EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
Question 497 – 3(3): Policy on Polar Bears as Endangered Species (Curley)
Good afternoon to the people of Rankin Inlet and Nunavut.
Mr. Speaker, I want to direct my question to the Minister of Environment.
I think our polar bear management is one of the best in comparison to Canada and other arctic nations like the United States, Russia, and Norway.
Our management of polar bear systems seems to be right on. I think Canadians harvest over 500 polar bears annually.
The management plan is perfectly in place and everyone is aware of it and people know how many polar bears will be harvested.
Inuit are always participating in the planning stages.
Based on that fact, the United States is also part of the jurisdiction where polar bears travel, but the US government is saying that the polar bears are an endangered species under Appendix II, based on CITES information.
Starting today, they are going to have a meeting. Can the minister report to the people of Nunavut whether Nunavut likes what the United States is pushing for or can you explain what the Nunavut government’s policy is on the polar bears being identified as endangered?
It’s included under Appendix II. It’s currently cited as a species at risk, I believe, under Appendix II. They want it listed under Appendix I as an endangered species.
Currently, the Nunavut government is satisfied with the current appendix. If they want to move it to Appendix I, the government does not support it.
I suppose that if they want to try and move it to Appendix I, polar bear products would not be able to be sold outside of Canada, even though they can be sold within Canada. If that were to be the case, then we assume the price of the polar bear products would plummet.
So the Nunavut government does not support the fact that they want to elevate it to Appendix I. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I want to commend the hunters and trappers organizations. Even though they have a limited budget, they have such huge issues to deal with.
I’m aware that they have heard about Appendix II. If it were to be elevated to Appendix I, then it would definitely have an impact if the polar bear products are no longer sold in the USA or if sport hunters would not be able to hunt.
The minister mentioned that polar bear products would still be sold in Canada.
Based on that, Nunavutmiut have to be fully informed as to when they plan to move it to Appendix I. If they do, would there be a vote? What process would they take? Perhaps the minister can state whether they will be involved when they start to discuss this.
We support the people.
We had a meeting with four communities pertaining to polar bear issues. They wanted to come up with ways to support us. That is the request that we had.
They are also going to have a two-week meeting commencing next week. At that time, they will be taking a vote.
I think there are 176 countries that will be participating. Canada will have one vote. The federal environment minister will have the vote.
The fact that the United States government will be conducting that vote they are being encouraged to be in favour of the USA resolution.
The CITES Secretariat, TRAFFIC, World Wildlife Fund, Polar Bears International, and other groups are lobbying to support us and they will not be voting in favour of the motion.
Mr. Speaker, Mr. Curley and I will be going to that meeting.
I am pleased that the minister invited me to that conference because this is our traditional way of life.
We know that the polar bears are not at risk. They’re not at risk and they’re starting to be a nuisance for the people who go out on the land.
He said that there is going to be one vote for Canada and that there are going to be other organizations. Who are those organizations that are going to be involved?
I know that there are lots of people who are going to be supporting the Nunavut government.
As we all know, there are a lot of polar bears that are being nuisances to the hunters in the communities. They are becoming a danger.
I’m not really sure about the rest of the organizations. There are people from ITK and NTI that will be supporting, along with the federal Department of the Environment. They will be supporting us in our vote.
I said WWF, TRAFFIC, and other wildlife organizations, and we also have people from our government who are going to be involved.
Let’s hope people believe actual information, unlike those who are trying to change it and believe the propaganda that they listen to.
Question 498 – 3(3): Operations of the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission (Aupaluktuq)
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My questions are for the Minister responsible for the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
Mr. Speaker, the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission has announced that its Rankin Inlet office will be closing at the end of this month. Can the minister explain why the decision was taken to close the WSCC’s Rankin Inlet office?
I would like thank the member for asking the question.
There is no one reason for closing down that office. I will elaborate on some of them.
There was lack of positions that go to Rankin Inlet.
That’s why WSCC’s office was closing. The operations of that office in Rankin Inlet could not keep up with insurance and other stuff.
That’s one of the reasons why that office will be closed.
The position has been moved here to Iqaluit.
As the minister will recall, I had asked questions during our recent fall sitting of the Legislative Assembly concerning the WSCC’s role in mine safety and mine inspections.
As the minister is well aware, the Meadowbank mine and other developments in the Kivalliq mean that our region has a strong need for good service from the Workers’ Safety and Compensation Commission.
Can the minister indicate how the WSCC plans to maintain its service levels to the Kivalliq given that the Rankin Inlet office is shutting its doors?
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you. The inspections on the mines and other workplace by the WSCC will be done by the office in Iqaluit.
I believe their vision is that there won’t be any concerns related to their inspections. The inspections will be done by staff here in the Iqaluit office.
We expect that they will be able to keep pace with the needed inspections and other work.
Mr. Aupaluktuq (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the minister for his response.
There are quite a number of people working at the Meadowbank mine and they referred their questions about the WSCC inspections to me, so I am now posing those questions.
(interpretation ends) As the minister is aware, the WSCC has been working for several years to develop new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations that would replace the current regulations.
The WSCC has indicated that the current regulatory framework is “fragmented, outdated, unclear and difficult to enforce.”
Can the minister indicate when the new Occupational Health and Safety Regulations will be approved by the WSCC’s Governance Council and as such, provide that to the Nunavut and NWT ministers for a final review?
I understand that the review of the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations were being done since 2004.
I understand the third volume of the study was released to stakeholders in February 2012 for final review.
The third volume contains final proposed Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
We’re at that stage and I hope, in the near future, that the final regulations will be ready.
No doubt his constituents in Rankin Inlet as well with the Meliadine [mine] opening, with the Meadowbank mine operating, and the potential for Mary River as well, there are people, though, who have the direction needed in order to understand the Occupational Health and Safety Regulations.
In light of that, I wanted to ask: can the minister indicate when he will next be meeting with his counterpart in the NWT and can he describe what issues they will be discussing at that meeting?
When I have plans to meet with my counterpart in the NWT, I’ll be sure to notify my colleague. At that time, I should have a clear agenda of what we will be meeting about.
When that comes to surface, I will share it with my colleague.
Question 499 – 3(3): Vacant Conservation Officer in Kugaaruk (Ningark)
As I made a statement regarding the importance of the conservation officers in our communities across Nunavut, I will not bother with a preamble.
(interpretation) The Minister of Environment is the next minister I wish to ask a question related to the Kugaaruk matter.
I want to ask when Kugaaruk can expect a conservation officer to start working in their community.
I would also like to ask what stage the hiring process is at for this position.
I also thank the member for his question and for not making a long preamble.
Tomorrow is the date set for the reviewing of the applicants who applied for the conservation officer to screen for applicants who can be interviewed. So the screening will commence tomorrow, but this means that the interviews will need to be undertaken before they select a candidate for this position, so this also includes the time needed for a job offer.
It means that we will be dealing with this process over the next month.
Question 500 – 3(3): Inadequate Specialist Services (Enook)
I would like direct my questions to the Minister of Health and Social Services.
These questions have been asked by members before, but there are a lot of people in Nunavut who are concerned about specialists who come into our communities.
I know personally that in Pond Inlet, we had a problem. Even though it is good to have specialist visits, there are a lot of people who have not been seen.
Just before I came here, they also stated that there would be eye doctors coming in to Pond Inlet, but because there are so many people who wanted to see the eye doctor, they couldn’t commit to them all.
Mr. Speaker, I have been thinking that visits from the specialists are very expensive, but I also think that it is more expensive to have those patients go out to the southern institutions for treatment.
The first question that I have is: who figures out how many days the eye doctors, for instance, will be in a certain community?
I don’t have the specific name, but I know our officials in the health department here in the region work with the Non-Insured Health Benefits people to determine, through an RFP process, how many visits a community in Nunavut should receive under the contract.
I realize his response is saying that they cannot have the certain people in the communities for a long time. My question is: as a minister, can you decide if the people in the communities can all be seen?
Would it make sense if these individuals who come to the communities can be in the community longer?
There are many patients needing to be seen, but they are not seen.
Can the minister consider whether those individuals can come to the communities longer than a few days?
Mr. Speaker, I’m well aware of Mr. Enook’s concerns and indeed all MLAs and ministers have the same concerns from their constituents, but the situation is such that there is only so much funding available through non-insured health benefits and our RFP process to allow a certain number of visits a year.
That’s what we have to work within.
Your concerns are duly noted.
We do talk to the Non-Insured Health Benefits people and Health Canada.
I was mentioning to Mr. Rumbolt earlier about dental care. They’re well aware of our concerns with a number of health issues in Nunavut. As the Minister of Health, I’ll continue to make your concerns known to our federal counterparts.
Question 501 – 3(3): Nunavut Construction Association (Curley)
Mr. Curley (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Economic Development and Transportation.
The reason for the question is related to a meeting taking place during our session here in Iqaluit for the (interpretation ends) NWT and Nunavut Construction Association. (interpretation) While these groups are meeting here in Iqaluit, what support does your department provide to these organizations that are currently meeting here? Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Curley. Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Taptuna.
I’ll have to check with my officials on exactly what assistance they provided to the conference that is happening here with the construction association.
I understand one of the items that the group is discussing with all the representatives from the membership of the Nunavut and NWT Construction [Association], one major item is the NNI Policy.
Is this part of the review process as was directed by the Premier?
Does that include consultations on the NNI Policy and thereby, his department has some involvement in it?
If there is any conferences pertaining to the NNI Policy, of course, my officials are there attending the conference with the construction association of the NWT and Nunavut.
They participate in the discussions.
We await the outcome of the conference and we will go from there.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I believe the substance of the discussion is really quite important.
I’m surprised that the minister wasn’t fully up to date on the matter.
It was indicated through his officials that any questions raised with respect to contracting experiences had to have an approval of the board of this particular organization.
Why would the departmental officials make it conditional, if they are to ask questions pertaining to their experiences in dealing with the contracting procedures previously, that they had to have an approval first from the board?
I would like the member to rephrase and clarify the question.
Can you clarify your question? Mr. Curley.
Mr. Curley: Thank you. Mr. Speaker, this is my second supplementary, I believe.
A clarification for that is it was indicated by one of his officials that any questions that any participant was to ask, if they were to ask a question, they have to have an approval first from the board of directors of this particular organization.
Why would the officials of the department make it conditional to ask the questions that have to be vetted through the directors first?
Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Curley, for clarifying that. Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, Minister Taptuna.
The comprehensive review on the NNI Policy is ongoing.
There’s no requirement for me to attend every review that is happening out there. The conference, as the member is well aware, is happening right now, and I can’t be at two places at the same time. I do have my officials looking into the matter and discussing issues that I brought up for the NNI Policy.
Mr. Speaker, the review is ongoing and with cooperation with our partners, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and other partners that are participating.
I believe that if the proper consultation is ongoing, you would think that it would be much broader than just a construction association and that there would be no condition like that for raising questions because it’s a broad public policy specifically related to Nunavut Land Claims provisions.
Also, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that it was alluded to by one of your officials that in order to ask questions, there has to be no finger-pointing. Maybe the minister can clarify, once he checks on this issue, that if the finger-pointing was to continue, it may harm the funding of this organization. Why would that be a condition for raising a question or concern by a member from participating in the review process?
Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any finger-pointing and restrictions on what’s happening at this conference.
As I made the member aware, we’re reviewing the NNI Policy to make it better and we hope to complete that and have it tabled before the end of this government’s mandate.
I’m not aware of finger-pointing and restricting participants from speaking out.
Given that, we will continue on with our orders of the day. Item 8.
Returns to Written Questions. Item 10. Replies to Opening Address.
Tabled Document 308 – 3(3): 2011-2012 Annual Report of the Nunavut Development Corporation (Taptuna)
I am pleased to table the 2011-12 Annual Report of the Nunavut Development Corporation.
Tabled Document 309 – 3(3): December 2012 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food (Elliott)
Tabled Document 310 – 3(3): Federal Publications Concerning Food Safety (Elliott)
I wish to table today two items.
The first is a copy of the December 2012 Report of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Right to Food concerning his office’s recent mission to Canada. I encourage all members to review the document with care.
The second item, Mr. Speaker, during yesterday’s deliberations of the Committee of the Whole, a number of important questions were raised concerning the issues of food safety, best-before dates, and expiration dates.
I am pleased to table today two publications on these issues from the federal Department of Health and the federal Canadian Food Inspection Agency.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Notice
I give notice that on Friday, March 1, 2013, that Bill 49, Appropriations (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014, be read for the first time.
I request consent of this Assembly to waive the two-day notice requirement to allow for the first reading of Bill 49, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014.
The member is seeking consent to waive the two-day waiting rule so that Bill 49 can be read for the first time today.
There are none. Please proceed, Minister Peterson.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – First Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 49, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014, be read for the first time.
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Second Reading
I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Rankin Inlet South and Whale Cove, that Bill 49, Appropriation (Operations and Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014, be read for the second time.
Mr. Speaker, this bill authorizes the Government of Nunavut to make operations and maintenance expenditures for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2014.
Anxious today, aren’t we?
Bill 49 has had second reading and is also referred to the Committee of the Whole.
Consideration in Committee of the Whole of Bill and Other Matters. Bill 49 with Mr. Tapardjuk in the Chair.
>>House recessed at 15:34 and Committee resumed at 16:04
Chairman (Tapardjuk)(interpretation): Just before we start, on February 18, 2013, our Speaker had written a letter to all of us in regard to the operation of the Committee of the Whole procedures.
I just wanted to indicate that before we start.
We wish to start with the review of Bill 49 and commence with the Department of Community and Government Services.
If time permits, we will proceed with the review of the Department of Health.
Are we in agreement to deal with Bill 49?
Bill 49 – Appropriation (Operations & Maintenance) Act, 2013-2014 – Community and Government Services
Chairman (interpretation): Thank you. Minister Kusugak, please go to the witness table.
Would you like to make your opening remarks? Minister Kusugak.
Hon. Lorne Kusugak (interpretation): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before the Committee of the Whole to review the Department of Community and Government Services 2013-14 main estimates and business plan.
(interpretation ends) We’ve had very productive and informative discussions at the standing committee phase, and I always welcome the opportunity to clarify any issues and concerns my colleagues may have in regard to the work that we are undertaking on behalf of the Government of Nunavut and Nunavummiut.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Community and Government Services continues to manage programs and services for local government, government services, petroleum products, procurement, protection services, informatics, and project and asset management, in addition to sport and recreation now as well.
When the Petroleum Products Division Revolving Fund is included, CGS has an overall annual budget exceeding $400 million, with 360 positions spread out across Nunavut.
Our projected budget includes a modest net increase over last year’s main estimates of $14 million.
In the coming year, CGS will roll out the new municipal funding formula that has been developed in close consultation with all Nunavut municipalities. This year, CGS will add an additional $4.2 million to Nunavut municipalities’ core funding.
This increase in funding is a result of the municipal funding review and will help to ensure community governments have adequate funding to serve their residents.
Mr. Chairman, the Department of Community and Government Services is continuing to explore all potential opportunities for infrastructure funding, including public-private partnerships, or P3. A P3 model was applied to the Iqaluit airport project and a similar model is being examined by CGS to address solid waste infrastructure for communities.
The feasibility of the P3 model for other infrastructure initiatives will continue to be examined.
In reference to waste management, research into the performance of wastewater facilities in Nunavut is continuing with the cooperation and assistance of Dalhousie University as part of our ongoing partnership.
The study will provide preliminary recommendations for the development of appropriate effluent quality standards for Nunavut and the far north by January 2014.
The Building Code Act, which allows for the adoption of the National Building Code, received assent in June 2012. Over the next year, the department will be working to develop regulations and establish a building advisory committee with the participation of stakeholders.
CGS continues to invest in government operations by increasing our funding to maintain our facilities and support our IT infrastructure. This is increasingly important as the number of people on the government network expands due to decentralization and other factors and the types of devices they need to work and communicate.
Mr. Chairman, the department’s Protection Services Division has been working hard to improve search and rescue response programs available to the public. The number of search and rescue incidents is on the rise in Nunavut. In 2012, for example, there were 178 searches for 301 individuals.
We continue our efforts to promote the use of SPOT devices and increase awareness of safety preparedness measures for all individuals going out on the land or water.
During the fall of 2012, CGS, in consultation with municipalities and other stakeholders, conducted emergency exercises in Cambridge Bay, Iqaluit, and Rankin Inlet.
The promotion and development of sport, physical activity, and recreational opportunities at the community level is essential to building healthy communities.
In 2012, through the Sport and Recreation Division, we were able to provide over $250,000 toward leadership programs for coaches and recreation leaders, and over $2 million in support toward intercommunity programs initiated by volunteer organizations throughout Nunavut.
Our Petroleum Products Division continues to manage the fuel provision mandate for the Government of Nunavut.
While PPD has no control over commodity prices, we have been able to moderate the cost impact on Nunavummiut during the mandate of this government.
We have capitalized on lower global fuel prices through the early purchase of our fuel resupply.
As a result of this early fuel purchase, we have been able to maintain the cost of gasoline and diesel for all Nunavummiut over the past year.
This fuel freeze will continue in 2013.
However, I must emphasize that global markets dictate the overall price and we must be prepared for future fluctuations.
You will note that in other Canadian jurisdictions, there have been substantial price increases over the last four years and we are not immune to these price pressures.
Mr. Chairman, I hope my comments give an appreciation of the progress that my department is making in addressing Tamapta priorities.