s going to be a bigger budget for that item.
However, with the policies and all the things that we heard during the consultations, we have to promote that more. Although it’s easy to do, we’re running late in some aspects of this.
Our target date is April 1 and that’s one of the reasons why it’s running late.
The fact that you’re going to be increasing the budget quite a bit is good to hear. We’re happy to hear it.
However, with the details and if the policies that make it impossible for people to get money aren’t changed, then it won’t matter if you add more money to it.
You have heard that there’s all this money available, but here are the barriers that prevent us from getting it. That’s what we hear in the communities.
You tell us that there’s all this money and then you tell us there are these barriers that will not allow you to get this money.
Will all these roadblock policies be changed as well?
We have used up the entire compensation budget in the past.
Please be aware of that.
We even had to take money out of other budget items to transfer to that budget item because of the requests for it.
It has been depleted a number of times and that’s why we’re increasing it.
As I stated earlier, the things that we hear through the review from the communities is the reason why we have increased the budget.
Hunters are losing their equipment and need support. It came from what we heard from the communities and that’s what’s going to happen.
Chairman: Thank you. Your 24-second question, Mr. Enook.
Just so that we all understand and the hunters will have the same expectations, I’m trying to ask this question. Once you increase that budget, it will still be impossible to access if you don’t change your policies. It will remain impossible to get money from it.
I’m trying to ask if you will amend your regulations or policies so that the money will be more accessible.
Like I stated earlier, we have spent the whole budget in the past for compensation support for people who have lost their equipment and we are adding 100 percent to it.
That’s the request that we got and that’s what we’re going to do.
As I said, the policy will be looked at and it will follow what we have heard from the communities.
What we heard from the review will help us improve things.
We know that previously, there was not enough money in the budget.
In Coral Harbour, they once lost 10 snowmobiles along with all their equipment and the Kivalliq Inuit Association helped because we couldn’t pay for all of them.
The Coral Harbour hunters were helped because we didn’t have enough money in our budget to help them all.
We got help from the Kivalliq Inuit Association. The government and Inuit organization worked together very well on behalf of those hunters.
Let us be aware that we have spent the entire budget before.
Next name on the list, Mr. Qirngnuq.
In your opening comments from yesterday, I just want it clarified.
On page 2, it says, “The increase includes $360,000 funding for climate change initiatives…” It sounds like the Nunavut government will have a lot of work to do under that.
I just want more information on that. What is it for exactly?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I thank my colleague for asking that question.
It has been raised, and not just here, the fact that we need workers to monitor climate change and so we’re requesting money to hire two people for climate change initiatives.
Mr. Qirngnuq, if you have any more questions on climate change, it’s on I-5.
Mr. Qirngnuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.  Chairman: Mr. Qirngnuq, if you have questions on climate change, I’ll recognize you on page I-5.
If you have other questions, please ask them on I-4.
I will ask that question at the appropriate time.
I have another question on that topic as well.
The positions were mentioned earlier. I wish to get further clarification related to vacant positions. You identified these 43 vacant positions earlier in answering questions to our colleagues.
With respect to these 43 vacant positions at the headquarter level, what exactly are these positions?
I thank my colleague for that question. My deputy minister will respond to that question.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Mikkungwak.
Perhaps I’ll speak in English. (interpretation ends) It’s for different categories, from executive, senior management, middle management, professionals such as biologists, paraprofessionals, biologist helper, and administration support.
It varies.
With senior management, we have 3 vacancies; middle management, we have 9 vacancies; professionals, 10 vacancies; paraprofessionals, 19.5, so don’t ask me about that 0.5 position; administration support, we have 3 vacancies.
That averages to about 43 positions, I believe. (interpretation) Thank you.
With respect to your budget, under salaries, there is $3,336,000 budgeted, but there are no changes to the figures from last year to this year.
If these vacant positions were filled, do you know if that would result in increases to this budget line item?
I would like the person who handles that kind of work, Nikki, to respond to that, please.
If I mispronounce your name, Ms. Nweze.
The salaries in the amount of $3.3 million on I-4 is just for corporate management positions.
We have 15 positions in corporate management, we only have about four positions vacant, and we are currently doing interviews on the two positions. Only two positions are vacant after for corporate management.
That’s what the $3.3 million represents.
It’s not the entire vacant positions in the department.
Things are becoming a little confusing, to say the least.
Now, about this statement on page I-4 where it speaks about dealing with legislative requirements under the Planning and Legislation Division, what are the types of activities you plan on undertaking here or what legislative amendments are planned here?
I would like Nikki to respond to that again, please.
Chairman: Ms. Nweze
One of the legislation developments is on that policy division and they do policy work and planning.
Mr. Mikkungwak (interpretation): I don’t think you understood my question. (interpretation ends) The question I had here was legislation development. What legislation are you considering as development?
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Mr. Mikkungwak.
We have wildlife (interpretation ends) regulations (interpretation) in place that are slowly being implemented once approved.
There are regulations required for some species and we’ve had to employ specialists to deal with issues such as the caribou management, wolf issues, and other terrestrial species that are part of our mandate.
As more regulations appear or if we need to amend the legislation, to use an example of polar bear management zones and if these changed, we would have to amend our legislation.
That position would be responsible for that.
If I didn’t answer adequately, it may be because I didn’t understand the question correctly.
That was understandable.
With your response, what is the priority when it comes to legislation development or if there is a need to amend legislation regarding wildlife management in Nunavut?
If the minister is willing to answer that question, it’s almost a hypothetical question.
Do you want to rephrase it, Mr. Mikkungwak?
The official identified possible legislative amendments regarding wildlife and a number of wildlife was identified.
Which one would be prioritized as number one?
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Mr. Mikkungwak for his question.
I’m not able to say at this point, but we are currently working on Baffin caribou and that is one of our priorities.
As we have an ongoing monitoring of polar bears between Taloyoak and Gjoa Haven in the (interpretation ends) McClintock Channel and western Hudson Bay, (interpretation) I can’t tell you exactly which one is going to be of high priority, but those are the two that we’re currently working on.
We work closely with NWMB and once the drafts are completed, I can tell you that those two are of high priority.
Baffin Island caribou and polar bear management would be the priorities.
Looking at the last paragraph, strategic planning for the department, I would like to know exactly what your department is going to be doing about the vacant positions. What are you doing in the office to fill vacant positions?
There are 43 vacant positions. Looking at that, is that one of your priorities? What kinds of plans do you have in your office?
I didn’t quite understand your question and neither did my officials. Could you rephrase your question?
Your overall strategic planning for the department, what are you entailing in that particular sentence/phrase?
I will have our official from the (interpretation ends) corporate office, Nikki, (interpretation) respond to that question.
The strategic plan entails organizing the programs we will do during the year.
It includes our financial planning, human resources planning, and all the planning that the department will be working on during the year. That’s what the strategic plan is for in the department.
You touched on it earlier, but again, where would compensation of equipment for hunters fit in the itemized lines here?
Mr. Nirlungayuk: Mr. Chairman, can you give me one second?
I also thank Mr. Mikkungwak.
It would be under grants and contributions.
The minister indicated earlier that in Coral Harbour, 10 hunters had lost their vehicles and all of their equipment last year.
With those types of losses, I think that number should be higher than what it is now if it is to benefit more Nunavummiut. It is $25,000 for one whole year. Is that going to be enough?
I believe you are referring to the (interpretation ends) Wildlife Damage Compensation Program. (interpretation) The member seem to connect all of these together with the assistance provided to the Coral Harbour hunters who lost their snowmobiles, as this is covered in the (interpretation ends) Disaster Compensation Program. (interpretation) For example, if damage is caused by a polar bear, funds have always been available for compensation.
These are two pots of money under grants and contributions that are accessed for compensation for damage to hunters’ equipment.
As the minister indicated earlier, there was going to be an increase to the damage compensation for hunters, but under I-4, the official indicated that it will be under grants and contributions.
I don’t see any increases in the amount to date. Looking at the numbers under I-6, it’s the same number right across the board.
It is appropriate to discuss those matters. From what I know, there are three different components of the program that can be accessed for compensation. One is for wildlife damage, one for natural disasters, and one for the loss of irreplaceable equipment, which we call a different name.
It’s something that is very close to your question.
Ms. Nweze will elaborate further on that.
The $25,000 grants and contributions under I-5 is contribution we give for Students on Ice, a contribution annually.
If you go back to our grants and contributions summary under I-6, you will see that we have Disaster Compensation, which is $40,000. It is our budget for that. We also have Wildlife Damage Compensation, another $40,000 in our budget.
We also have Wildlife Damage Prevention contribution, which is $50,000. We have different, specific contributions for different programs in our department.
I don’t know how much more simpler I can make it.
An Hon. Member: Try.
Mr. Mikkungwak: I’ll give it a try with the time allotted here.
When you look at compensation for property damages or property replacements, and the minister and officials have identified that there are going to be increments, but when you look at I-6, Revised Estimates 2015-16, $1,838,000, and then when you look at your Main Estimates 2016-17, $1,813,000, that’s a decrease of $25,000.
Where can I find the increment on the compensation in the grants and contributions considering that when you follow all the numbers, there seems to be no changes but actually a decrease, in fact, compared to the revised and main estimates?
When I commented on this the first time I was asked questions, there was an increase and decrease, but for the compensation programs, they are provided $500,000 in total and that amount will not change.
That is why I stated earlier that we can move them around. As I said, we will be making an addition after April 1. The figure will not change.
Once we amend it, the government will have to approve it, but this is how they are written right now.
We’re just following our main estimates, but within that budget, the figure of $500,000 will not change, especially for compensation programs.
I guess I’ll have to review the document more.
When we look at compensation, are you only considering property damage? As the minister is well aware, last year, I believe I had asked the minister regarding loss of life while out in the wilderness.
Currently, the compensation that we are discussing is just in reference to property.
The main things I talked about were the monies we are able to control internally, which will not increase or decrease.
With line by line, we provide assistance to the hunters and trappers organizations in the communities, wildlife damage prevention for consideration, wildlife damage compensation for equipment or material things, and then there are natural disasters that they lose equipment from.
There is the Community Organized Hunts, the Community Harvesters Assistance Program, the Wildlife Damage Compensation Program, and the Humane Trap Development Program that all fit within what I keep talking about under the $500,000. Some programs will not carry over while others will.
I tried to clarify that. The $500,000 directed to assistance programs will increase, as I stated earlier, for equipment damaged by wildlife or loss of equipment due to weather. We have spent the whole budget for those programs in the past.
I apologize if I’m still not being clear, Mr. Chairman. That is where we stand right now.
We are on Environment. Branch Summary. Corporate Management.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I just have a couple of questions.
My first question is, my colleague for Rankin Inlet North-Chesterfield Inlet tabled a couple of letters, one from the Kivalliq Wildlife Board and one from the Chesterfield Inlet Hunters and Trappers Association asking the minister about the habitat protection for caribou calving grounds.
Does the minister plan on responding to those letters?
I think this is outside of our mandate. I’ll have to respond to the letters I received.
The letter of reply is being taken care of right now, if I understand correctly, regarding the letters that I recently received.
Mr. Okalik (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) Yes, I believe we’re in the correct area, corporate management.
I’m glad that the minister will be responding.
Can the minister commit to tabling those responses in the Assembly when they’re done?
I’ll have to look into it carefully on what we can do.
I still don’t know what my response is going to be.
Next name on the list, Mr. A. Sammurtok.
Mr. Alexander Sammurtok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) I’ve just got one question on how he responded.
(interpretation) The smaller communities like ((interpretation ends) Grise Fiord, Coral Harbour, Gjoa Haven, and Kugaaruk (interpretation) do not have conservation officers.
Why don’t they have conservation officers?
Chairman: I’m sure that was asked that earlier, but if Minister Mike wants to respond. Minister Mike.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Chairman.
This was already asked, but we can respond again. My deputy minister will respond.
I also thank Mr. Sammurtok.
There are different reasons. Some of them don’t live in the communities and they have to go back home on occasion. It’s unfortunate that the recent conservation officer who was in Grise Fiord works for our department now.
There are different reasons such as resignations.
What about work that needs to be done in communities where there is no conservation officer? What do you do in that case?
As this is regarding day-to-day operations, my deputy minister will respond to that question.
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Mr. Sammurtok.
If I understood it correctly, the communities need conservation officers and I think we all know that.
Some require a conservation officer II and a conservation officer III. Once positions are vacant, using Gjoa Haven as an example, we’re advertising those positions right now.
Right now in Coral Harbour, we have a (interpretation ends) wildlife guardian, (interpretation) but a conservation officer from Baker Lake visits the community.
If there is no conservation officer in the community, it can be challenging, but we try to consider what to do.
Second round of questioning, Mr. Enook.
My colleague already asked this, but in the main estimates, I would like to carry on that line of questioning to get a clear understanding.
We all have to have a clear understanding.
Firstly, I think MLAs present understood that in the case of a disaster, hunters can request funding for lost equipment and they will increase the budget once the policy is reviewed.
My first question would be, right now, you have $40,000. What will the new amount be?
What will the limit be of that figure?
For the year, it will be up to $100,000.
If you already know that it will be up to $100,000, why is it at only $40,000 now?
As I mentioned earlier, we were planning to implement this on April 1 after the completion of the report, but it will be after that date now. The government will have to deal with it and once that’s done, we will obviously need to amend these figures. That’s where we stand right now.
These numbers will be amended. Thank you.
As the minister stated, the main estimates haven’t increased by very much.
You said that the line items will change.
With that being the case, if we approve it this way, where would you take $60,000 away from?
Which line item?
Will you just make internal changes from the main estimates?
Where will you be cutting the $60,000 from once that’s implemented?
It will come from the funding that was not used in the past.
That’s where we will be moving them from, the line items in the main estimates that weren’t spent, and then we will have to redistribute and move things around for the $100,000.
As I said earlier, funds under community organized hunts and outpost camps are some of the line items that are not used anymore.
That’s why there is no increase or decrease.
I would like to be clear that we’re not asking for supplementary appropriations nor are we asking for a decrease. What we’re just asking is that we will be able to operate it that way once it has been dealt with by the government.
I also don’t see it or I just missed it.
How much is in that line item for Community Organized Hunts?
Mr. Nirlungayuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank Mr. Enook.
It is budgeted here for $251,000.
Perhaps I am too overly concerned. Your proposed 2016-17 main estimates and what you are stating are quite different from each other.
I do not understand it at all.
I have to trust what’s written down here.
It isn’t the same if you’re saying you’re going to be re-profiling some of these line items. If you expect to re-profile the line items, why didn’t you already write it that way?
Is it because it might not happen?
As you are aware, we have been dealing with this issue for quite some time by reviewing and consulting with the communities. As a government, we have to work with the (interpretation ends) Department of Justice or the finance department. (interpretation) Although we want to rush into working with those and we want to complete it, there are various reasons why we could not complete it.
I apologize I stated $251,000 for (interpretation ends) Community Organized Hunts. (interpretation) It is $45,000 and it has not changed.
In regard to the latter part of your question of why they are not completed, it’s almost complete to 99.9 percent. We are just waiting at this time for the other departments.
I’m very glad that you’re aware that this line item will increase to $100,000 and that you will transfer $45,000 from Community Organized Hunts.
If you were already aware and if you had already made a decision, why didn’t you include it so that we wouldn’t have to go through the lengthy process of asking questions on this?
The Harvester Support Program funding contains quite a number of things. We have it structured in a way that we’re not asking for additional funds or reduced funds. It allows a line item not to change and that’s why we do it that way.
Additionally, in order for the review to be appropriate, looking at those reasons, if we look at the Harvester Support Program as a whole, the line item of $500,000 contains many programs.