EdinburghNLP/nunavut-hansard-plusplus huggingface dataset:
We will go through the clause-by-clause review of the bill. We will now proceed and deal with Bill 50. We will proceed with the clause-by-clause review of Bill 50.
Just before we proceed, I will remind you that if you have your cellphone or other electronic device with you, please turn it off so that we can proceed properly with our work.
Bill 50, An Act to Amend the Nunavut Election Act.
I don’t have the Inuktitut copy. I just got one.
An Act to Amend the Nunavut Election Act.
On section 2 (1), these are added in alphabetical order and what campaign means.
I have a question in that paragraph. It says, “means to make public statements or issue campaign material...” I need clarification on exactly what constitutes campaign materials. Does that include posters?
Buttons? It could also mean third party groups. Can they make campaign material?
More specifically, though, if the campaign material could not be produced in the communities, if it is produced outside of Nunavut, does it mean that that campaign material can also be produced outside of the territory?
The preparation and the purchase of campaign materials, whether it be buttons or pamphlets or anything that is considered a campaign expense and that, would not fall into that category.
Any candidate would be free to order those materials from wherever they so choose to order them from. Hopefully that clarifies it for the member.
With the current wording, it is not clear that that may be permitted because we have another clause, clause 3, where it prohibits, even with the current law, that corporations are prevented from making contributions if they don’t have a resident business or operation based in Nunavut or interacting with Nunavut.
Many of the vendors that do produce those kinds of campaign materials are a one-stop shop down in Ottawa, Montreal, Edmonton, or Winnipeg.
It is not all that clear that they are allowed to do that because the total bill, the Nunavut Elections Ac, prohibits corporations for contributing to a candidate.
Vendors that produce campaign materials are contributing to an individual’s campaign.
Where do we find that they are allowed to provide campaign material on behalf of a candidate if it’s not clear in the legislation?
Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between campaigning on behalf of a member or candidate and a candidate purchasing campaign materials.
The purchase of campaign materials and whatever it is can be done from anywhere, whether or not an individual or a company has any ties to Nunavut. The rules around contributing to a campaign are the actual making of a contribution to an individual candidate’s campaign.
Those remain the same where it is for individuals who are residents of Nunavut or businesses that are registered in Nunavut or businesses that conduct business within Nunavut.
It is two different issues, contributing towards a campaign and a monetary or in-kind fashion, that would fall under campaign contributions, but campaign expenses, the purchase of materials that a candidate uses in a campaign, or what that is, it’s a completely different issue altogether.
Mr. Curley: Just for clarification then, Mr. Chairman, the definition of the corporation that wishes to issue financial support to a candidate is different than the vendor, that also must be declared an expense and therefore, as a candidate, contributing towards the campaign.
Is that covered under the existing law or is it referenced in this bill? We are only at clause 2 of this bill.
I need clarification on that so that individuals who may wish to become a candidate fully understand exactly what they are not allowed to do.
I’ll try and make it really clear. An individual who is a candidate in an election can only accept… .
The rules are regarding campaign financing, which is contributions towards an individual candidate’s campaign are limited to residents of Nunavut or businesses that are registered in Nunavut or businesses that conduct business in Nunavut.
That’s for contributions towards a campaign.
That’s different than the purchase of election materials.
If a candidate got a good deal from a company in Japan, he could order buttons from Japan. In all likelihood, they wouldn’t get here until the campaign was over, but you can order them from wherever you want.
Any kind of campaign material is not considered a contribution towards a campaign. It’s a purchased service by a candidate on the expenditure of campaign contributions towards their campaign.
If I understand the Speaker and the definition, they’re not covered under the category that corporations are prohibited from contributing towards a candidate.
If the member is referring to vendors providing a service, they do not fall under that category. He is correct.
Chairman: Qujannamiik, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) Clause 2.
They don’t have that in the Inuktitut copy.
Clause 24 was agreed to. Clause 25.
Page 9. Schedule. Do you agree?
I am sorry, members.
We have different page numbers.
I’m looking at the Schedule in English. It’s on page 7.
Does the committee agree to Bill 50 as a whole?
Chairman (interpretation): Pursuant to Rule 62(2), does the committee agree that Bill 50 is immediately ready for third reading?
This bill was agreed to by the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, if you want to make any closing remarks. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker.
First off, I would like to thank Ms. Kusugak and Mr. Orr for all the work that they put into this.
As indicated in Ms. Kusugak’s annual report following the election, this will help have a smoother general election next fall and iron out some of the things that have come to light as a result of different elections across the county.
They clarify things. Hopefully, we will have a smooth general election in the fall.
I would like to thank members for that. I would also like to thank the members for giving me the opportunity to explain the difference between campaign expenses and campaigning.
Chairman: Qujannamiittauq, Mr. Speaker. (interpretation) Sergeant-at-Arms, please escort the witnesses out. (interpretation ends) Mr. Speaker, (interpretation) please follow them out.
At this time, we can continue on with what we left off yesterday.
Chairman (interpretation): We were dealing with the economic development and transportation department. Minister Taptuna, if you can go to the witness table.
On my right is Deputy Minister Bob Long and on my left is the Director of Finance, Tanya Winmill.
Welcome. We are dealing with the Department of Economic Development and Transportation on page K-5.
Branch Summary. Economic Development and Transportation.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When we left off yesterday, we were talking about Baffin Bay and Davis Strait and how the Department of Economic Development and Transportation was working with the federal government on the strategic environmental assessment.
I believe there was mention yesterday about seismic testing. I know there has been opposition to seismic testing in the past and there is a lot of research that’s being done on sandbars and how it affects whales and disorients them and they find whale carcasses washing up on shores and whatnot.
I’m wondering: in terms of the department, since this seems to be the department that’s working in that area, what’s the government’s position on that?
Are we opposed to the seismic testing and having that happen or how are they working to try and ensure that the sea mammals and all of the fish are not being affected by this type of testing?
Seismic testing is the first tangible work that’s got to be done for possible petroleum resource exploratory drilling.
We don’t have the data that indicates that whales wash up on the shore because of seismic testing.
As the process moves along through the regulatory bodies, at the end of the day, it’s still the National Energy Board that determines how things are going to be permitted after all the information and data is gathered by all communities, concerned committees, concerned organizations, and through a regulatory process.
Mr. Elliott: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks for that.
My next question was actually in regard to the National Energy Board because I figured that’s why the testing was going on. I know the timetable has passed in terms of offshore waters and negotiations with the UN in trying to decide how much offshore land the Government of Canada owns. That was part of the reason why they wanted to do it and said that they were working on doing seismic testing in the past.
Now, it seems like it is all about oil and gas exploration. As other members have brought up, there are a lot of concerns in the communities about that. With what happened in the Gulf of Mexico, I don’t think any of us here want to see something like that happening in our arctic waters, especially compounded with ice.
It has been explained to me and through the research I have done, it’s hard enough finding where the oil might be going, but when you have ice, you don’t know where it has gone and then underneath the ice itself, there is a whole bunch of wildlife that is at a microscopic level, which is the start of the food chain.
So if oil is on that, it eliminates the start of the food chain, which then, as we know, goes up all the way.
One of the big concerns that are starting to… . There is a lot of talk now with the Lancaster Sound Marine Sanctuary that’s happening up in the High Arctic and the energy board. There are different leases that are up there and it seems like the boundaries are coming across where those leases are.
Does the Government of Nunavut actually and will the Government of Nunavut be putting in a position to the energy board as to what should be happening with exploration of oil and gas in our arctic waters?
I’ll try and respond to that question, although it’s not found in the line item here that we’re trying to discuss.
Mr. Chairman, that’s why there is a regulatory process that takes place and consultations with the communities, organizations, including this government. That’s why there is a process that takes place to identify and gather up all the data and concerns that the communities may have. Of course, when it comes to oil and gas, the National Energy Board does that.
I would have to disagree with the minister because the line item is actually on page 163. One of the priorities for this year, 2013-14, is to participate with the federal government.
At the same time, I would actually have to argue that we are approving millions of dollars within this department for funding to pay employees and those employees carry out the directives of his department. We are paying people to do this work.
It would be nice to know what work we’re directing them do to.
I know, for the communities of the High Arctic, these are issues that are in discussion on a daily basis.
I know he keeps speaking about the energy board making the final decisions, but I thought our government would have some type of say in terms of we’re told at the community level that consultation goes on and if consultation is being done in the truest sense, everybody is being heard, whether it is a constituent in the community or a mayor or an MLA or even a government department.
Are you saying that the federal government is not going to listen to what the Department of Economic Development and Transportation is saying in terms of how we feel as a territory about exploration of oil and gas?
Mr. Chairman, when it comes to seismic testing and offshore projects, we don’t have that jurisdiction.
We do participate, just like any other resource development, whether it’s offshore or Crown land.
At the end of the day, the National Energy Board does have the final say in collecting all the data.
Of course, we participate in the same level where we put our concerns in as we are mandated within our jurisdiction to deal with community concerns, to look at community concerns, and to gather as much data as possible.
Thank you for that answer because that’s what I was trying to get at.
What are the concerns that the government has with this?
Fairly early in the community consultations, of course, the officials of the National Energy Board will be doing some community visits and keeping the Government of Nunavut informed on their visits and concerns and issues that they hear out there.
As I indicated, we do participate as an intervener for any type of development that is happening out there.
I realized, like you said, that this is just starting, but I would hope that the government will work towards some type of stance as to how it feels about big projects like this happening, especially in the High Arctic, as I had mentioned before, with different ice conditions and the real threat to wildlife and marine mammals in that area.
With that, I wanted to go on to projects that have been going on for quite a while like Agnico-Eagle and AREVA. We seem to have no problem with allowing the mining of uranium, which some countries do oppose and whatnot. Obviously, the government has made its position clear on that by allowing that to happen.
I just get a little worried when we start talking about oil and gas and the potential.
It seems like sometimes we’re so eager to create a monetary base to be able to move away from a cash-strapped position because of the federal government not providing the funds that we need. I wouldn’t want to see us sell out at the expense of the environment.
In terms of the NIRB process, yesterday, we talked about how your department is working on building the capacity within its department or its branch to be able to put more meat, possibly, into some of the NIRB applications.
On the back end of a NIRB project, once it is approved… . We’ve got projects and exploration going on. I have mentioned Canada Coal over the last couple of weeks.
NIRB will say that these are the recommendations. You’re allowed to store fuel at this place as long as it’s following certain recommendations, but it has to meet those qualifications, or sewage has to be treated a certain way. Who follows up on that?
Is it a Government of Nunavut responsibility or is it Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada’s responsibility?
I want to thank the member for that question. I also want to comment on the mining of uranium. There is no mining happening in Nunavut on uranium.
There is exploration work that is going through the regulatory process. There is no mining yet.
I feel rather offended by him accusing the government of being onside to these projects for monetary gain. That’s not what the government does.
We do have Article 12 in the land claims that evaluates, regulates, and goes through the whole environmental process to make sure that wildlife, environment, and people are protected. At the end of the day, there is a balance that’s got to be struck and that is done through a regulatory process that is constituted in the land claims agreement, Article 12.
For a project to go ahead, they need to go to the Nunavut Impact Review Board for project certification with information on who is going to be doing the regulatory work, inspection, and monitoring whatever is happening with a project.
It’s fairly clear. It’s on the website of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, public information.
In terms of the exploration that’s going on, the Government of Nunavut has not provided any stance as to whether the mining of uranium is something that is positive.
As I have stated in the House too this morning, there is a process of determining how the project is going to move forward.
If all the checks and balances are in tune, NIRB will probably issue a project certificate, but to get to that point, all the information, all the data has to be evaluated and analyzed by experts.
At the end of the day, there is a final hearing, which involves communities. That’s one of the great things of Article 12.
We’re doing an environmental regulatory process. Again, one of things that are great about this is that everything is public. It’s on record and it’s available for everyone to see.
Part of the other question that I asked earlier that the minister didn’t answer was in terms of who is responsible for the environmental standards that are set. Fuel has to be stored a certain way. It has to be in a berm.
If there is a spill, there are certain processes to follow. I have gone to the NIRB website.
It’s very complex as to when they are giving licences, these are the rules. Sometimes it’s a book of how they have to follow it.
At the end of the day, when you’ve got an exploration company up somewhere that’s chartered in by helicopter and they land on Ellesmere Island, who is making sure that they are… ?
Sometimes there are spills that happen across the territory that don’t get reported within GN departments.
Who monitors that?
Is it the Government of Nunavut Department of Environment that has to monitor that or is it the federal government under Aboriginal Affairs?
In Nunavut, there are parcels of land out there that do belong to Inuit beneficiaries and that’s managed through the regional Inuit associations.
They do have the responsibility.
In waterways, it’s DFO. There are also Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada that is responsible for monitoring some of these projects that are on Crown land.
This government also, through its Department of Environment, is responsible for certain inspections for projects that do happen on Inuit owned land.
Through all that, Mr. Chairman, these stipulations are in through the proponent before a permit is vetted to them.
I know there has been a lot of talk about a balanced approach in terms of the way mining is handled across the territory. At the same time, in terms of following of the regulations, you had mentioned Inuit orgs would have some responsibility, depending on where it is. The Government of Nunavut would have some responsibility.
The federal government would have some responsibility. As the Minister responsible for Economic Development and Transportation, are you confident that all of these organizations are at a standard and are able to follow their mandate of keeping these regulations up and not having things fall through the cracks?
As far as we’re concerned, yes, there are also other partners out there that cost share when they’re doing these inspections, the Inuit organizations and other federal departments that do cost share to inspect these projects out there, whether it’s on Crown land or Inuit owned land.
Mr. Chairman, when we talk about balancing a project out there, again I’ve got to say that that’s why it’s great that Nunavut has Article 12 and a regulatory process where all the information is gathered by an unbiased organization.
The organization is the Nunavut Impact Review Board that makes the final decision whether the project is balanced or not.
I, too, want to follow up on the comment on the offshore particularly because you do have a section that indicates that, as well as the minerals and petroleum resources, and promotional division or monitoring activity.
I do believe that Canada has pretty vigorous resource management controls. The federal government currently administers all regulatory processes, including the National Energy Board and the Oil and Gas Division of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Currently, they apply to even all Inuit lands or municipal lands. If it contains oil, these regulations do apply.
There are stipulations in the land claims agreement, even on our own Inuit land and even municipal lands, if they are within municipal, that they comply with the local municipal by-law privileges.
It doesn’t matter who owns the land, oil and gas regulations of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development currently apply.
My question really has to do with where the current government stands with offshore potential. Does the minister support offshore exploration in Nunavut?
As the economic development and transportation minister, I do support any sustainable economic activity that happens in Nunavut. It has to be a project that’s beneficial to Inuit, to the territory, and in most cases, to Canada.
For economic activity to happen here, yes, we do support sustainable development in Nunavut, whether that be mining, forestry, or oil and gas exploration.
I hear that the Nunavut government does need revenue. I think mineral development is one area that most Nunavutmiut have experience in and also support in most cases because they do have tremendous impacts not only on the environment.
The environment is you really never win anything within those.
In terms of the benefits for mineral development, supply and shipping, and opportunities for employment, I think, is the one that we really depend on for a number of years, mainly because we will never build a manufacturing base up here, even though the market may be the world, but there’s nothing to produce up here.
In terms of the offshore, I don’t think the minister is really quite right as the Minister of Economic Development.
That is not an open licence for shutting down offshore potential in Nunavut because it will never be sustainable for another 100 years as far as I’m concerned. How does the minister feel that offshore oil and gas could be sustainable when we don’t even have qualified reserves to ship to the market?
The committee member is absolutely right. There is no production of oil and gas happening here in Nunavut.
For any kind of work pertaining to oil and gas discoveries, exploratory drilling has to take place first and before that even happens, seismic work has to be done.
I don’t see any exploratory work happening any time soon and if it comes to production, that’s 20 to 30 years away yet.
Mr. Curley: Mr. Chairman, that confirms to me that we’re a long ways from sustainable development in terms of oil and gas.
Like I indicated in the House the other day, the current reserves that we have in the Arctic, not just Nunavut, including all arctic nations, in the whole world market today and if we started producing oil and gas in those regions, it would last for three years. So in order to build up the supply, it’s going to take, as far as I’m concerned, 50 years at least or more.
So I think the best course of action for Nunavut is to be cautious with offshore activities because it was offshore that we experienced in the Gulf of Mexico. Exploration was more than the production that really devastated the whole thing.
What would happen in the Arctic if a bust occurs and oil spills, and that kind of thing?
If the minister is prepared to have an open-door policy at least for now, but prepared to shut it off until the proper measures are either invented for Nunavut, for the Arctic, before you open the doors for exploration, would you be prepared to consider that?
Mr. Chairman, as the economic development and transportation minister, I do support any kind of development, but it’s not at all cost and that’s why we have these regulatory processes within NIRB.
I have said that Article 24 is one of the bills of rights within Canada.
It’s fairly straightforward. It has processes in place. When I talk about development, it’s not developing around cost, whether it’s oil and gas drilling or mine development.
Everything does have to be balanced out.
When I speak of oil and gas being 20 to 30 years away yet, it is exactly that.
There is no infrastructure up here. There are no plants up here. There are no refineries up here.
Even if the production of oil and gas starts happening up north, it’s not going to be just three years.
Maybe the countries will consume all the oil and gas within a three-year period, but it will take us a hundred years to extract that oil and gas. It’s not just talking about three years; it’s a long project.
I disagree with the minister that we have to have a completely open mind on which type of offshore activity should take place.
The reason, I think the offshore potential, if there is, is really quite risky. I don’t think we can understate that or estimate it. It’s so risky in the Arctic that we can afford to keep it closed for another 50 years.
It’s not going to go away.