Deadlines extended for written reports, comments on land-use plan

Nunavut Planning Commission sets February dates for submissions

The deadline for written submissions on a draft Nunavut land-use plan has been extended to Feb. 10, with Feb. 24 the deadline to offer comments on those submissions. At the final hearing for the land-use plan in Iqaluit, seen above, members of the Governments of Canada and Nunavut, as well as hunters and trappers associations, called for an extension to the Jan. 10 deadline. (Photo by Emma Tranter)

By Nunatsiaq News

The deadline for organizations to provide written submissions on the final draft of a Nunavut land-use plan has been extended by one month to Feb. 10, the Nunavut Planning Commission announced in a news release.

As well, the deadline to offer comments on those written submissions has also been extended to Feb. 24.

In the statement, chairperson Andrew Nakashuk said it was the right time to “commit to the necessary compromises” to finish a plan that reflects the “vision of Inuit.”

The planning commission is charged with developing a land-use plan to establish where resource extraction and development can occur in Nunavut and which lands should be protected.

At its final hearing in Iqaluit from Nov. 14 to 19, several organizations and members in attendance called for an extension to the original Jan. 10 deadline.

Ben Kovic of the Amaruq Hunters and Trappers Association, as well representatives from the federal and territorial governments, all stated more time was needed to properly consult and provide written submissions on the land-use plan.

Establishing a land-use plan is part of the Nunavut Agreement. Work on developing the plan began in 2007.

The planning commission will submit a recommended draft plan early next year to the three entities that will consider its approval: the governments of Canada and Nunavut, as well as Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.

Share This Story

(4) Comments:

  1. Posted by 867 on

    Hopefully this means more funding for the HTO’s?

  2. Posted by Unreal on

    “Establishing a land-use plan is part of the Nunavut Agreement. Work on developing the plan began in 2007.”

    Wow… I’ve had some late homework before, but this takes the cake

  3. Posted by Frankly on

    Government is still behind by 20 years. Government interpreters cannot catch up.
    Everything is far behind in the whole territory.

  4. Posted by Taxpayer on

    Perhaps this has more to do with what quote or partial quote from Chair Nakashuk that the reporter chose to print, but to say the Land Use Plan should “Reflect the Vision of Inuit” as is neither an accurate nor appropriate thing for an NPC Chair to say.

    According to Article 11 of the Nunavut Agreement “The purpose of a land use plan shall be to protect and promote the existing and future well-being of the residents and communities of the Nunavut Settlement Area, taking into account the interests of all Canadians, and to protect, and where necessary, to restore the environmental integrity of the Nunavut Settlement Area.”

    Surprisingly, perhaps even to Chair Nakashuk, Inuit are not specifically mentioned in this.

    The Land Use Plan therefore cannot only reflect the vision of Inuit. This ignores the national interest in our territory, and the needs of 15% of our own population.

    If it were only need reflect Inuit ideals, then NTI and the RIAs would be able to create and implement a plan themselves without any need whatsoever for a quasi-judicial commission made up of Inuit and public government appointees.

    Chairman Nakashuk was appointed to the NPC by the Government of Canada. He does not represent Inuit. Even if he suffers under some misapprehension that he does, the reading public of NN should be under no illusions on this point. Non-Inuit put him in his current position.

    If he really wants a Land Use Plan reflecting the vision of Inuit and not just an Inuk (himself), he need only wholeheartedly incorporate 100% the NTI and RIA submissions already made to his Commission, and also toss out all others including those made by industry and the environmentalists. No compromises necessary.

    This he cannot do while staying true to his real mandate; rendering his statement irrelevant and erroneous.


Comments are closed.