EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
According to the government’s most recent public service annual report, the number of GN employees receiving a bilingual bonus increased from 670 in 2007-08 to 1,390 in 2008-09.
This is an increase of over 107 percent in just one year.
What accounts for this increase and how many GN employees currently receive a bilingual bonus?
Again I would like to thank the committee for pointing this out to us in the standing committee review of the main estimates.
It’s my understanding that there was an error made in the reporting of the statistics.
Unlike previous year’s bilingual bonus positions, this year, it also included the vacant positions that were reported instead of just reporting the number of actual employees who were actually receiving the bonus.
The actual revised number is 680.
Also, the 2008-09 Public Service Annual Report states that “The responsibilities and language requirement described in the job description determine the eligibility of the position for bilingual bonus.
To qualify an employee has to demonstrate proficiency in the required languages.” My question is: how does the government evaluate language proficiency of employees who are applying to receive a bilingual bonus?
Ms. Wasson.
Ms. Wasson: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At the present time, we’re not evaluating; we’re setting up evaluations and discussing with the Department of Education how we can actually implement evaluations for bilingual bonuses.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Ms. Wasson.
If you’re not evaluating, how do you determine if they receive a bilingual bonus then?
The department makes the request based on their need and they will determine whether or not the person is bilingually efficient and request the job description and make that part of the individual’s job description.
I have no more names on my list. We’re on page D-8. $3,176,000. (interpretation ends) Employee Relations and Job Evaluation. (interpretation) Do you agree?
We will go back to page D-3.
Detail of Expenditures. $24,120,000.
Chairman (interpretation): Are you agreed that the Department of Human Resources is concluded?
Thank you, Minister Tootoo and your officials.
I would like to thank the members and the standing committee for their very detailed review and scrutiny of the Department of Human Resources’ budget in standing committee.
I will commit to them that we will be reviewing the opening comments that were made by the chair of the standing committee and address any issues that were raised there.
I hopefully look forward to improving the way and the timeliness of which positions are staffed. I also look very much forward to providing the standing committee in 113 days our response to the report.
So again thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all of my staff who helped me prepare for today.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Tootoo and your officials, for being open to questions.
Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the officials from the witness table so they may leave.
Before we commence our review of the Department of Environment, we will take a 10-minute break.
I believe we will be having our dinner here. In this case, you can now proceed with your opening comments, Minister of Environment. We will take a short break after the chair of the standing committee makes his opening comments.
Bill 01 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2011-2012 – Consideration in Committee – Environment
I am pleased to be here today before the committee to present my department’s business plan and main estimates for the 2011-12 fiscal year.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment’s proposed budget for 2011-12 is $22,278,000.
This represents a $985,000 increase to continued delivery of our core programs on environmental protection and wildlife management positions previously funded under terminated federal programs, and a $250,000 ongoing training initiative for conservation officers, as well as $403,000 in new funding for operations and maintenance of the new fisheries vessel.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Environment works with various organizations and by partnering with these organizations whenever possible, we have continually been successful in maximizing the impacts of our funds.
In the 2010-11 fiscal year, we obtained over $3.6 million from outside sources for various projects and we expect to be equally successful in leveraging funds again in 2011-12.
In order to maximize the benefits of our funding to Nunavutmiut, the Department of Environment’s business plan and main estimates are focused on the priorities and goals outlined in Tamapta as well as on upholding specific obligations and areas of responsibilities under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement that relate to the management of natural resources.
Stewardship of Nunavut’s environment and wildlife are key areas of the Department of Environment’s responsibility.
We work in partnership on the co-management of terrestrial wildlife in Nunavut. We also have environmental protection responsibilities, which include inspection and enforcement under the Environmental Protection Act and pollution protection.
We are the GN lead for land use planning in Nunavut and we provide inputs on the environmental assessment of potential development projects.
Mr. Chairman, finalizing an overarching strategy to provide guidance on the consistent and comprehensive management of Nunavut’s most valuable resource, caribou, is one of our top priorities for 2011-12.
We will be working with Greenland through the joint commission to undertake new polar bear population inventories for Baffin Bay and Kane Basin.
A full-scale aerial survey of the entire western Hudson Bay area is planned for 2011-12 to provide more up-to-date information on the status of this polar bear subpopulation.
For the past several years, the Department of Environment has been working to help Nunavutmiut adjust to the potential impacts caused by climate change.
We have been working with our partners to develop community-specific adaptation plans and this year, we will continue with strategic planning for territory-wide climate change adaptation.
Mr. Chairman, Nunavut’s parks contribute to a number of the basic needs identified in Tamapta, including stewardship of our environment, healthier community through access to the land for recreation and cultural activities.
We will continue to work with our partners for greater access to fisheries quota, increase science research in Nunavut’s waters, and more investment in fisheries infrastructure.
We will focus on implementing offshore and inshore fisheries research priorities outlined under the Nunavut Fisheries Science and Research Agenda.
We will also continue to work with harvesters and the fur industry to support hunters and value-added producers, develop markets, and actively represent Nunavut’s interests.
In 2011-12, we plan to complete a strategy for marketing Nunavut seal and long fur.
Mr. Chairman, as you can see, the Department of Environment’s 2011-12 main estimates and business plan support the obligations and priorities of the Government of Nunavut and provides real benefit to Nunavutmiut.
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Yes, I would.
Minister Shewchuk, for the record, please introduce your witnesses.
On my left I have David Akeeagok, Deputy Minister of Environment, and on my right I have Camilius Egeni, Director of Corporate Services.
Welcome and I am very pleased that you are able to appear before the committee.
Does the Chair of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development have any opening comments?
Mr…
An Hon. Member: Mr. Rumbolt.
Chairman (interpretation): Mr. Rumbolt, sorry for forgetting your name.
I won’t forget next time.
I am pleased to provide opening comments on behalf of the Standing Committee on Community and Economic Development on its review of the 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Department of Environment.
The standing committee notes that the department’s proposed 2011-12 operations and maintenance budget of $22,278,000 has increased by approximately 9.6 percent since the introduction of the department’s 2010-11 main estimates. The number of positions in the department is 124.5.
This is an increase of 2.0 PYs from its 2010-11 business plan.
The department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that one of its 2011-12 priorities will be to “Engage the DOE Elders Advisory Committee in public education and communication initiatives in order to gain advice on integrating Inuit Societal Values into all communication and education projects.”
The standing committee supports the department’s continuing efforts to integrate Inuit societal values into its programs and looks forward to ongoing updates on these initiatives.
Mr. Chairman, on November 1 of last year, the Government of Nunavut issued a news release concerning the European Union’s ban on seal products. The announcement indicated that “the Government of Nunavut will continue its efforts to support and promote the sealing industry, including market development and support for sealers.”
Members note that on February 11 of this year, the Government of Canada announced that it has taken formal action at the World Trade Organization against the European Union’s ban on trade in Canadian seal products.
The news release indicated that federal government will request the establishment of a World Trade Organization dispute settlement panel on this issue.
Nunavut’s 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.
The department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that the “Regulations have been drafted and are expected to be finalized by the end of 2010/2011. Implementation will be ongoing.”
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members questioned what the areas of outstanding disagreement are between the GN and NTI.
The minister indicated that there are two areas of dispute concerning polar bear management. However, the minister indicated that his department will not let these issues delay the regulations and will take the completed sections to cabinet for approval.
Mr. Chairman, on January 13 of this year, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated issued a news release titled “NTI Applies for Judicial Review over the Narwhal Tusk Ban.” The release indicated that NTI filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court challenging the Department of Fisheries and Oceans decision to ban the export of narwhal tusks and related products from 17 Nunavut communities.
On January 25 of this year, the minister sent correspondence to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on this issue.
The standing committee notes the announcement in October 2009 regarding the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with Greenland and the federal government on the Baffin Bay polar bear population.
The department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that “The joint committee expects to finalize an action plan by the end of the 2010-11 fiscal year.
Pilot studies including a feasibility assessment of aerial surveys are expected to be reported on in winter 2010-2011. A new recommended harvest level should be available by early 2012-2013.”
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that “One full scale and two pilot aerial surveys were conducted in 2010.
Preliminary results from aerial surveys in the Foxe Basin indicate the method will work for that population. Aerial surveys are planned in 2011-2012 for the Western Hudson and Baffin Bay populations. Research and development of alternative less invasive research methods is ongoing.”
Members are encouraged to see that the department is incorporating concerns from elders and hunters to use less invasive methods for wildlife research in Nunavut and look forward to the minister providing the results of proposed aerial surveys in the western Hudson Bay and Baffin Bay polar bear populations with members at the earliest opportunity.
The department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan also indicates that one of its 2011-12 priorities will be to “Initiate planning for the establishment of a polar bear management plan.” Members look forward to ongoing updates on this issue.
On June 8, 2010, the minister tabled the 2006-07, the 2007-08, and the 2008-09 annual reports in the Legislative Assembly.
The department’s 2010-13 business plan indicated that one of its priorities was 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.”
It indicated that the “Terms of reference have been drafted.”
The standing committee looks forward to the minister tabling the 2009-2010 annual report under this section of the Act.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan provides an update on the status of one of its 2010-11 priorities, which was to “Initiate implementation of the Caribou Management Strategy.” The status report indicates that “… the consultations and input from user groups, other GN departments, other governments, and industry will be concluded and a final draft strategy prepared by early 2011. Implementation will begin after the strategy is finalized.”
Members look forward to the completion of the Caribou Management Strategy and encourage the minister to table it in the Legislative Assembly at the earliest opportunity.
The department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that one of its priorities is to “Review the Fur Price Program and seal marketing programs and initiatives.” It also indicates that it will “Continue with the three major initiatives started in 2010-11: the Nunavut Fisheries Science and Research Agenda, the Nunavut Fisheries Branding and Marketing Initiative, and the Nunavut Seal and Long Fur Branding and Marketing Initiative.”
On January 19 of this year, the minister issued a news release titled “Minister Shewchuk promotes Nunavut products in China.” The minister announced that “China demonstrated a significant level of interest in both Nunavut’s fur and fish products which could potentially develop into real opportunities for the fishing and sealing industries.”
The standing committee was pleased to see that the minister and his officials are promoting Nunavut’s seal and fish products internationally and looks forward to ongoing updates on this issue.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s proposed 2011-14 business plan indicates that two of its 2011-12 priorities are to “Initiate research project on water bodies to increase char supply for processing in Nunavut” and “Continue science research and complete test fisheries in all regions.”
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 and looks forward to receiving ongoing updates on these initiatives.
Members note that on February 23 of this year, the minister delivered a statement in the House detailing the 2010 fishery results.
The minister indicated that “High catch rates and good prices helped us land our full 9,350 tonne quota of turbot this past year, which generated nearly $40 million in revenue.”
During the minister’s recent appearance before the standing committee, members questioned how the minister is working to ensure that Nunavut is able to take full advantage of this increase.
The minister indicated that he will continue to lobby the federal government for more facilities, such as fish processing plants and small craft harbours, which are crucial to increasing Nunavut’s ability to take advantage of this turbot increase.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s 2009-2010 business plan indicated that “A lack of modern community waste management infrastructure impacts compliance with the Environmental Protection Act.” It also indicated that the department will “Complete the development of a hazardous waste management training program for municipal workers” and “It is anticipated that the course will be developed and delivered to the first group of students before the end of February 2011.”
The standing committee is pleased to see that municipal employees are participating in this very important training and looks forward to ongoing updates on this training.
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.
Mr. Chairman, on March 27, 2009, the minister tabled a report in the Legislative Assembly concerning this issue.
During a previous appearance before the standing committee, the minister advised members that it would cost the GN approximately $500 million to implement this national strategy.
However, members were also advised the Department of Environment is working with the Department of Community and Government Services on an inventory of all sewage and waste management facilities in Nunavut and is looking into other options, such as incineration, to deal with waste in communities.
The standing committee notes the recent issues relating to the water use inspection licences prepared by the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada in all Nunavut communities.
These water use inspection reports clearly illustrated Nunavut’s lack of adequate sewage and waste management facilities.
Members encourage the minister to review the adequacy of these funding levels, in particular the funding allocated towards disaster compensation.
Mr. Chairman, that concludes my opening comments on the 2011-12 main estimates and 2011-14 business plan of the Department of Environment.
We will now take a 20-minute break so the previous speaker could take a break.
Once the bells start to ring in about 20 minutes, you will know that you are to return to the Chambers.
>>Committee recessed at 17:41 and resumed at 18:11
Chairman (Mr. Schell): I welcome everybody back.
I thank the minister for his opening remarks. On page 2 of the minister’s opening remarks, Mr. Minister, you talk about a full-scale aerial survey. So whether we like it or not, if we want to keep harvesting polar bears in Nunavut, we have to prove to the world that we are good managers of polar bear as well.
We have partners in Nunavut, in the North, our circumpolar friends in Alaska, Greenland, and we in Canada. My question subsequently is: who pays for the full-scale aerial survey; do we Nunavummiut? We are obligated by the whole world for the management of polar bear.
In fact, we may be connected to WWF. Who pays for the full-scale survey up here? It may be a detailed question, but it’s included in his opening remarks.
What I referred to, the full-scale aerial survey that we’re going to do in the western Hudson Bay, I assure the member that all interests are involved. Ever since our wildlife symposium that we had in Rankin Inlet to involve all HTOs, regional wildlife boards, NTI in this survey, the planning has been a very in-depth process. All groups are involved.
The Government of Nunavut will burden most of the responsibility of funding for that survey. Environment Canada is contributing some, they are involved too, but the survey is going to be done totally by Nunavut researchers and beneficiaries from all communities in the western Hudson Bay in Nunavut.
One area that is sometimes controversial to people up here is people think that it’s up to the Government of Nunavut to allow the harvest or to reduce the harvest of polar bears, but we do have agreements with the whole world that if we want to harvest, we have to manage. One way of managing is that we have to do the surveys up here.
The member thinks correctly. Nunavut manages polar bears and the management system that we have in place is probably the best in the world.
We do co-manage populations where we share them, such as western Hudson Bay with Manitoba and other populations across Nunavut, but we’re very proud of our management plan in regard to polar bears and we think we do a very good job in involving communities and Inuit in managing polar bears.
Mr. Ningark: My final question to the hon. minister is: do we have a transboundary agreement in the circumpolar region with Alaska and Greenland on the population of polar bears?
Hon. Daniel Shewchuk: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the question.
Yes, we do have agreements in place with different jurisdictions and we are working on other agreements with different jurisdictions on the management of polar bears.
Jurisdictions we don’t have agreements with, we are actively working to get agreements in place.
The jurisdictions we don’t have agreements with, which jurisdictions are we talking about?
As I say, we have agreements that we are working on together and we do have co-management relationships with Ontario, somewhat with Manitoba, somewhat with Newfoundland, and Quebec is the province that we are having difficulty with right now.
Subsequent to that answer, why are we having problems with Quebec?
The three populations that we share with Quebec are the southern Hudson Bay population, which is in Mr. Rumbolt’s territory, the Foxe Basin population, and the Davis Strait population. Quebec is somewhat reluctant to get into an agreement because they don’t have any active management plan or strategies into place. However, we are working with them and encouraging them and working with the Makivik government under their new structure of their land claims with their wildlife board to ensure that we move in the right direction.
Do we try to convince that polar bears know no boundary and so on?
I could say that not only with the Canadian jurisdictions but, as the member has stated, with all countries; Alaska and Greenland. There’s a polar bear world out there which we are a part of, a polar bear technical committee, and we have discussions about polar bear populations. In those discussions is what the member is referring to.
Right now, there are several populations.
Are there populations that could be expanded that are genetically the same? Those discussions and research is ongoing. You could see that change in the future, Mr. Chairman.
I have no more names, so we will go page by page.
I had a question for your opening comments on page 3.
On the fourth paragraph where you’re talking about working with partners to access greater fishing quotas, what areas are you talking about? With what the Arctic Fisheries Alliance is doing up in Lancaster Sound, they have been doing some test fisheries to see what’s happening with turbot. Are there other locations across the territory as well that you’re looking at?
This probably won’t make too much sense to the member, but the fisheries that we have going on with turbot are zone 0A and 0B, which is all of the east side of Baffin Island. That’s presently where we have turbot fishing going on.
So it’s only the turbot in those two areas that you’re looking at or are you looking at… ?
I know there is shrimp in that area as well and also, I think, from a Minister’s Statement, he was talking about arctic char stocks as well.
The member is right in that shrimp is involved in that area too. The area that we have commercial fishing of turbot and shrimp going on right now is in that area, east of Baffin Island.
The arctic char is more inland and more westerly in the Arctic.
Those are different fisheries altogether where Nunavut is pretty much the sole fishery of those resources.