EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
The second program compensates individuals for damage to equipment and cabins. That is for damage caused by polar bears and there are no income requirements for that one.
Those are the two types of compensation available from the Department of Environment.
So that we don’t go all over the place, I just want to let everybody know that I’m only talking about disaster compensation, the weather-related compensation of equipment.
I will ask questions on the other one later on.
I just want to get some clarification to my question.
What does environmental compensation consist of?
What would have to happen before I can get compensation?
The process is that when somebody suffers a loss, they would fill out an application form. It is short; it is about two pages, not many lines on it.
They would sign an affidavit to swear that the information is correct. The application goes to the conservation officer for review, and then to the local HTO for their comments. So there are two local steps for review, and then it goes to the regional manager.
That’s the process.
I’m not sure if I got the entire question. I guess I didn’t get the question.
Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Pinksen.
I think Mr. Enook was actually looking for what programs or what item could fall under disaster compensation.
Mr. Pinksen, maybe you can, then, answer the question.
Mr. Pinksen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that clarification.
A natural disaster would be one that’s nature-caused and not related to human error and judgment and not related to a breakdown. Somebody having an accident with a piece of equipment is not considered a natural disaster. Somebody undertaking an activity that was acknowledged or could be seen to be very high-risk and high risk of loss would not be considered a natural disaster.
Whereas something by an unavoidable weather event of that nature would be considered a natural disaster, but each application would still be assessed individually.
I hope that’s better.
If I properly understood that response, I can state unequivocally that if I were to apply for this program, I would never be approved for compensation, at least based on that criterion he spoke of. That is, if I understand the regulations as listed.
Let me provide this example. Men and real Inuit hunters tend to go to the floe edge all the time. If they were on ice that was sheared off and the pan became dislodged, where the hunters could return to fast ice, but they couldn’t save their equipment and they were to lose the equipment, can they get compensated?
When the criterion was being listed, it included the specific wording, (interpretation ends) “high risk.” (interpretation) That was the English word used as the basis.
If the hunter continues to persist in continuing even though the situation in all probability will occur, then that situation would be considered high risk and used as the reason for being ineligible for this program and would result in the decision to not approve their application.
Just so the ardent hunters of Nunavut will completely understand the matter, in my opinion, many real Inuit hunters don’t go out for their own pleasure, but to provide sustenance for their family, their elders, and their communities at the floe edge, as this area always has the most wildlife, especially in the springtime.
Here we are being told that if an incident were to occur in their search for this sustenance, they won’t be eligible for any assistance whatsoever. Is this how I understand the program requirements?
Each case is reviewed individually when an application is submitted. They can continue to send applications through either way. I believe Mr. Pinksen can provide more details to supplement my response at your discretion.
It’s not that they can’t be compensated for a loss at the floe edge.
It would depend on the cause of the loss. We’ve had files where equipment was lost at the floe edge and it has been covered because of the nature of the incident.
For example, we’ve had losses at the floe edge where a major storm came up and equipment was lost because of what would be seen as a natural storm, whereas somebody at the floe edge who drives onto thin ice because of not being careful or whatever the case may be would probably not be compensated.
It depends on the incident, but it’s not an across-the-board rule that something is covered or not covered.
Each file is assessed on its specific circumstances.
It’s kind of confusing when I try and ask questions. How can an individual get compensation from that fund?
Hunting anywhere in Nunavut is high risk already because we don’t know what’s going to happen with the weather and the environment.
They said that they couldn’t get any funding, but because of the high risk, some of them can be considered.
There are some who can’t be compensated while others can be compensated.
We always say that if there is an accident and they lose their equipment, they can fill out an application to try and get some compensation.
For those who have been refused, they can apply again and elaborate on exactly what happened for the department to reconsider the request for compensation.
I encourage everyone to go ahead and try to get compensation from my department through the application process.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. (interpretation ends) I know that I will probably not get compensated for a real need to go to the washroom, so bear with me for a bit, Mr. Enook.
I will not get compensated for wetting my pants. Mr. Enook, please.
Mr. Enook: Alright.
Chairman (Mr. Enook): The chair is not wet at least. Mamianaq, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation) Maybe I’ll have to put my name in again when he comes back.
I am glad the Chairman who just left also had environmental concerns.
Mr. Chairman, with the Department of Environment here and their Priorities (2012-13) on page 132, third bullet, it is talking about the Thelon and Kazan rivers keeping their Canadian Heritage management plans. With the status it notes that “further developments have been delayed due to Heritage Rivers IIBA on-going negotiations.”
I want to ask: what are the causes of delays?
Mr. Pinksen can respond to that question.
Mr. Pinksen: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The negotiations are still ongoing and the work is still ongoing.
They’re not completely stalled. They have been somewhat slowed by the NTI lawsuit against Canada for land claims implementation. Canada’s enthusiasm for some things was slightly reduced by the lawsuit.
There are some ongoing discussions with regional Inuit associations as well. There are a number of factors. Thank you.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On page 133 of the business plan, the priorities for 2013-14, the third bullet indicates, “Complete negotiations for an Umbrella Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) for Canadian Heritage Rivers in Nunavut.” It’s followed by the fourth bullet, “With the support of residents of Kugaaruk and Baker Lake,” which would include Gjoa Haven, “develop formal Nomination Document for Utkuhiksalik (Back) River and present to the Canadian Heritage Rivers Board for consideration.”
Can the minister update the committee of the current status of the nomination of Back River as a Canadian Heritage River?
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pinksen can respond to his question.
The discussions are ongoing, but fairly recently, the Kivalliq Inuit Association raised a number of concerns with the nomination of the Back River. We have met with them just last month to discuss those concerns and those discussions are ongoing.
The concerns are related to possible impacts of a Heritage River nomination on development. Like I said, we met with them just last month and those discussions are ongoing. We are still pursuing the designation.
Mr. Aupaluktuq: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that the department does acknowledge that there was a letter submitted from the Kivalliq Inuit Association stating that it does not support the nomination of the Back River, “that it has significant economic potential.”
There is some confusion from constituents as well as from myself that the process, priorities, as well as in the opening comments prior that the environmental assessments and environmental concerns are for the benefit and the protection of Inuit in Nunavut under their land claims agreement.
It appears to be that the regional Inuit organization opposes this based on the benefits of significant economic potential.
In noting that the letter was received and the department has indicated that they are still ongoing with the nomination of Back River, I am glad that that was documented for the record.
I want to ask: has the department received any other such letter from any other Inuit representatives on the nomination?
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Aupaluktuq. Minister Arreak.
To date, we have not received any further correspondence aside from the Kivalliq Inuit Association. They are the only ones we have received correspondence from on this matter.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Minister Arreak. Mr. Aupaluktuq.
I definitely will be consulting with my Baker Lake constituents in the hopes of resolving this issue and help them gain a full understanding. We will need to learn all the facts involved to come up with a solution and to determine whether there will be sufficient support for the nominations.
I know that the minister will be consulting with the residents of Baker Lake. Mr. Chairman, it is rather obvious that my constituents in Baker Lake will speak about this matter. I know we will debate it in our community and I will continue to advocate on their behalf.
For their understanding of this issue, I want to ask about real information to help us understand how this will be developed. I have no idea whether it will be supported. I know there will be opposing voices from some of the people of Baker Lake and they will make their opinions known.
In representing the people’s wishes in Baker Lake, I wanted to raise this issue in the House. Although it is not a question, I am raising this issue to inform the residents of Baker Lake and to allow them an opportunity to be heard.
It just seems like we’re going to continue on with the Department of Environment. We can take a 15-minute break and have our coffee and tea.
We will come back in 15 minutes.
>>Committee recessed at 18:15 and resumed at 18:35
Chairman (Mr. Ningeongan) (interpretation): Thank you very much for coming back.
We will go back to the department we were dealing with.
I want to start on page 129 of the Department of Environment’s business plan for 2013-16.
On it, there’s the Nunavut Fisheries Training Consortium Program, $150,000.
I was just curious in terms of the funding that we provide if that’s specifically for training.
This is specific to employees in that sector, including the training required for this purpose.
It’s also my understanding that part of the training that the participants do require some in-water exercises before they actually go out on the ships. They usually use the Iqaluit swimming pool, but I think the pool is not in service anymore.
Is that going to incur higher costs or will they be asking the government for more money?
For a better response, I’ll have Mr. Pinksen respond to your question.
The $150,000 we contribute goes to the consortium and that’s the core funding for their organization.
They then access external funding for their projects, programs, and the training that they deliver.
There may be an increase in their costs because of lack of access to a local pool, but we will have to sort that out through the funding organizations, not through our funding.
I hope that’s helpful.
So we shouldn’t expect a supplementary appropriation cost for extra costs incurred under this particular item.
I have been informed that we won’t require any further supplementary funds for this item.
Also, next I want to move on to the photographs that I tabled the other day which showed forty-four 45-gallon drums that showed up on the shore in Grise Fiord.
I wonder if the minister could clearly explain what that fuel will be used for.
Mr. Akeeagok can respond to that question.
This is for the polar bear population study that is to occur between Grise Fiord and Greenland. That is the purpose for these funds.
So is this a Government of Nunavut project in terms of research?
It will be used for the work directly and we will work with Greenland during the polar bear survey.
In the questions I asked earlier, the minister had stated that his department follows the same procedures as other organizations when doing research and whatnot. He said that they also consult the community. I’m just curious to find out.
When the fuel actually arrived in Grise Fiord, the community did not know what it was for and why it had come to the community. Could the minister explain, if the process was followed, why the community did not know?
I’m sorry that they didn’t know what that was going to be used for.
Mr. Pinksen can further supplement my response.
We did, of course, consult on the research project and the conduct of the research.
Unfortunately, we did not consult on the storage of the fuel within the community.
So while the research itself was not a surprise to the community, the arrival of the fuel was.
I am pleased to advise, however, that just yesterday, we identified an alternate fuel storage location within the community and the fuel is being moved in the next couple of days.
So hopefully we have dealt with the issue.
Again, with all of the different activities that are going on in the High Arctic, whether it’s the North Bathurst Island, federal park that’s going on or the marine sanctuary, you tend to see a lot of different NIRB applications and also decisions made by NIRB.
Once the process is done, there is a huge document that comes out to the proponent who is applying.
It talks about things like where food and fuel can be stored. It’s quite a lengthy document.
My next question would be in terms of what the minister said earlier.
Following the guidelines and NIRB, did NIRB actually specify that the Government of Nunavut Department of Environment was allowed to store 44 barrels of 45-gallon jet A1 fuel right in front of the conservation officer’s office?
Mr. Pinksen can also respond to the question.
The storage of fuel within the municipality is outside of NIRB, so it wasn’t a part of the NIRB process.
I can say that we have been storing drum fuel both within municipal boundaries and outside of municipal boundaries for literally decades.
We’ve never had an incident with fuel. This is the first time that it was really raised as a concern by a community.
It came as a bit of a surprise in Grise Fiord, where the community raised concerns about the storage of drums of fuel in the community.
We have been looking for an alternative and we very recently found one to having it stored on our own lot in the community. We found an alternate site.
We will be looking at our fuel storage practices across Nunavut and making sure that we avoid similar situations.
Again, I think it concerns me, especially with having three communities. One of the things that were explained to me, and this might sound really crazy, but when it was first presented to me, what happened in Grise Fiord is someone said, “What would happen if, by chance, 11 pallets with forty-four 45-gallon drums showed up on the shores of Toronto Harbour?”
They were sitting there for six months, which I thank the minister for saying that it is being taken care of and will be moved to a safe and secure location, but what would happen in any other jurisdiction? Would it be acceptable to have 44 barrels of jet A1 fuel sitting on a shoreline for six months?
I can’t respond to a hypothetical question.
We have been using this method of storing drums in the communities for years. This is the first time that there have been concerns, so we’re going to be a little bit more cautious about where we place the oil drums in Nunavut, not in Toronto.
Again, I find it surprising that this is the Department of Environment that is supposed to be working towards protecting our environment that doesn’t see this as a problem.
At the same time, there is a concern in Arctic Bay with about 20 barrels of 45-gallon drums of fuel that are sitting out by the tank farm.
I think those were used for caribou counting.
Again, of three communities, two communities do have concerns. There must be other communities out there that probably have the concern as well. It is nice that the department is looking into it, but what changes will the department make?
We’re currently drafting up some changes. I will have Mr. Akeeagok supplement my response.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. (interpretation ends) In the Arctic Bay case, the member is correct that it is for a caribou survey. Each situation is different.
In cases, for example, in Arctic Bay, the plan is for conservation officers to transport them to the location where the helicopter will be going.
It has been past practice where once we see the drums, they go to locations where it would be most convenient for our staff to relocate. In some cases, it’s one that we may go incident by incident.
In some communities, we’ve got good arrangements of moving them to other parts of town. It all varies, but it’s very difficult to manage that.
In terms of the drums and the concerns on the environment, for those, we do have mitigation plans if any spill happens, but in the history of research that we used, we utilized the drums as the most safe and economical way of transporting it. So when we do research, those are used for helicopters to fill them up on their way to their research site.
(interpretation) I think that’s it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I’m just a little concerned. I know I used a hypothetical example, but even as a homeowner, before a homeowner could get insurance for their home, I think we’re incurring the costs through the Nunavut Housing Corporation where double-walled tanks have to be now installed on houses to make sure there are no environmental spills or fuel spills.
So homeowners actually have to do that before they can get their annual insurance, yet it seems like with the Department of Environment, because it’s difficult, there are different rules.
What recourse of action could a hamlet have? I sometimes think, as a department of the environment, we would set the bar a little bit higher in terms of environmental protection and the way we handle things.
If this is the way the Department of Environment does it, well, what’s stopping a contractor coming up, bringing 44 barrels, leaving them on the shore, and saying, “Well, we will just leave them there.”?
I would think that would be your department that would jump in and say “Wait a minute. That shouldn’t be there on the shore.”
Is that what would happen if a contractor actually brought up a whole bunch of barrels and said, “We’re just going to leave them here and we will move them in six months.”? I don’t quite understand why there are different rules between government and business.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Elliott. (interpretation ends) You’re almost neighbouring in a hypothetical situation.
Hon. James Arreak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As per an earlier response to the member, the department has contingency plans for a variety of accidents and our course of action to meet those event challenges. I believe that Mr. Akeeagok can provide more details in responding to that question.
Mr. Akeeagok (interpretation): Thank you. (interpretation ends) There are no different rules for our department or the others. There are regulations in terms of how much barrels you can store and there’s a threshold before you start making a berm from these. In terms of regulations, it’s 50 barrels.
If you’re going to store 50 barrels in one spot, then you will have to build a berm and make sure it’s secure. There’s leeway for the storage of drums and we can provide the regulations.
In terms of which actual regulation it is, it’s regulated quite well and it’s one that we do keep an eye on. Our department is no different when it comes to the storage of barrels and we comply within those regulations. (interpretation) Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Akeeagok. (interpretation ends) Mr. Elliott, did you signal that you’re done?
On page 125 of the business plan, one of the priorities for 2015-16 is that they will undertake polar bear population surveys of the McClintock Channel.
I know that the estimated polar bear population is too low.
We are starting to adopt foreign policies, but usually our big issues are dealt with by the HTOs.
What they usually do is pull out a name of a person who is going to go out hunting.
If you want to have a young man catch a polar bear for the first time, we would do that in Inuit customs.
Regarding the McClintock Channel, there has been a moratorium set up on the harvesting of polar bears.
Can the minister indicate if there has been polar bear surveys conducted by his department since 2001 and, if so, what were the results?
Regarding the pulling of names, that is at the discretion of the communities and it’s not set up by our department or the Government of Nunavut.
It is at the discretion of the communities on how they select names for polar bear hunts.
We had meetings in Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, and Cambridge Bay, and we have negotiated, I think, in January of this year that we are looking at doing another polar bear survey in 2014-15.
Ms. Ugyuk (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. From what I understand, Cambridge Bay and Gjoa Haven take turns.
One year, it was Cambridge Bay and then Gjoa Haven the following year.
I understand that completely.
You didn’t respond to the imposed ten-year moratorium on the harvesting of polar bears in the McClintock Channel. How many more years remain before that moratorium is lifted?
I can’t tell you when that it’s going to be lifted, but there has to be a polar bear survey in 2014. Once that is done, NWMB will decide how they’re going to deal with it, whether there is going to be an increase on the quota or whether the ten-year moratorium will be lifted.
The moratorium will stay on, if I understood correctly.
In the agreement, it states that after seven years, they will do a polar bear survey around the McClintock Channel.
We can’t say at this point, but after the polar bear survey, the HTOs are the ones who say how many polar bears they can catch in that area.
Mr. Pinksen can supplement my response.
There is an agreement with the community. It is called an MOU, a memorandum of understanding.
Those MOUs have been in place now for 12 years and we’re just starting negotiations this year with all communities to replace those MOUs.
That’s one thing that’s happening this year. The second, as the minister informed the Assembly momentarily ago, is we have just started discussions with the community two months ago, in January, proposing that we do a research project starting in the year 2014-15.
Those are the two initiatives we have in the McClintock Channel area at the present time.
I hope that covers some of your questions.
For the moratorium that was set in place, under section 2.9, they were (interpretation ends) to hold management meetings with representatives of all the parties of this MOU at least once every seven years to review the update information and set direction for continuing management of polar bears.
This is in regard to the McClintock Channel. (interpretation) Have they had meetings regarding the moratorium in Taloyoak?
I wish I had a copy of the MOU with me like the member has. We have had ongoing discussions with the HTOs in the region, at the regional level mostly, but also with our headquarters staff.
The communities have asked a number of times about getting a survey completed so that we can update the information we have available.
This year, we’re finally able to plan for that for next year.
I hope that covers the answer.
I’m sorry that you don’t have a copy of the agreement, but when we sign an agreement, we believe that they’re going to be followed through by all parties, including the government.