EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We are taking steps to rectify the situation in the Baffin Bay. We hope and we are going to encourage the federal government, Environment Canada, and the rest of the world that by the steps we are taking, we will lift the ban on our Baffin Bay polar bears.
We are going to find out in the very near future at a vote in Qatar on the CITES on how polar bears are listed under the appendix of CITES.
This will indicate to us whether sport hunting will be in future or will not be in the future. But we are doing our best, Mr. Speaker, to address the situation.
We are not arguing.
I hope the minister understands that we are not arguing for the reduction of the quota for the Baffin Bay. We are not.
I think the regional wildlife management already conceded that this is inevitable.
Otherwise, it’s going to happen all over the high arctic of the countries.
What we are arguing here is that the minister didn’t seem to have any foresight in the event that CITES does not lift the ban.
There is no alternate answer or at least strategies in place for the hunters who are guides for the sport hunts in the event that nothing happens.
My last question, Mr. Speaker, is: will the minister be able to give us more information before this session is over as to what can be done for the hunters who are going to lose their livelihoods?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I thank the member for his concern and his question.
First of all, I would just like to say that we do understand the hardships that are going to be put on the outfitters in the hunting industry.
However, at this point in time, I have outlined that we will assist them in alternate sources of pursuing their outfitting, whether that be into caribou hunting, or whether that be into the tourism industry, or whether that be into the ecotourism.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to indicate that the compensation of wildlife is something that is not looked at as wildlife management.
We are all responsible for that.
If we start compensating for polar bear hunters and the loss of polar bears allowable to harvest, then we may, in the future, have to apply that to all wildlife and that could run into many millions of dollars.
Wildlife populations naturally fluctuate and we have to adjust to that and manage it when that happens.
Question 239 – 3(2): $2 Million Financial Management Training Fund (Elliott)
Mr. Speaker, in June of 2009, the hon. minister announced that $2 million was secured from his department and would be transferred to the Department of Human Resources.
These funds were to be used to train GN employees in financial management.
Mr. Speaker, these training programs were to work towards rectifying some of the issues brought forward by the Office of the Auditor General.
In November, I asked for an update on these training programs.
Since this is the final month of the fiscal year, can the minister provide us with an update on this training?
Mr. Speaker, I’m the Minister of Finance. I gave $2 million to the Department of Human Resources and they are responsible for providing the training, and I’m sure that they can provide updates.
Some of the training that have gone underway where we are using the funds have been in the financial management area, justices of the peace, and I think I saw a list of coroners training. I’m sure the government can provide that list and an update on the training.
In talking to my officials, I know it has been very beneficial to the Government of Nunavut, to organizations and to individuals that provide services to the Government of Nunavut.
I just know it was discussed with your department.
I didn’t know I should be asking them to the Minister of Human Resources. There must be some sort of strings attached to it or some objectives. I was just wondering if the minister could explain how this training has addressed issues brought forward by the Office of the Auditor General.
Speaker: Thank you. Minister Peterson.
The Auditor General has indeed told the Government of Nunavut that we have to provide more training in financial services.
Mr. Speaker, I believe there has been training provided in those areas, administrative and financial training, to various government employees throughout the government departments.
With some of the issues that Mr. Arvaluk was bringing forward in terms of spending in management of departments, I just wanted to make sure that again if this money is going to help with rectifying some of the problems we’ve had with some of the issues that the Auditor General had with how we financially manage our territory.
It would be nice to have some specifics as to what has actually been done. Perhaps the minister could refer the question to Human Resources so I could get some solid answers. What types of training were initiated and delivered?
It seems like I’m having a Tony Blair day where I get to answer questions for Human Resources.
Mr. Speaker, I remember this debate in November. Mr. Elliott was asking me and then he was asking Minister Shewchuk, who is the Minister responsible for Nunavut Arctic College.
Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that the funding is being used to train Government of Nunavut employees and people who provide services to the Government of Nunavut.
Again, I indicated that there are 83 justices of the peace, there are coroners, and there are employees in the Government of Nunavut.
I’m sure that if Mr. Elliott wishes to have the details of the training provided, we can provide it.
I’m just trying to do my job by holding the government accountable for where they spend their money. Maybe the minister would be able to answer this question since the money originated from his department.
Will this training continue after March 31, 2010 or is it a one-time training where the $2 million was found within your department, passed onto Human Resources, and that will be it? Is there more money coming to continue training?
I thank Mr. Elliott.
I appreciate his question. I understand that it is his job to hold the government accountable. As the members will recall, I was an MLA for almost five years on the regular side holding the government accountable for their actions, so I fully understand what Mr. Elliott’s job is.
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in the budget speech yesterday, we have a commitment to our public service and our commitment to public service is to provide ongoing training to develop skill sets to do their jobs and advance within the public service of the Government of Nunavut and elsewhere in Nunavut. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Question 240 – 3(2): Government of Canada Dragging its Feet in Appointing NWMB Chair (Okalik)
It is starting to become evident that we have come here to deal with wildlife issues.
This was not planned, but issues have cropped up unexpectedly in wildlife.
I had asked the Minister of Environment to lobby the federal government to appoint the chairperson of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
It’s almost two years that NWMB has been operating without a chairperson.
In the meantime, all of these wildlife issues are appearing before us and it seems like they’re just being put on hold.
I would like to ask the Premier if she has indeed lobbied the federal government to appoint a chairperson to this very important entity, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
We are in support of them in their need for a chair.
Usually, when the federal government is going to appoint someone, we can only make recommendations and we can’t appoint federal appointees.
We have little choice but to wait for the federal government to make those appointments.
I would like to know who you have spoken to about getting the federal government to appoint a chairperson to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
I would like to thank the member for asking that question since many Nunavummiut are undoubtedly anticipating the appointment of the chairperson. There are other bodies which need to have their chairpersons filled as well by the federal government.
I’m working very closely with my colleagues at the cabinet level towards their goals and objectives. We meet with various elected officials, including Leona Aglukkaq, our MP for Nunavut. We often go through her on various federal issues of interest to us.
I can continue to urge them to make sure that this is done as soon as possible.
Since it’s been two years that we have been waiting for the appointment of a chairperson, I wonder how many more years we will have to wait. Perhaps they’re looking for some individual from outside of Nunavut and that’s why they’re having a hard time trying to find an individual to chair the NWMB.
We need proper management of our wildlife. In the meantime, other entities cannot afford to wait on the sidelines.
Hunters need to hunt for their sustenance. This is why I am urging the Premier to really push to make sure this is completed as soon as possible.
I would like to thank the member for urging me to make sure we restate our wishes.
To say it again, it’s the federal government’s responsibility to make appointments. I know they are quite concerned about this issue too. I will urge and remind the federal government what we in Nunavut would like to see happen.
According to the land claims agreement, it’s not entirely up to the federal government.
They have to appoint an individual to the entity. That’s in the agreement.
It’s not totally up to the federal government. We have to appoint. They can’t just grab any individual to appoint as the chairperson of the NWMB.
We have to follow the process and the land claims agreement.
Perhaps I didn’t make myself clear when I said it is up to the federal government.
What I was trying to say is that it’s up to the federal government as to when they will make the appointment. Even though there is a requirement to make the appointment, it’s up to the federal government as to when they can make the appointment.
I can only urge them to appoint someone as soon as possible, but we can’t tell them when to appoint anyone.
With regard to your question, as I stated earlier, we will urge the federal government to ensure that they appoint someone as soon as possible because we need full board membership.
Question 241 – 3(2): Status of Government of Nunavut’s Uranium Development and Mining Management Plan (Aupaluktuq)
As the minister is aware, on June 4, 2007, the Government of Nunavut announced its six principles for uranium mining in the territory.
At that time, the Minister of ED&T’s announcement stated that these principles “will serve as a framework for the development of a uranium development and mining management plan for the Government of Nunavut.”
Mr. Speaker, it’s been almost three years since this announcement was made.
As of today, where is the GN’s actual development and mining management plan?
I would like the member to repeat the question on exactly what document he is looking for. I would like him to make that clear.
The minister is seeking clarification, Mr. Aupaluktuq.
This government created a news release on June 4, 2007.
The news release title was “Balanced Approach for Uranium Mining in Nunavut.”
In this news release, there are six principles announced by the then ED&T minister that this will serve as a valuable guide for uranium mining in the territory. In the same news release, it states that the principles will serve as a framework for the development of a uranium development and mining management plan for the Government of Nunavut.
My question is: where is the GN’s actual development and mining management plan?
Is there anything that is enhanced or added, or will we be able to see some more documentation in the foreseeable future?
We do have a mining strategy, and the member indicated uranium and other commodities in mining.
The strategy that we do have within the government is, of course, from 2007 that was approved by the leg. and for uranium, there are six principles that apply to any kind of mining development.
We do have a committee set up within the government, the Sustainable Development Committee, that oversees the environmental issues and participates in the regulatory reviews as an official intervener, which the government is, with any kind of mining development.
On March 14, 2007, the Minister of ED&T tabled the GN’s Mineral Exploration and Mining Strategy in the Legislative Assembly, titled “Nunavut Parnautiit.”
That document indicated that the government “will develop a uranium policy.”
It also indicated that the government planned to spend $100,000 on consultations to develop this policy.
Can the minister explain today how the government actually spent this money?
As of today, I’m not aware of the $100,000 to develop a mining policy on uranium.
As I indicated earlier, in the mining strategy that we do have, uranium mining is included in the six principles of the government.
As the member knows, there is a uranium mining policy that NTI had developed.
At this time, any development in uranium, for that matter, any development in mining, is looked at on a case-by-case basis.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, every development in mining is different, the situations are different, and the environmental situations are different. There are new technologies and old technologies.
This government is going to be looking at every mining development on a case-by-case basis.
I thank the hon. minister for his response.
Yesterday, I tabled the Government of Nunavut’s submission to the Nunavut Impact Review Board concerning the proposed Kiggavik uranium mine near my home of Baker Lake. Although this project could have significant impact on the community, the government could barely produce more than one page of information, which was mostly copied from its 2007 news release.
Can the minister explain why the government’s submission appears to be and is perceived to be weak?
The submission is not weak as a one-pager and all it does is assisting and supporting NIRB in giving a part 5 review.
A part 5 review is in Nunavut and we support that initiative. We support the regulatory process being done in Nunavut by NIRB, with the project development being in Nunavut.
Of course, this government would support NIRB in doing a regulatory process within Nunavut.
That letter indicates that we supported the initiative of doing a part 5 review, made-in-Nunavut, done in Nunavut, with the project being in Nunavut.
That letter indicated that that was our support.
The EIS, or environmental impact statement, is not due yet from the proponent, Areva.
Once that is out, we will have our deputy heads assessing and analyzing all of the information in there.
I don’t know if the member actually knows that once the environmental impact statement is delivered to the regulators, a small project in the Kitikmeot is 11,000 pages long. With this major project happening in the Kivalliq, the Kiggavik project, who knows how many pages that’s going to be. Yes, it’s going to be highly technical.
We do have our Sustainable Development Committee in place to assess all of that information. While that is happening, we do have a sustainable development advisory group that’s advising in any kind of development.
Again, I want to assure the member that the submission that the government did to NIRB is not weak, it’s just a request to do a part 5 review.
I thank the hon. minister for that response.
It’s my duty to become educated and to try to share some information and insight to the rest of my community and constituents. I thank the minister for directing me on that as well as educating me on the issue.
In 1990, Mr. Speaker, residents of Baker Lake voted against opening a uranium mine at the Kiggavik site.
Many Nunavummiut are calling for a full and open public dialogue on uranium mining in Nunavut before any major projects go forward.
Before a new mine goes ahead at Kiggavik, does the Government of Nunavut support holding a plebiscite in the community to determine the wishes of the majority of its population, yes or no, and if not, why not?
I can’t answer that question with a yes or no. It is a complex project and it involves all other organizations, the Inuit organizations, the affected communities, the communities of Kivalliq, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, and other regulators.
So answering that question with a simple yes or no doesn’t really mean anything.
If there is a request from the public and the regulators that a plebiscite be held, then surely this government would have to oblige.
Question 242 – 3(2): Update Following Meeting of Repulse Bay Mayor and CGS Minister (Ningark)
As he is well aware, on January 25, the minister attended a meeting with the Mayor of Repulse Bay that I also attended.
Shortly thereafter, the minister replied to the issues raised on February 19 with respect to the requests for a gravel crusher, an arena, as well as snow fencing for the waste disposal site.
What he was responding to consists of more than one project.
When he responded to the requests, there was no date of commencement on any of the projects. I would like to ask if his department is working on the particulars for the planning of these projects. We all know that summer will arrive before we know it and I believe that several of these projects are scheduled to commence this summer.
I understand his concern as just putting things on the backburner is not acceptable either. Yes, we are working on the details of those projects.
We just have not reached the point where we can indicate a date for completion or commencement.
Mr. Speaker, what I can tell the member is that we are currently reviewing those requests. To cite an example, with regard to the gravel crusher, as I noted to the member when we met during last fall’s session, our department has requisitioned three gravel crushers which would be moved to various communities.
An example is in the Kivalliq region, where we are looking for a crusher that can be shipped to different communities depending on needs. However, it is far too early to state as to when this crusher will arrive in the community of Repulse Bay as we don’t have those details available yet.
With regard to the snow fencing projects, these fences serve a purpose in the communities where they are erected.
As our departmental staff outlined, we will conduct a review of the issues and how we can meet that need for the Hamlet of Repulse Bay. This is still being studied at this time.
With regard to the other matters we discussed about fencing around the waste disposal site, it will be initiated once the spring thaw has commenced and once we have the pile driving equipment to install the poles. Once the drill is operational, this project will commence.
This is the current status of that project, Mr. Speaker.
We are not just twiddling our thumbs and waiting for the seasons to change from winter to summer or towards the fall. We are busy preparing for projects for Repulse Bay as well as all of the other communities we serve in Nunavut. So we are busy on those projects, Mr. Speaker.
I would also like to thank the hon. minister.
I’m sure it’s not an easy task to put through.
We were also talking about a swimming pool at the January 25 meeting and there would have to be some safety training provided. There is also the sanitation issue when we’re talking about swimming pools.
When could the minister give us an update on what is happening with the swimming pool for Repulse Bay?
Not all communities have swimming pools.
As Mr. Ningeongan mentioned previously, I am a minister responsible in part as the CGS minister and some other parts are the responsibility of the Department of Cultural, Language, Elders and Youth.
Because of this shared responsibility, I’m working closely with my ministerial colleague on these matters.
What I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that I will make available a document on swimming pools.
We are looking at how they should be maintained.
Of course, as private individuals, one can order a swimming pool, but when it’s undertaken by a government or municipality, there are certain rules and procedures that have to be followed.
So therefore, we are currently looking at different options.
I can assure the member that I will make available a document on swimming pools at the earliest opportunity to my colleagues in this House.
I look forward to that. I believe we’re in the Second Session of the Third Assembly. Could the minister assure me that he will be tabling this document before the end of this session?
Yes, definitely, before the end of this sitting and before you go back home to your community, I’ll make sure that the document is made available to my colleagues.
I thank my colleague, Mr. Ningark, for voicing his concerns.
Question 243 – 3(2): Decentralized Positions in Pangnirtung (Komoartok)
My questions are for the Premier, the Hon. Eva Aariak.
As I noted in my Member’s Statement, I believe that it is important for the government to keep its decentralization commitments to Pangnirtung.
Three positions from the community have recently been recentralized to Iqaluit.
As I noted in my Member’s Statement, I am looking for a clear commitment from the government that it will balance this loss by identifying three new positions to be moved to the community.
My question is: will the Premier provide me with this commitment today, yes or no, and if not, why not?
Hon. Eva Aariak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the member, my colleague.
This government sincerely believes in decentralization.
We examined the Qanukkanniq document in which we heard from consultations with the communities. In regard to decentralization, we state in the report card that we will look at the strengths and weaknesses. After the Qanukkanniq document has been reviewed, we will be able to give you a more appropriate answer.
I thank the Premier for that appropriate response.
Now that this will be reviewed, there’s no doubt that we will hear about the issue again. I would caution, however, that it would be good to receive that response sooner than later.
Is the Premier able to indicate when she will be able to give us a response in the House?
Speaker (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Komoartok. (interpretation ends) Madam Premier.
We will provide a response before the end of 2010.
I would like to thank the Premier for her response.
We would like a response at the earliest possible date.
I would like to add that at the time the government started on decentralization, we were told that certain departments will be moving to certain communities and stay there.
It goes without saying that adjustments would have to be made every now and then. The only thing is that when they’re going to relocate a department, it’s only fair that the local community or even the hamlet council be fully informed.
At the time that decentralization was taking place, communities were informed what would be decentralized. However, what seems to have happened is that part of the decentralization process has been retracted. This has caused a sense of misplaced trust.
We want to be able to depend on the goodwill of the government in a spirit of partnership and collaboration.
I didn’t hear a question, but we do believe in decentralization. It has created jobs and has provided income to the people in the communities.
We have to remember that decentralization was one of the first actions taken when Nunavut was created in 1999. It was a big project. We believe in it as a government.
Once the report card is completed, we will know exactly where we should go from there. We will know how it can have an impact in the communities.
Question 244 – 3(2): Cost of Trip to Copenhagen Climate Change Conference (Elliott)
My questions are directed to the Minister of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, the Hon. Eva Aariak.
In the fall, the GN took their trip to Copenhagen and I was just wondering if the Premier could actually tell us the cost for the Nunavut contingent to travel over there.
I will find out exactly how much we spent for the Nunavut contingent and I will be more than happy to provide you with a response.
Mr. Elliott, your question has been taken as notice and we will check if it’s also followed through in a written question that you brought up the other day, Question 5 – 3(2).
Question 245 – 3(2): Delegation of Premier’s Authority during Trip to Vancouver (Okalik)