EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
They are now in the Kivalliq area and very likely moving towards the east.
They will probably come to the Baffin region some time in the future, but to date, there is no quota system set up for grizzly bears.
Again, following Inuit tradition, you can’t just kill an animal if you’re not going to eat it.
We are currently working with the regional wildlife organizations to regulate the management of grizzly bears.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, very much. (interpretation ends) Branch Summary. Environment. Program Management.
I would like to just ask the minister a few questions on polar bears of the western Hudson Bay. I’m pretty sure he knew that there would be some questions.
Specifically on the TAH (total allowable harvest), at one time, back in 2006-07, the TAH was actually 56.
The minister’s department has stated that the population is stable, yet the current quota is only 24.
I would just like to ask why the quota is less than half of what it was if the population is stable.
My assistant deputy minister will explain that if you will allow him.
The historic harvest level for western Hudson, I believe, was 42. It was increased in 2004-05 to 56, I think.
Following that, research suggested the population had declined, so the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board then decreased the harvest down to eight per year.
It went down quite low. Since then, it has been increased based on more recent research data.
It is estimated that the population has remained stable since the last surveys were done. The most recent data, I believe, is from 2011-12.
Also, the Canadian Wildlife Service of Environment Canada re-analyzed their historic data and also concluded that the population was approximately stable.
The harvest level of 24 is based on an estimated population growth rate of about 2.5 percent.
That’s what they estimated as the normal population growth level. At the current population estimate at that growth rate, that’s how we also concluded that the harvest level of 24 would be sustainable.
Back in 2011-12, Mr. Pinksen is correct in saying that the quota went from 8 to 21 huntable bears, but the actual TAH for that year that was given out was 42 tags to account for the backlog of defence kills when the TAH was too low.
In fact, that one year, they were able to put a TAH out of 42. Why did it have to go so far down to 24?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much. (interpretation ends) The minister has redirected to the official, Mr. Pinksen.
When the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board adjusts the total allowable harvest, as per the memorandum of understanding, we have a credit system of how we manage over-harvests.
In that system, in the MOUs, we zero the credits when there is a change. However, we still have to account for any over-harvest.
It’s correct that during the years when the harvest level was quite low, there were a lot of defence kills and defense of life and property kills of polar bears.
We had to account for that in our management system.
How it was done was to allocate and to cover off the additional bears that were harvested.
The western Hudson Bay polar bear population, historically in the past, has been hunted by five communities. Currently, the quota of 24 is only hunted by three, which is Arviat, Whale Cove, and Rankin Inlet.
I know that every bear has to be accounted for and a tag has to be issued.
If the number of defence kills should go up from these communities, it’s quite possible that the TAH could all be used up for defence kills.
If the number of defence kills starts going up, would the minister agree that it’s possible that there will be no huntable quota again there was from 2008 to 2011?
My assistant deputy minister will answer that.
I guess the [question] is: is it possible?
I guess it is possible.
It is difficult to sit and answer a theoretical question like that.
I don’t think it is that theoretical because we’ve had other communities that have shot as high as, I believe, 20 or 30 bears in a two-year span for defence kills. It’s not hypothetical; it could happen.
Going on a different matter, the Government of Nunavut studies the western Hudson Bay population and so does Environment Canada, Canadian Wildlife Service, and they’re managing these bears to the numbers they’re at now. I would like to know if they are doing any studies to know what the carrying capacity of that area is for that polar bear population.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Mike.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) No.  Chairman (interpretation): Thank you very much.
I think what they should do is try to find out what the carrying capacity is because if the polar bears are at their carrying capacity with the environment that they are in, then even if you keep putting the quota down, the bear population will not increase because they’re at their carrying capacity.
Maybe that’s just as many bears as their habitat or the environment can carry now.
It doesn’t make sense for polar bears to go skinny or die of natural cause if they are going to die anyway. It makes more sense that people of Nunavut get to harvest them and benefit from the harvest of the bears. We see lots of bears in the fall now, lots in Arviat, not just Arviat but Arviat is where it’s in the media and we see them a lot.
I believe that part of the pressure from the media and outside pressure are having a factor on how the Department of Environment is managing the bears and setting up their quotas.
I honestly believe that the western Hudson Bay polar bear population can go with a higher TAH.
I’m hoping that NWMB will be recommending a higher TAH to the minister.
The long and short is: does the minister have any plans to find out what the carrying capacity is, if they can, of that area for the polar bears? Thank you.
I’ll have my assistant deputy minister respond.
There’s no specific plan to do a carrying capacity study of how many bears that ecosystem can support.
The way we approach it is through discussions with the hunters and trappers organizations, the regional wildlife organizations, and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board.
We establish what a target number is for managing the population at and that is currently done through memoranda of understanding that we have with the communities. That’s the process that we use for following that. All parties would agree to the population level that we are trying to manage it at.
Currently, we are finalizing a new Nunavut-wide polar bear management plan, which is also being done with the same organizations and that process will, again, establish the target level for managing each polar bear population at.
From what I just heard, the HTOs and RWOs are used to get a target population. My understanding would be that Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat is being used to get a target population.
At the same time, on the other hand, the Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat of the HTOs is not being used to set the quota of the total allowable harvest because everyone has heard every hunter and every HTO saying that most communities have, I won’t say too many bears, but lots of bears.
Some people say too many bears, but I’m just going to say lots.
In most communities and Arviat in particular, we’re seeing more bears than we traditionally ever have.
If you can use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat to get the target figure, why can’t you use that as part of the process to get the total allowable harvest?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that question. In regard to Inuit traditional knowledge and how we can incorporate it into this, I know that there is a high population of polar bears in those communities.
The government has to abide by Article 5 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
We have to work with the co-management partners. They produce traditional knowledge from the HTOs or it is derived from the harvesters and from the regional wildlife boards.
The issue that we are discussing right now, the western Hudson Bay polar bear management, I’m looking at the management plan and the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board just recently held a hearing in the month of December.
I believe that Inuit submitted their traditional knowledge, especially the knowledge of the harvesters.
I am sure that they made submissions to the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board at the time they were holding a polar bear hearing.
All the submissions and all the surveys were provided to NWMB from NTI and various organizations. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board was going to take all of those submissions.
I expect the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board will make a decision. I’m sure we will hear if they used the traditional knowledge in making the decision.
I thank the minister for stating that if Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit is being used by the HTOs and by the regional wildlife boards in their submissions to NWMB, the outcome will be positive.
I would like to know if he is using it in his process or is it all just basic scientific data. The GN submission to NWMB for the western Hudson Bay polar bear population is to keep it at the current level of 24 bears a year for the next three years, yet the minister has heard from HTOs saying that they have lots of bears now.
I’m pretty sure that he has heard from a lot of elders too that there are lots of bears now. I believe that is Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat, but his department’s submission is still only for 24 bears.
I ask the minister: did he use Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat or Qaujimaningat in his submission to keep the current harvest of western Hudson Bay polar bears at the current level? Thank you.
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for mentioning that.
I personally have not heard from an individual or elders nor did the elders come to my office.
As I said, when NWMB is holding a hearing, these entities can make their submissions.
I apologize to the member, but what I’m trying to say is that I haven’t received a letter from the HTOs in the Kivalliq regarding Inuit Qaujimanituqangat nor did I hear from the elders. Personally in my office, I don’t know about other entities. I don’t know if they heard from the HTOs.
I’m sure that the Kivalliq Wildlife Board has heard from their HTOs. I believe NWMB has heard from the communities in regard to western Hudson Bay polar bear management.
I’m sure that NWMB has heard through the hearing.
I thank the minister for the clarification.
I will just ask him now if he would like the HTOs and RWOs to write his office letters requesting that the polar bear quota be increased using Inuit Qaujimajatuqangat.
If the HTOs wrote to him, because apparently that is the only way that the information would get to him, if they wrote to him and asked for a quota increase, would he consider a quota increase from the HTOs?
I also thank my colleague for talking about that.
The member asked whether I had heard or not.
I just elaborated that all the entities have the opportunity to submit a letter of their knowledge. The process follows the memorandum of understanding.
Now the member is asking me if I am willing to consider an increase in the quota if the HTOs or regional wildlife boards writes to me requesting to have the TAH increased according to traditional Inuit knowledge, but the hearing has already passed. Now I am waiting for NWMB.
Likewise, the Kivalliq Wildlife Management Board is waiting for the results from NWMB.
NWMB has not given the results from the hearing on polar bear management in western Hudson Bay.
Even though there’s no hearing occurring, I just want you to know that we welcome any kind of letter of correspondence, but the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board has to make a decision on the total allowable harvest of western Hudson Bay polar bear population.
I’ll go on to a different topic now.
I would just like to talk a bit about furs.
In your opening statement, you said that you are putting in $160,000 into buying sealskins, which I believe is part of the Fur Pricing Program.
In the past, when I have asked you questions about the shipping of furs out to other fur buyers, which is part of the Fur Pricing Program, you said it’s under review.
Just a clarification on why you’re asking for money on one hand and then on the other hand, you say, “Well, we can’t give you an answer because the program is under review.”
In regard to sealskins, we have been considering this for quite some time.
The review of the harvester support programs will be initiated in September.
However, in regard to sealskins, we have been considering how we could improve the program, even though the review went ahead.
Therefore, we had agreed to consider the increase in the price for sealskins.
We were considering it, even though there is a review occurring of the harvester support programs from the GN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I agree with the minister that putting the price up for sealskins is a good thing for the harvesters that hunt seals.
For the harvesters that also hunt wolves, wolverines, and foxes and would like to sell their fur to other fur buyers other than the one the department currently pays the shipping to, would the minister consider to start paying for the shipping of furs to other fur buyers in Canada, even before the review is done, just like he did for the sealskins?
In Arviat and in the Kivalliq, most people hunt long fur and sell long fur. It would be beneficial to the people of the Kivalliq if the shipping of their fur was paid to other fur buyers.
Just to make it clearer on why we have to increase the sealskin, I just wanted to give you more information on that.
Skinning seal or tanning seal is very important here in the north.
It’s just within the Nunavut area. They need more sealskin.
Sealskins are being bought, tanned or not. They want the sealskin in Nunavut and they want more.
There are sewers who want more skin. There are other skins that are being used. My colleague is using a sealskin vest.
For these reasons, we would like to give the people who make clothing fur that they need to make garments or whatnot.
The prices have not increased for a long time and that’s one of the reasons why we would like to see the increase. The increase is long time coming. The seal meat will be distributed to the community and if the harvester wants to make an income out of it, then he can do so or just give it to the people in the community.
This also helps the people in the community by providing them with food.
We’re not going to drop the fur program.
Recently, we thought that we wanted to do this as a government. I know that the seal products or sealskins are not liked by the animal rights activists, but I hope that clears it a bit.
Chairman: Thank you. We are on Branch Summary.
Environment. Program Management. Following the list of names, Mr. Akoak.
I just have one question, I think.
It’s got to do with: do you have any programs for hunters who travel long distances to go polar bear hunting? The reason why I’m asking is we have hunters over in Gjoa Haven who do go over to the Gulf of Boothia behind Taloyoak. That’s well over 100 miles one way.
Is there such a thing as that for the hunters from Gjoa Haven? Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to have my assistant deputy minister to explain that.
We do have a number of harvester support programs which, as the minister indicated, are under review this current year, but we don’t really have anything specific to hunters who may have to travel 100 miles or whatever the distance is for hunting.
We don’t have a specific program that would provide subsidies or anything like that for that kind of activity. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman: Thank you. Mr. Akoak.
I’m thinking of just in line of buying gas for the hunter. Sometimes they do go over and can’t come back because they don’t have money to come back, to buy gas with. Would you suggest or would you think of getting a program in like that for hunters who do travel a long distance?
As we stated in regard to our colleague Mr. Savikataaq’s question, these programs are being reviewed.
That is the only answer I can give him right now because the review has not been completed.
We needed to get more feedback from the wildlife organizations in Nunavut so that we will have a good program.
This will probably be brought up through that.
Mr. Akoak: Just one more question. Has there been a program like that before the Fourth Assembly?
Hon. Johnny Mike (interpretation): I’m quite new, so I’m not sure about what happened in the past.
My assistant deputy minister will respond to that.
Under the Northwest Territories, there were some programs that did provide support, but usually it wasn’t gas subsidies. It was mostly run through the hunters and trappers organizations. The money was used for various things, including equipment purchase, building hunting cabins and survival cabins for communities, and various different things.
I have been with the department for over 20 years and I am not aware of any program that was for gas subsidies for long-distance hunting.
I can’t recall any program like that.
Mr. Akoak: Just a comment, it would be nice to have some kind of a program to help out the hunters to go on a long-distance hunt. If you could think about it, it would be great.
I want to make a few remarks about the subject of polar bears while I have the chance, but I shan’t digress.
I know from personal experience and can provide factual information without any educated guesses by adhering to naught but your written word, which I won’t by the way, but only what I myself have actually witnessed about polar bears to provide some background.
Back when I was growing up, the area where we resided had absolutely no bears. No bears were even seen. That’s how rare a sighting was.
Sometimes a polar bear was harvested once a year. Inuit were able to cache their meat anywhere from harvesting marine mammals. These caches were never ever robbed due to the fact that no polar bears were in the vicinity to attempt it.
Inuit today, in using their traditional knowledge in seeing the present day reality with polar bears, want the listening audience to know as well as the people watching this on television that I am providing a factual piece of knowledge, one gleaned from experience and not an educated guess like those stemming from my learned friends.
Today, Inuit are in a precarious situation with relation to the present abundance of polar bears. It is becoming life-threatening with ever increasing chances of getting mauled by polar bears and Inuit are experiencing this first hand.
You endanger your own life by sleeping in a tent, yet these animal activists say the bears are on the verge of extinction.
Come and prove it because that is absolutely not the case. If the bears were on the verge of extinction, no polar bears would be present anywhere in the area Inuit use.
In this day and age, as government considers plans, you had better respect Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit because Inuit don’t lie about serious matters or guess about possibilities. This knowledge has been passed from actual experiences by our forefathers.
Will this department ever subjugate themselves to the superiority of data from the historical knowledge related to the explosion of the polar bear population?
Has this minister or his officials ever taken this into consideration when incorporating Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit?
I also thank my colleague for bringing this up as people are in danger because of polar bears.
Yes, we do hear about different situations. Ever since there has been an increase in the number of polar bears, there have been some bad situations.
My uncle also had a live polar bear on his qamutik.
These different things happen because of polar bears.
We never usually hear about someone pulling a live polar bear from a qamutik or a little boat.
In regard to the polar bear issue, we have also stated as a government, in regard to polar bears in Nunavut, this has been worked on.
The polar bear management is going forward along with the review and the changes that are coming. We have tried to gain feedback from all the communities in regard to polar bear management.
Polar bear management is being changed and this was part of his question. People have been voicing their concerns in regard to polar bear management.
We are expecting to give it to NWMB in May, and all of the things that have to be considered in regard to the polar bear have been discussed during review.
I will again try to make this straight to the point. I thank you for that. Indeed, life is always like that.
This issue has to be resolved now and to try to incorporate Inuit knowledge into this type of situation.
Let us know this truth that these animal rights activists, especially those who can read, your fallacy of the ice melting at unprecedented rates is your calling card of concern in this global community.
Polar bears don’t live because of the ice.
Ice is, indeed, one of their preferred habitats, but they are capable of using any terrain due to their superior faculties from Inuit as the top predators. Irrespective of marine, terrestrial or icy environs, they can hunt anywhere.
I have personally seen polar bears catch seals in all these arenas.
Now, what has been broken is their ability to hunt.
They are being impacted by researchers, especially the so-called scientists. They use helicopters. The sound is the most insidious of the impacts of research by helicopters, and Inuit want less intrusive methods, if available.
Once a bear has had their acute hearing hit by sonic sound, if you are capable of comprehending that, which I doubt you can due to your educational biases, it completely loses the ability to use its hearing to hunt seals. This is like firing a rifle next to your ear. They lose their sense of hearing; a lot of bears do at least.
When a bear loses the hearing sensitivity in their ears, which is a sad thing to see as Inuit, it is written off as a side effect of white man’s research. With these intrusive and noisy research methods resulting in the loss of hearing, these affected polar bears start meandering into Inuit occupied areas since their only hunting sense left is their smell, which brings them into contact with people, which results in dangerous human-bear interactions.
With that being the reality we face today, I want this government to be more focused on the fact that a polar bear, much like a human, will actually get mad at all humans for being man-handled. They will go out of their way to exact revenge on the closest humans or if they can find the researchers, but this intrusion changes a bear’s behaviour for the rest of their lives. This is why I urge you academic folks to be more understanding of the polar bears’ characteristics because they take it personally as an assault on them.
This intrusion affects the bears for the rest of their lives, which is why they become dangerous.
The ice isn’t disappearing any time soon. Can the minister ensure his scientists carefully consider the quotas in the Baffin and Kivalliq regions? The situation is thus, the reality we face today is due to scientific advice.
If a community harvests too many females or surpass their boar quota, then their tags are decreased. This is resulting in overpopulation of bears.
I wonder where and how this present overpopulation of polar bears can be determined in Nunavut by Inuit in a way we can abide with.
It is getting to a point where Inuit may start a cull.
Please keep that in mind when you are looking at management plans. I want this taken into consideration and that concludes my tidbit for the day.
Chairman (interpretation): I didn’t hear a question in that comment.
My question is pretty simple on this one.
In the main estimates there on I-5, one of the line items is Other Expenses and it is $832,000. We are asked to approve these budgets.
I think that is awful high for other expenses and we don’t know what that is.
Can we get an explanation on what that $832,000 is for?
I would like my assistant deputy minister to have the opportunity to respond to that, Mr. Chairman.
I don’t have a complete breakdown, but I do know some of the items that are included in other expenses.