Thank you for the opportunity to sit and talk with you today in regard to economic development, specifically with Inuit. As mentioned, my name is Belinda Webb and I'm the director for the social, cultural and economic development department within Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. ITK is the national Inuit organization, and we represent the four Inuit land claims in Canada. These are Nunatsiavut, which is the region I'm from, which is northern Labrador; Nunavik, which is northern Quebec; Nunavut; and Inuvialuit, which is part of the Northwest Territories.
For my presentation I will discuss five needs and suggest some solutions in regard to economic development for Inuit Nunangat. Just to give you a highlight, those five particular needs are the need to treat Inuit Nunangat as one region; the need to recognize the realities in Inuit Nunangat; the need for flexibility; the need to implement the land claims; and the need to develop collaborative management policies and procedures.
First, there is the need to treat Inuit Nunangat as one region. As previously mentioned, it's the four Inuit land claim regions of Canada that we represent. The process of political development in Canada has had the effect of establishing jurisdictional barriers that have historically been at odds with the political and economic development objectives of Inuit Nunangat. This is most clearly seen in the federal government's arbitrary policy of making distinctions between the regions that are north of 60, which would include two of our regions, Inuvialuit and Nunavut, and those south of 60, which would include Nunavik and Nunatsiavut.
I'm aware that in your current mandate for your study you're just studying the three territories, so I'd highly suggest that you also incorporate the other two Inuit regions that we have that aren't within your current mandate for your study, which as previously mentioned are Nunavik and Nunatsiavut. The reason is that the reality is that all of the regions within Inuit Nunangat share the Arctic environment as well as a common heritage, culture, and language. The settlement of comprehensive land claims agreements throughout Inuit Nunangat means that they all share a similar legal and regulatory framework. Inuit Nunangat claimant groups have developed effective mechanisms, both through their agreements and in terms of program delivery, to establish effective partnership agreements with their respective provincial and territorial governments and counterparts.
So a federal framework that treated Inuit Nunangat as one region from a policy perspective would demonstrate an understanding of these underlying realities and enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of federal community economic development program delivery.
The second need is to recognize the realities of Inuit Nunangat. One of the greatest barriers Inuit face is a lack of understanding of the total environment within which Inuit are trying to promote business and economic development. Programs that don't fit or people who don't understand the realities of the north are two of the major obstacles that Inuit deal with on a daily basis.
Significant time and effort have been spent over the past several decades to explain, educate, and enlighten people about the realities in Inuit Nunangat. Inuit share a common heritage, a long history of living in the Arctic, but a very short history of participation in a typically southern style of economy. Across Inuit Nunangat there is an immature Inuit business economy and a large infrastructure deficit when compared to the rest of Canada.
Another barrier to economic development in the Arctic is the lack of understanding of the cost of doing business in Inuit Nunangat and the impact of these costs on economic development. In addition to the increased costs, the purchasing power is diminished, the need for client equity is increased, markets are extremely limited, and opportunities, especially as defined in a southern context, are few.
Third is the need for flexibility. Government support for economic development in Inuit Nunangat must be based on sound principles but must also include the flexibility required to allow it to respond to the different governance styles in place. It must also recognize that each of the comprehensive land claims agreements are somewhat different and that arrangements and planning practices already exist between claimant organizations and the respective provincial and territorial governments.
Programs must be timely and must respond to the timelines imposed by sealift or ice road requirements. High costs and the lack of infrastructure require an increased level of cooperation between all levels of government, the private sector, Inuit institutions, and other partners that are identified.
All parties must work to remove unnecessary restrictions, to make accommodations for others, and to seek to streamline the process to maximize the return for the communities. Opportunities must be defined within the context of remote Arctic communities. They cannot match the definition used in southern Canada.
The fourth need is to implement land claims agreements. The Indian Act does not apply to Inuit Nunangat. The five comprehensive land claims agreements provide the principles on which the federal government must deal with Inuit land claims organizations. Each of the comprehensive land claims agreements is unique, and the responsibility for implementation varies from agreement to agreement. But in every agreement, the negotiators have clearly understood the necessity and importance of clearly identifying the role of the federal government in the process.
Unfortunately, the record on claims implementation has not been acceptable to the Inuit organizations. The Nunatsiavut agreement is still new, and we hope their experience is a more positive one. That said, the comprehensive land claim agreement holders continue to work at improving the understanding of the reality of Inuit Nunangat while hoping that this will lead to implementation as outlined in their agreements.
Fifth is the need for collaborative management. All key areas of responsibility within Inuit Nunangat agreements, such as wildlife management, land use planning, environmental assessment, and project review regimes, are based on principles of co-management. The spirit and intent of these agreements should also be reflected in the development of policies and programs and arrangements directed towards addressing community economic development needs throughout Inuit Nunangat.
The establishment of the National Economic Development Committee for Inuit Nunangat, with Inuit, Inuvialuit, and government representatives as full members, represents an opportunity to move forward in a collaborative manner to develop practical strategies for addressing current and future economic development needs and priorities.
In 2006, the Inuit community economic development organizations, or CEDOs, from the four Inuit regions met to discuss common problems. They agreed to work towards a committee made up of the Inuit, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada headquarter personnel, and INAC regional office personnel.
In 2008, an MOU was signed between the INAC deputy minister and Inuit leaders that led, as mentioned, to the formation of the National Economic Development Committee for Inuit Nunangat. The establishment of NEDCIN for Inuit Nunangat, with Inuit, Inuvialuit, and government representatives as full members, represents an opportunity to move forward in a collaborative manner.
The first meeting of NEDCIN was held in April, and a work plan was approved that identified a number of priorities. The areas I have listed above were all included in this particular work plan. The Inuit members of the NEDCIN prepared an Inuit response to the proposed federal framework on aboriginal economic development. When the Regional Economic Development Agency, also known as CanNor, was announced, the Inuit members of NEDCIN prepared an Inuit position on the agency and how it might be structured to meet our common challenges.
In addition to those documents, other draft documents have been prepared on the following items: the cost of doing business in Inuit Nunangat, the discussion paper on collaborative management, the Inuit need for multi-year funding agreements, economic development implications of the comprehensive land claim agreements, what community economic development means in Inuit Nunangat, and urban Inuit access to economic development support and funding.
These papers and a number of others in the works are designed to explain, educate, and provide a road map to guide all the partners in Inuit Nunangat over, around, through, or under the barriers facing Inuit. Collaborative management is one of the best ways to identify and respond to the unique set of circumstances found in Inuit Nunangat. Inuit have survived for thousands of years in an Arctic environment by working together to solve common challenges. NEDCIN provides a new vehicle to build on that process. When you're looking at economic development specifically through the Inuit perspective, you need to regard all our land claim agreements, including Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut, and Inuvialuit.
As previously mentioned, with me today is Gordon Miles, who is the coordinator of the NEDCIN committee.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to each of you.
Belinda, it's good to see you. Of course I know Belinda's family from down in Maine, and she has many relatives in Labrador. It's good to see you. Hopefully all your folks are doing well and I'll get a chance to visit them in the not-too-distant future.
Good morning as well to Mr. Miles.
First of all, I'll offer a note of congratulations on November 7 as International Inuit Day, a celebration of the Inuit throughout the Arctic, in Russia, Greenland, Alaska, and Canada. I believe it was proclaimed back in 2007. It certainly highlights the great contribution of Inuit throughout Canada, and of course I know that first-hand in Labrador.
I wanted to focus on a couple of items. You talked about the need for collaborative arrangements for working together. In essence, the land claims often define these arrangements through co-management boards and other types of mechanisms. This is so fundamental from a process perspective and from an outcomes perspective.
The federal government released two major pieces of their policy. One is the federal framework for aboriginal economic development and the other is the northern strategy. What type of involvement have ITK had in terms of the development of those policies? Are they reflective of the values, concerns, and interests of ITK? Are they of any use to Inuit throughout the region? I want to know, through that prism, if there has been a collaborative effort in the development of the framework, which is specifically on aboriginal economic development, and the northern strategy, which has elements of social and economic development.
My other question stems from a comment that was made by Belinda about recognizing the realities. I don't believe anybody around the table would quarrel with the fact that there is a tremendous need for investments in infrastructure, whether that be housing or more public types of infrastructure such as docks, for instance, for shipping, as well as social infrastructure such as schools and education. Do you think the investments to date are going to address the issues around housing and education? How do you see the lack of physical and social infrastructure as a barrier to economic development?
Those are my two questions. One is on the collaborative nature of it, and the other is on infrastructure.
Mr. Russell, those are very good questions.
Starting with the co-management, the Inuit members—or the Inuit caucus, if you will—of NEDCIN prepared a paper that identified about 11 to 12 Inuit needs that should play a role in a new federal framework for AED. That paper was presented last January, it was discussed, and when the federal framework was released, the principles in that paper reflected the Inuit position for the most part.
We were pleased with that, but there is a next step, and that is the program redesign that will take place over the next year. NEDCIN is a joint committee. It's Inuit, but it also includes the INAC headquarters people as well as the INAC regional people, and with the advent of CanNor, we hope to include CanNor in that process.
As you mentioned, co-management is included in all of the land claims. In the land claims it's mentioned, and there are specifically sections on wildlife and resource management. Economic development is not part of that generally, so what NEDCIN has said—and Inuit members of NEDCIN—is that we need to ensure that the same principle is adopted as we move forward. NEDCIN itself is based on the principles of getting together, identifying the challenges, and then working to come up with solutions that satisfy all the parties.
On the northern strategy that was released—and Belinda may want to address that more, because it doesn't deal specifically with economic development—NEDCIN's point of view was that, again, in principle it was good. We wanted to ensure that all the four Inuit regions were included in that northern strategy, and that was not there in the initial documentation. Subsequently it was included.
One of the first needs Belinda mentioned in her presentation was the need to treat Inuit Nunangat as one region. And why is that important? It's important because in all of Canada there are about 55,000 Inuit or Inuvialuit, and they share the common history, the heritage, the language, and the Arctic environment. Many of the problems they face are across all four regions, and they're all very much different from those of southern Canada and non-remote communities. There are very few roads in Inuit Nunangat, and most communities are fly-in or perhaps accessible by water in the summer months or by ice road in the winter.
On the second question, on recognizing the realities and the infrastructure deficit, one of the needs the Inuit brought forward is the need to have a good understanding of the socio-economic impacts of infrastructures and the infrastructure deficit. You mentioned the housing initiative, and that's very important. That has been handled in different ways between the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, but in each case the deficit is being addressed.
Is there enough money? No. The reality is that there's a huge need for more infrastructure. From a nation-building point of view, there are costs that have to be identified beyond what is realistic on a per capita basis. In the north, we talk about sovereignty and we talk about the fact that the Inuit have been there for thousands of years. They need the infrastructure that southern Canada has come to expect as normal.
:
I'll touch on the first one, and I'll pass the second one over to Gordon.
Currently, ITK is working with provinces and territories on education strategy. Recently there was an education accord signed between ITK and federal, provincial, and territorial governments. With the signing of that particular accord, this particular working group has one year to put together a national Inuit education strategy. They held their first meeting on that strategy last month, and they're moving forward on that.
On the ITK website, there is documentation that was done prior to a summit on education held in Inuvik. Those documents are available, and they clearly define what some of the gaps are in regard to Inuit education. Just to highlight a couple of basic gaps in education, one would certainly be being educated in one's mother tongue, in one's mother language. Across Inuit Nunangat we have numerous Inuit language dialects. To have children understanding and learning in their own language is a priority. That's one of the main areas.
As well, the education system as it is currently is a southern-based education system. For instance, in biology you might be learning about giraffes or frogs or something like that. To an Inuit person living in the north, not only do you have to explain the giraffe and the biology of it, you actually have to explain what a giraffe is and where it comes from. Having a southern-based education system in the north for Inuit who have not seen some of these realities is one of the other areas this particular committee is working on.
If you're interested in the developments of that working group, we can certainly keep you informed as to where they're headed.
:
I will add a couple of comments before I get to connectivity.
Education is hugely important and plays a major role, particularly in skills and employment training. There are seven community economic development organizations, CEDOs, and they are all AHRDA holders. They deliver the HRSDC programs within their regions, and that's one way--again I go back to co-management--of working together. The CEDOs, as AHRDA holders, are also delivering to communities the aboriginal economic development programs. So it becomes one window, and you can integrate between projects.
As an example, there is a mining trades skills strategy group operating within Nunavut that includes the mining companies, Government of Nunavut representatives, and the Inuit AHRDAs. Working together, they're trying to identify what the needs will be, and then they will put in place training programs to address them. From NEDCIN's point of view, that's more of what we need. It's taking the available resources and making sure we're not duplicating but are building on the institutions that are actually on the ground in Inuit Nunangat and ensuring that they can provide the best possible solutions for the people.
On connectivity, I think it varies across the four regions. I believe that Nunavut, for sure, has broadband within every community. I believe that Inuvialuit and Nunavik have it. I'm not sure about Nunatsiavut and where they stand. In all cases, the bandwidth is not sufficient to address the needs. As a result, for programs that could be quite helpful, whether it be distance education or interactive video, there is not enough bandwidth in most cases to allow those to happen. As we move forward, it will become increasingly important to address that deficit and ensure that the Inuit in the Arctic have access to the same broadband end speed that's available everywhere else in Canada.
:
I'm not sure what Nunavut's strategy is. I can speak to some of the thoughts of the Inuit organizations. The Qulliq Energy Corporation is the agency within Nunavut that handles power, and they're looking at a hydro project within or near Iqaluit to try to provide some renewable resource generation. I'm sure they're also looking at some of the other technologies that are out there.
One of the problems they are encountering is the capital requirements that are placed upon the crown corporations. They cannot go over a certain limit. I forget the amount, but I think the hydro installation was $500 million or somewhere in that area. They couldn't borrow that much money because of the federal guidelines. I think that needs to be addressed, because based on the oil prices a year ago—and granted that they've dropped significantly since then—there was a four-year payback on the investment in this hydro.
That's one option. Are there are other options? I'm sure there are. From an Inuit perspective, the concern we have is how to ensure that Inuit organizations participate in those projects and reap the benefits so that it's not entirely a fly-in contract where people come from the south, do an installation, and turn around and leave. The lower cost would be a benefit, but what the Inuit are looking for is the ability to participate within those projects to train Inuit workers, to take the jobs both in construction and in the operation. Nunavut, and Qulliq Energy in particular, has an apprenticeship program. There was an announcement made last week about the number of apprentices who had, I believe, reached their journeyman status.
Major projects are the vehicle by which most of the training is going to take place, whether it's mining or major power projects or housing. In Nunavut, the Nunavut Housing Trust was set up in such a way that they are actually.... The cost per home has been increased because they are providing journeymen apprenticeship training, leading to journeymen in every community where they are building homes. So the timeframe for the construction is extended, the costs have gone up, but in the end they're going to have housing plus journeymen on site for other projects.
It's a balancing act, but it's a matter of working together to ensure that, moving forward, there are skilled tradespeople there for the position.
I'm going to take one of the government spots to do a couple of administrative things. Then I'll ask a couple of questions, if I can get through that in the time allowed.
In your opening comments, Ms. Webb, you made reference to a couple of different items. I wonder if it would be possible for us to receive these documents for the benefit of the committee. The first you referred to was an MOU signed by INAC and Inuit leaders in 2008, which led to the formation of NEDCIN. Second, you mentioned a work plan that NEDCIN had done up. It would be very helpful if we could get a copy of that as well. Third, you referred to a position that you took in respect to working with CanNor and to that relationship. You mentioned, for example, a position on how ITK might work with the agency. Finally, quite a number of draft documents were mentioned at the end of your presentation. I accept, of course, that they are in draft form, but if they could be available for our consideration, it would be extremely helpful.
I'll go now to my questions.
First, several times you made reference in a roundabout way to the fact that things are done a certain way in southern Canada, and that when we export that approach to the north, it becomes problematic. I think there was a reference to the education program and I think there were others. Do you have some thoughts on how that cultural difference would be best addressed? What would you recommend to begin to address that problem and make sure the programs or initiatives, when they are implemented in the north, could at least consider that issue?
:
One of the foremost impacts will be on the traditional economy. By traditional economy, we mean the land-based economy. It's a huge part of the economy within the Arctic.
I will tell a story, and I'll try to keep it short.
I was in Resolute Bay. A bunch of narwhals came into of the bay at eight o'clock in the morning. At nine o'clock that morning, I was at a house talking to a client and an ATV came down the road, pulling a trailer. On the trailer was a stack of muktuk, the narwhal skin. The driver stopped at every house, and depending on the number of people in that house, he delivered the muktuk to every house in the town. Now, what's the impact of that? How do you measure that? That's a way of life.
They've done studies, and at least 60% of the Inuit every week have country food: seal, caribou, narwhal, and char. It's their main diet. Now climate change is going to have an impact on the wildlife. They're going to move, and when they move, the hunters are going to have to get to them. In some areas, the wildlife may be moving closer to communities, which will make it easier. In other areas, the hunters are going to have to travel farther. The costs of traveling farther and the impacts will be substantial.
How do we support the traditional economy within the Arctic? How do we recognize the contribution of the hunter who goes out and comes back after 10 days with 70 caribou carcasses, and then shares them across the community? Who pays for that, because it's becoming an increasingly costly operation, particularly as you have to move farther. There are caribou hunts and muskox harvests organized in the west that are terrific generators of income and food, both commercial and traditional.
We have to find ways to support those and, at the same time, make sure there is a balance. There are wildlife management agreements in all the land claim agreements, and those have to be respected. But from an economic point of view, we have to understand how important that is and how we can contribute to it, support it, and encourage it.
:
Yes. Unfortunately, I think the current economic crisis has thrown that schedule off by some period of time, and no one knows yet for how long.
First of all, in each of the regions, the land claim agreements call for Inuit impact and benefit agreements for all major projects, so that there will be negotiations right at the beginning of any project guaranteeing Inuit access to, or participation at some level in, these projects. And that's important.
In addition, each of the four Inuit organizations has very strong development corporations in place. And in all cases, those development corporations are actively pursuing partnerships, joint ventures, and contracts with these private companies.
I think mining has a huge potential, particularly within Nunavut and the Northwest Territories—and in all four regions. You have Voisey's Bay in Labrador, Raglan in Nunavik, plus there was another potential mine in Nunavik that I think is now on hold.
But again, there is potential right across the north for huge changes.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Duncan. That helps put us all on the same page, it would appear.
I'd like to first of all thank our witnesses for joining us today and providing a very informative overview of the issue that's before us concerning economic development, certainly as it relates to the Inuit of Canada. This has been very helpful.
Committee members, before we break, I want to cover off one item, or perhaps two.
The first item concerns the title of our study. You'll recall that we considered this as “Northern Economic Development". We suggested also that the focus of the study be barriers and solutions. We could, if the committee wishes, confine and in fact change the name of our study. You'll see that it appears on our orders of the day as “Northern Economic Development”. We could amend that somewhat and provide more clarity and focus to the name of our work by putting a colon, followed by “Barriers and Solutions”. This would provide more clarity, certainly, to the public.
By the way, speaking of the public, I noticed that the Whitehorse Daily Star carried our piece about the visit as well, in today's paper.
To come back to the study, the implication would be, members, that because it would be part of the orders of the day, our considerations when we're deliberating these issues would be more confined to those barriers and solutions—perhaps not as broad a berth in terms of discussion.
That's the question I would put to you. Are there any problems with changing the name, then, to add “Barriers and Solutions” to the name of our study?