Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good morning, members, witnesses, and guests.

We're delighted to be here in Iqaluit--the place of many fish, I understand. This is a great opportunity for us. We are the members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. This is the third stop for us in a series of three stops that we have made in each of the territorial capitals in the course of our consideration for advancing the economic development of Canada's north.

This is what we call a comprehensive study. We don't expect to be finished our work until early 2010, but members felt quite strongly, and I share their sentiments, about ensuring that we include stops in each of the territories at the front end of our study. Of course, the consideration of advancing economic development is not just about advancing development for its sake, but rather so it can engender the kinds of positive outcomes in quality of life for people who are the northerners of Canada. We're delighted to be here, as I said.

I'll say a little bit about the format this morning. Some of you may have been in front of standing committees in the past. What we generally do is open with a five-minute presentation from each of the four organizations that are present. When you're presenting and when you're talking with us, since we are doing simultaneous interpretation in the course of our discussions here today, try to keep the pace of your presentation a little bit slower than you normally talk, and that will be a good pace. Don't worry too much about meeting the five minutes. We'll give you a little bit of latitude there. Then after the presentations we'll go into comments from members.

Now I understand also—I'm not sure if he's here—we do have an interpreter here who will interpret Inuktitut, so this is available. If you wish to speak in Inuktitut, we will have the translation properly done for members.

I'm going to say up front, by the way, that I'm going to do my very best to get the pronunciations of the names of all the witnesses here today. Not being proficient in Inuktitut, we'll do our best.

I'd like to lead off by welcoming the mayor of the wonderful municipality of Iqaluit, Ms. Elisapee Sheutiapik.

Mayor, I'm delighted to be here. Please lead off with the first presentation.

[Elisapee Sheutiapik, Mayor, Municipality of Iqaluit]

Ullaakut. Thank you very much.

I am quite honoured to be here this morning, and I look forward to hearing the rest of the presentations. I have been in front of a standing committee before, but it's good to know you're going to be a little bit lenient, because I know the last time I did a presentation it was shortened.

Welcome to our great city. I'm sure you'll walk away with some great information.

I just got back from Ottawa yesterday, actually. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities just held their advocacy days, and we had a meeting under the northern forum. We met with Minister Strahl and had some great insight. Actually, that was why there were two pieces passed out this morning. One piece of advice he gave us was that although this committee is quite keen on reading material, he's kind of like me, he likes one-pagers. So one is in depth, which I will be reading, and a lot of the material comes from previous... And then there's a one-pager, with Minister Strahl in mind.

Thank you once again for allowing me to speak this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

If you want, Mayor Sheutiapik, you can go ahead with your presentation. We'll do each of them one after the other, and then we'll go to questions after that.

So please go ahead, and it's all yours. Thank you.

[Elisapee Sheutiapik]

Qujannamiik.

Mr. Chair, members of the standing committee, thank you for giving the Nunavut Association of Municipalities, NAM, the opportunity to appear before you.

I am Elisapee Sheutiapik, Mayor of Iqaluit, and I am also the president of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities.

You've asked representatives from around Nunavut to appear before you to contribute their vision of how Nunavut communities could be strengthened by identifying barriers to economic development and coming up with solutions to bring down these barriers.

NAM is a member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and serves the interests of 25 municipalities of Nunavut, 24 of which are not tax-based communities.

Nunavut's population is 34,000, and approximately 85% are Inuit. People of Nunavut refer to themselves as Nunavummiut, the people of Nunavut. Nunavut's footprint makes up one-fifth of Canada's land mass, and the mining industry rates it 10th among the 64 most resource-rich regions in the world.

Today, NAM and its members are prepared to participate proactively with the rest of Canada in attaining the government's vision of prosperity. NAM has proposed a strategic sustainable development plan for community governments, which they have endorsed and have directed us to proceed with.

To proceed, however, we need some key decisions by the federal government that recognize the unique challenges facing the communities of Nunavut.

In NAM's submission to the Expert Panel on Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing, we pointed out that the expenditure needs gap in the territorial formula financing is not just a measure in accounting ledgers; it can also be measured in inadequate housing, poor health, low education, and inadequate infrastructure.

The expert panel's report cited many examples of how Nunavut is even more challenged by conditions associated with poverty than are its sister territories and that an adjustment to the TFF is not sufficient to address gaps in programs, services, and infrastructure in Nunavut.

It concluded that:

Without urgent concerted action to improve housing, health, education, and quality of life for people living in Nunavut, particularly Inuit people, there is little hope that things will change for the better. The Panel urges the Government of Nunavut, the Government of Canada, Inuit leaders, and a wide range of organizations, groups and agencies to come together to address these issues before the situation gets even worse.

While Nunavut is resource-rich, its people and communities will not receive significant benefits from their resource wealth under the current federal fiscal regime. All the public resource revenues from the Northwest Territories' and Nunavut's resources flow directly to the federal government.

Canada's public accounts show that during the last five years the federal government took $830 million in resource wealth out of the north, over and above federal taxes. In 2004 and 2005 alone, it took half a billion dollars.

The expert panel spoke to this issue as well, saying:

The potential for resource developments in the territories is perhaps the best opportunity they have to achieve their dreams of self-sufficiency and self-reliance. Provinces with rich natural resources are able to benefit from those resources. The same principle of net fiscal benefit should apply to the territories.

Nunavut cannot afford to let its resources be taken without fair compensation. Moreover, it is NAM's position that the communities of Nunavut need a direct and fair share of revenues. International development agencies refer to a common phenomenon called the “resource curse”. It is the paradox that natural resources can generate enormous wealth, yet communities in resource-rich regions have poor economic growth; inadequate investment in health, education, and sanitation; and poor social conditions.

The resource curse is integral to northern resource development history. Profits go to outside investors, business goes to outside service and suppliers, wages go to outside labour, public revenues go to central governments, and the vast majority of local people are barred from participation by poor education, poor infrastructure, and inadequate services.

Interestingly, one group that recognizes the curse and is proposing means to eliminate it is within the mining industry. The International Council on Mining and Metals, of which the Mining Association of Canada is a member, has taken an initiative on sustainable community development in mining regions. Its chair, who is also the chief executive officer of Newmont Mining, recently said that “central governments have failed to use tax revenues from mining companies effectively to fund basic public services and empower local governments”.

The need to strengthen local governance in mining underlines the importance of a partnership approach. The local agencies are the best means of improving the services and facilities available to affected communities, but they cannot be expected suddenly to have the capacity to plan and implement large community development programs. Host national governments must take the lead in supporting these bodies and be assisted by international donor organizations and companies. The companies can also help by planning their own projects, infrastructure, and social investment as part of the regional development plan. This can raise the chances that prosperity will flow to the whole region and also avoid a cycle of local dependency on the companies' social programs.

Some will say that Nunavut receives more in transfer payments than the federal government receives in resource revenues. It is true that the transfer payments are very large, but it is also true that despite the federal government's 40-year mandate for economic development in the north, there is not a developed economy in Nunavut. Resources and the resource wealth have both left Nunavut, leaving a depleted resource base and no public or private wealth to invest in a diversified, sustainable economy.

What the federal government transfers do provide, instead of a sustainable economy, is a standard of dependency and poverty for many and funds to employ others to provide the poor and themselves with public services.

In conclusion, NAM and its community members are prepared to participate proactively with the rest of Canada in obtaining a vision of prosperity, but the communities in Nunavut need federal financial support to reach the first rung on the ladder to prosperity. To that end, we need informed decisions on the next budget that address the critical service and facility gaps in Nunavut communities; fairly share Nunavut's resource revenues with Nunavut through its territorial and local governments; and provide financial support for ongoing community economic development plans and implementation leading to sustainable Nunavut communities.

Qujannamiik.

I'm short-winded, but as I stated, I tried to shorten it with another one-pager. Once again, thank you for allowing me to come this morning.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mayor Sheutiapik.

We're delighted again to be here, and thank you for your remarks.

For the benefit of members, there was a brief of those remarks submitted. It was not in both official languages, so we'll get that translated and circulated to all the committee members.

Now we'll go to Mr. Robert Long, who is the Deputy Minister of the Department of Economic Development and Transportation of the Government of Nunavut.

Mr. Long, go ahead.

[Robert Long, Deputy Minister, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Government of Nunavut]

Thank you, Chair. Good morning, everybody.

Unfortunately, the minister, the Honourable Peter Taptuna, is not available. He ran into weather problems on his trip here from Yellowknife yesterday, so he hasn't arrived. Unfortunately, we didn't find that out until about 4:30 yesterday afternoon, so we have not had time to change the speech or have it retranslated. With your permission, I'll read his speech.

On behalf of the Government of Nunavut, welcome to our land and to our capital city. We're honoured by your presence here, and because you have chosen to come here, to listen and to learn, you've earned our respect and high regard. I know your time here with us, though brief, will be illuminating and will bring you new perspectives, not only on who we are here in Nunavut, about our dreams and our hopes for the future, but on who you are, as our fellow Canadians.

Today you're in one of the most exciting and dynamic parts of the country. You're in a place where the future of this country will be defined. It may feel to you that you've travelled a long way and that you're far from home, but I want to say to you that here in Nunavut you are at home. You're in a place where your future will be determined, just as it will be determined for those of us for whom this land is the home of our ancestors, and as it will be for our children and our children's children.

This is my basic message to you today. If Canadians are to fulfill their northern destiny, then Canadians must ensure that it is possible for Nunavummiut—those of us who make this part of Canada our home—to maintain a high and sustainable quality of life. If we cannot achieve this, I'm concerned not only for the future of Nunavut but for the future of this country.

I'm proud to say that Kugluktuk, the community on the Arctic Ocean on the far west of Nunavut, where I live, is where my children live, as do their children, but I fear this situation will have to change because the cost of living in our community is too high and the ability of my grandchildren to live as other Canadians do is becoming increasingly difficult. So they will make a choice between a poorer standard of living in their community here in Nunavut and a higher standard of living they can have by moving to southern Canada. When young people leave, it puts our communities at risk. This is not good for Nunavut, and it's at a time when climate change, northern sovereignty, and national security are issues for all Canadians. This is not good for Canada.

It is our people, and in particular our dynamic young people, who represent Canada's strongest claim to sovereignty in the Arctic. They cannot leave. They must be able to find a livelihood here.

So what is it that Canada can do? There's not enough time allowed to us this morning to provide even a list of what needs to be done. Let me sum it up in this way. For more than 140 years, Ottawa has built Canada from east to west. Now Ottawa must build north. It is the destiny of all Canadians to take full possession of all this land has to offer, but the old models of development will not work. This land is vast, but it's not empty. You have partners here, fellow Canadians who have shared this land for thousands of years. When we created Nunavut just 10 years ago, Inuit made a clear statement that we are ready to take responsibility for the development of the north on behalf of all Canadians. We know that if we can create here a high and sustainable quality of life for ourselves, this is also the key to securing a high and sustainable quality of life for all Canadians, whether they live in the east, the west, or the north.

How, then, should development proceed, and what is the federal government role to be? First, the old pattern of excluding Inuit from decisions that impact on our well-being and our way of life must end forever. Ottawa must come to the negotiating table and devolve control of this land and its resources to the Canadians who live here, as has been done in every province.

If you withhold this from us and continue to try to control development in the north from Ottawa, our people cannot fulfill our historic role as stewards of the land and its resources. Our purpose here is jeopardized and our ability to stand and build the Canadian north is cut off at the knees. In time, my grandchildren may lose patience and leave.

Second, we need the tools for development that all Canadians have had. I will mention two of them.

Earlier this year I visited Labrador and saw three of the excellent marine facilities in a province where there are 370 ports and small craft harbours. In Nunavut, as you see here in Iqaluit, there are none.

The federal government's commitment to the construction of a small craft harbour in Pangnirtung is a very welcome investment, but this is just one in a land where all 25 communities depend on access to the sea and its resources, and for whom marine supply is the most cost-effective link to the rest of Canada. The absence here of not only marine facilities but of adequate federal investments in roads, airports, and other basic economic infrastructure--investments that have been made in every other region of Canada--slows the growth of our economy and makes life here for some prohibitively expensive.

The other tool for development I want to highlight is education. We must improve the education outcome for our children. For this to happen, as Thomas Berger pointed out four years ago, we need a strong partnership in Ottawa.

I'm only 53 years old, but I'm able to draw on the education I received on the land where my family lived and hunted year-round until I was nine years old. Forty years ago, Inuit were moved by the Government of Canada into permanent settlements, and our vital connection to the land and the way of life that was learned on the land was forever compromised. Now, to move ahead, our children need an education system that is equal to what is available elsewhere in the country, and it must be delivered in the context provided by Inuit language and culture. We can all see the École des Trois-Soleils here in Iqaluit. We know the federal government can be an effective partner in education development.

Devolution, infrastructure development, and education: all Canadians must be partners in these vital endeavours here in Nunavut. The future of this country depends on it.

Thank you for listening. I hope your time here brings you a greater understanding of our common future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Long.

Now we'll go to our next representative, Mr. Simeonie Akpalialuk. We're delighted to have you here. Simeonie is representing the municipality of Pangnirtung. Please go ahead with your presentation. Thank you very much.

[Simeonie Akpalialuk, Economic Development Officer, Pangnirtung]

Qujannamiik.

My name is Simeonie Akpalialuk. I'm from the hamlet of Pangnirtung, representing the municipality. I've been involved in business in different capacities for well over 20 years—from fisheries, to tourism, to small business, and for the last eight years as an economic development officer.

I've seen many people come and go, many programs developed and changed. The names change, but the barriers stay the same. Number one is the lack of infrastructure for businesses in the communities. We just don't have buildings, and the economic development programs that exist don't cover capital costs for starting up a business. Most people don't have the equity to buy a building and develop a business from there. That has been the number one barrier in my community—having no buildings to work out of.

Second, we don't have a lot of education and training. One of the things any business needs to endure and survive and succeed is training, especially in accounting and bookkeeping. That's where we're lacking in these communities. Even if people have the skills, they don't usually have the time to run the business and do the books themselves.

Third, one of the biggest deterrents has been energy costs. When we looked at our community as a whole, we saw that energy costs take up 30% to 40% of the total cost of running any building or business. That's way too high with the programs we have. We're hoping to see alternative energy programs developed in the north, especially in my community where we have high tides. We also have strong winds and a lot of daylight for solar panel energy.

These are the areas that we would like to see developed for the north. Right now we know it's way too costly to pursue these areas, as they haven't been developed in the north yet.

Another concern of ours is public housing policy. Most Inuit are in public housing, and they aren't allowed to run a business out of public housing. So that's another barrier. Along with this, the rents here in Nunavut have been a real deterrent to businesses. Once they start making more money, their rents go up; they skyrocket. You pay a minimal amount of rent while you're on welfare, but if you start a business or become employed, your rent goes right up to over $1,000 a month. So that's a real deterrent.

Another problem is the lack of recognition of the traditional economy in the business development programs. The support for local fishermen is either very restricted or altogether lacking. We don't have programs for hunters, other than a lottery that's given out by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated. Anybody can go into that, and it's not necessarily hunters who access the hunter support program. And we don't have any support for harvesters or gatherers who gather things like plants, berries, clams, and sea crustaceans. We haven't seen any programs in this area, because it hasn't been recognized as a legitimate part of the economy.

Lastly, one of the things that we've really been seeing is that the policies, regulations, and law surrounding business are designed for the south. They are not designed for the north at all. We import these regulations from the south and they don't fit the economy here in the north. For example, we can't harvest seafood without inspection agencies, which are very expensive to run and we don't have the capacity up here. Nor is there continuity in files that we deal with in different agencies here in the north. Whenever there's a turnover, the file gets lost. For the people in the communities who work with different agencies, right across the board, whenever there's a turnover we have to start from the beginning again with the new person because there is no sharing of these files. That has been a real deterrent in terms of trying to progress, because every year we have to do the same thing over and over.

In this area the biggest culprit has been the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, where every time there's a turnover we just don't see any continuity in developing fisheries in that area. We've had a lot of difficulties dealing with them. Most unilingual people don't understand business concepts or the regulations. So a lot of times we spend quite a bit of time with unilingual clients, teaching them what business is and what the regulations are, when we should be concentrating more on developing new businesses and the economy.

As we look at Pangnirtung, we've only been in this community for 40 years. It's taken the rest of Canada 400 years to go from being a hunter-gatherer society to the space age technology they have today, whereas it's only taken us 40 years. So we have a long way to go to reteach a lot of local people about business and the concepts of business.

We've had a lot of studies over the last 30 years, especially in Pangnirtung, around tourism and fisheries, but it's always studies and no action. From this point on, what we would like to see is all the studies that have been done over the last 30 years put together, instead of sitting on a shelf somewhere in a university or a government agency, and put to use. The information is out there; it's just not gathered and put together.

Qujannamiik.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mr. Akpalialuk. It's wonderful that you could come and join us today.

Now we'll go on to our fourth presentation, which is from Mark Morrissey, who is the acting chair of the Nunavut Economic Forum.

Welcome, Mr. Morrissey, and go ahead with your presentation.

[Mark Morrissey, Acting Chair, Nunavut Economic Forum]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First I'd like to extend regrets from our president, Monica Ell. She wishes she could be here in person today; unfortunately, you're stuck with me.

I'll introduce myself. My name is Mark Morrissey, and I am vice-president of the Nunavut Economic Forum. This morning I will begin with a very short introduction of what the forum is and the role it plays in economic development here in Nunavut.

The Economic Forum, or NEF, as it's referred to, is a broad group of member organizations developed to identify and share information on economic development activity in Nunavut. Members of the NEF include community organizations, non-profit and non-government associations, members of the private sector, Inuit associations, and all levels of government. These individuals and groups all have one thing in common: a desire to see Nunavut build a solid foundation for economic development and growth.

The primary focus of the NEF is to bring members together to collaborate on the implementation of the Nunavut economic development strategy, or NEDS, to support research and data collection related to the economy of Nunavut and to report regularly on progress being made. Accordingly, the NEF produces a number of publications and discussion papers, which are circulated among members and economic stakeholders. Among these is the Nunavut Economic Outlook, a biennial report that provides informed analysis on social and economic issues and constructs a comprehensive forecast of the whole economy.

Unfortunately we don't have translated copies of the 2008 Nunavut Economic Outlook, along with the strategy, so I'm not able to provide it to you. But if you are looking for any of these documents, you can find them on our website, www.nunavuteconomicforum.ca. The website you have listed in your briefing notes is incorrect. I will add a caveat to the 2008 outlook, however. It was published in December 2008, just prior to the global recession, and some of the projections may be a little dated. It is a useful document, though, to illustrate the economic potential that exists in the territory.

The NEF, through its broad membership and mandate, is uniquely positioned as an organization to see the challenges that are apparent in many economic sectors in the territory. Many of these have already been identified in the strategy, and I will list a few here. They include these but are by no means limited to them.

The first is rapid population growth. Nunavut has one of the youngest populations in Canada, and I would encourage you to look at the population graph and compare Canada and Nunavut. There's a very stark contrast. The youth in this territory, defined as those under the age of 25, are part of the consumer society in Canada and have high expectations in terms of employment and quality of life. While many regions in Canada would see a young population as an opportunity, it provides a challenge in Nunavut as these individuals make up a significant portion of the unemployed. If more employment and better education cannot be provided to this demographic, they will prove to be a significant economic drain.

Rate of government spending is also a barrier. Government growth is currently driving the Nunavut economy. Government activities provide employment and training opportunities, but government spending cannot be counted on indefinitely. During periods of economic hardship and deficit spending, such as those being encountered now, cutbacks to programs and activities are inevitable. Efforts must be taken to ensure private sector activities are able to provide greater contributions to economic growth. However, it is important to note that until a stable local economy can be established in Nunavut, government cutbacks should not be made to northern programming, as the effect that would have would be multiplied.

There is a lack of understanding of the north, which we've already heard from several speakers. Currently in Nunavut, organizations and businesses can access a number of federal programs from various departments, which can be used to support economic activities and in many cases stimulate growth at the local level. However, these programs are often not designed to incorporate the realities of operating in the north, and those individuals tasked with managing them are not familiar with the territory and the challenges we face here. For example, many federal departments do not offer multi-year contribution agreements and often impose unrealistic reporting requirements, which impacts on what an organization can do with available funding. For example, new year funding is often withheld pending submission of activity reports and, in many cases, audited financial statements.

Realistically, at least here in Nunavut, many organizations are not able to provide audited statements until September. That being the case, organizations that are intending to use funding to purchase equipment and supplies have already missed the cutoff dates for sealift and are now forced to fly in goods at a much higher cost.

Some federal departments have programs available to organizations in the territory but have no staff in place to promote them or administer them. I hate to pick on a particular department, but a good example would be Industry Canada. Until very recently, Industry Canada had no staff here in the territory, despite having a number of programs available. Their programs are, to a large extent, virtually unknown to organizations here and are highly underutilized.

Funding is also allocated on per capita calculations, not realistic assessments of the costs of doing business. Another example, and I will pick on a department, is Foreign Affairs' ICCI funding--the Invest Canada Community Initiatives program. This program currently has only $26,660 allocated to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories combined, despite these regions having the highest cost of living and doing business in the entire country. Southern Ontario, by comparison, has over $1 million allocated to that region alone. I think there's a bit of a disparity there.

Regarding lack of capacity, it's no secret that Nunavut lags behind the rest of Canada when it comes to ability of the region to develop and implement successful economic activities. The human resources and infrastructure often do not exist to initiate and sustain growth. Efforts are currently under way to establish and improve existing capabilities of communities in terms of the physical infrastructure. However, these efforts will be futile if the knowledge and training does not exist to achieve the full potential of these improvements. This ranks as probably the most serious barrier to economic growth in Nunavut today.

What can we do to remove some of these barriers? To begin with, the lack of capacity, both in terms of human resources and infrastructure, needs to be addressed. Pushing programs designed to stimulate growth in an unprepared region is an exercise in futility, and ultimately doomed to fail. The focus must be on building capacity at the local level. Preparing the community for employment opportunities and ensuring the adequate infrastructure is available will provide a solid foundation on which growth can be built and sustained.

Priorities should be placed on economic development initiatives that incorporate an integrated approach. A successful example of this would be the housing trust, whereby the federal government has provided funding to build much needed housing in the territory, while at the same time providing local tradespeople with the hours they need to complete their apprenticeships. Both the infrastructure and skilled labour force are developed in unison and will remain in the community as a foundation for growth.

A second solution, which also addresses capacity issues, would be to focus on community economic development, or CED, rather than solely on business development. Community economic development is a bottom-up approach to development and involves the full participation and control by local community members. It recognizes that economic growth can be maintained only when people's basic needs are addressed. As such, municipal governments must receive strong regional and federal support if they are to properly develop and implement a CED agenda. This is achieved through federal organizations working in tandem with territorial and Inuit partners to develop flexible programming that can be tailored to meet the needs of communities. Collaboration between departments and various levels of government is critical.

Ongoing and sustained investments must have realistic expectations of results and be long term in nature. Currently most federal programs force communities to work within short-term fiscal cycles that limit the potential of CED. CED is a process that produces solutions over a period of years, not quarterly.

A third solution is to put key staff and decision-making authorities closer to the end users of available programs. This will ensure that information flows freely between administrators and communities and organizations, eliminating misconceptions and fostering a better understanding of the realities of operating in Nunavut. This was the position of the economic forum when asked to provide input on the creation of the new northern regional development agency. The forum strongly advocated that the headquarters be located here in Iqaluit and managed by a deputy minister capable of making decisions without having to obtain approval from department officials in Ottawa. We are pleased to see the federal government agreed with our position when announcing the creation of CanNor.

The NEF is also pleased to work with CanNor in reviewing and implementing the investment plan for the second round of SINED funding, which many of you will remember the NEF advocated strongly for renewal of. The forum also plays a key role in connecting members with the agency, bringing decision-making closer to the community level. We look forward to continuing our work with CanNor as the organization continues to grow and establish itself in Nunavut. This collaborative approach to delivering programs is successful and should be used to model future activities.

In conclusion, there are no simple solutions to address the many barriers to growth in Nunavut. Collaborative efforts between the federal government and industry stakeholders are fundamental to ensuring that sustained investments in economic growth produce long-term results. As a means to facilitate this cooperation and ensure everyone is working together to achieve a common objective, I would suggest that organizations and agencies, federal and territorial, obtain a copy of the strategy--which again is available on the website--and study its content. This document provides readers with a road map for development in Nunavut.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Morrissey.

Now we will go to questions from members. What we follow here, for the benefit of our witnesses, is a pre-set order of questioners from each of the parties represented around the table; all four parties from the House of Commons are here with us today. Five minutes are allowed both for the question and the answer from witnesses. So the more succinct and short you can keep your responses, the more information we'll get through in a short period of time. I'd also encourage you to use your headsets because some of our questions will be posed in French.

We'll begin the first round of questions from members. Mr. Russell will lead off with the first question.

Mr. Russell.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning to each of you and thank you very much for your presentations.

Mr. Taptuna was quite strong in some of his statements, and they're well appreciated, at least by me and I'm sure by some of my other colleagues, when he says:

Ottawa must come to the negotiating table and devolve control of this land and its resources to the Canadians who live here, as has been done in every province.

If you withhold this from us and continue to try to control development in the north from Ottawa, our people cannot fulfill our historic role as stewards of the land and its resources.

That's a pretty powerful statement, and I see it echoed in a lot of what the other presenters have said. Mayor Elisapee talked about the need for a share of revenue resources. We talk about policies that doesn't make sense because they're developed in the south. Mr. Morrissey's presentation was much along the same lines.

And here we are. I'm from Labrador, so I'm sort of semi-north, but a lot of us are from the south. I heard Mr. Simeonie say that you don't want another study, and here we are doing another study. I think we have to be very careful, as a committee, not to repeat some of the mistakes or fall into some of the same traps that maybe others have in the past.

I'll get to my primary question around devolution. How high a priority is this for each of you? What opportunities do you see in the process of devolution, and where is it, from your perspective? We hear about it. We understand there were some negotiations. Depending on who you talk to, they may be fast, they may be slow, they may be halted all together.

We just throw out that question to each of you. What is devolution? If you have devolution, does it uphold what Mr. Taptuna and the rest of you have said, that you can then make policy that makes sense for the people who live here? Will you get a share of the revenue resources and be able to invest the way you want to invest, maybe uphold the traditional industries more than they've been upheld? I'll just ask each of you that question.

[Robert Long]

Thank you, Mr. Russell. It's a very good question.

At this point, the discussions on devolution have just begun. We would like to be a “have” territory rather than a “have not” territory. Currently our government operates on $1 billion of transfer payments a year. We are at the beginning of a new age in the mining industry. A couple of years ago, our last operating mine shut down, and at this point, we have many opportunities in the mining developments that are under way. These range from a gold mine, which is currently under construction and will be in production within a year or so, to a promise in diamonds. They're a rather secretive bunch, but many people are searching, and the Peregrine property, which is between here and Pangnirtung, seems very promising.

In terms of base metals, we range from the Bathurst Inlet area, with many very well-established properties... The biggest issue there is transportation, getting that ore from the ground onto a boat and into the world markets. That is going to require a considerable amount of money. We also have a mountain of iron ore on North Baffin, which we're hoping will come into production within the next four or five years. We roll all of that together and think about the taxes and royalties that can come from that level of productivity, especially in the mining industry. We will then become a serious contributor to the Canadian economy, and our “have not” status will flip over onto the positive side.

In terms of devolution, of course, the first point is control over those resources so that the royalties and taxes come to us, and then we're able to run our own affairs, rather than being dependent on federal funding.

[Elisapee Sheutiapik]

That's a great question.

As an organization, for the last two years we have been very vocal. We know what our needs are in the community, but there's been a gap. Nunavut means “our land”, and for several years at our AGM we also acknowledged that some communities realistically will not have the mining industry established in their surrounding areas.

Because we are Nunavut, we want our communities to benefit, and that's why we have been quite proactive in trying to get revenue sharing so that our communities get some form of funding.

Nanisivik had great employment when it existed, but if you go to Arctic Bay today, you would never know there was an industry. As an example, what kind of significant infrastructure exists today within Arctic Bay? Nothing, other than the port.

We want to be responsible, and we've been quite proactive. As communities, we also have to do long-term integrated community sustainability plans, ICSPs, and in our view, this is a sector within the planning and we need to be involved at the municipal level.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Mayor.

We'll have to leave it at that. We're a little over time.

The next member up is Mr. Lévesque, who has five minutes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is my third time in this territory. I am the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou. I am one of your neighbours a little to the south.

You have businesses managed through Makivik, for boats and air transport. I went to Pangnirtung, as well. We visited your fish market. It is quite nice.

[Simeonie Akpalialuk]

Could you please repeat that?

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

How far did you hear?

Did you hear what I said?

[Simeonie Akpalialuk]

It was right up to when you said that you've been to Pangnirtung.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

We visited your fish market in Pangnirtung. You also have a very nice tourist centre with a lot of activities.

I believe you have energy assets since you are located in a fiord, if memory serves. The winds are pretty strong. The top of the mountain alongside the village would have some good places to set up a wind turbine, which could power a good part of the village.

Was the small craft harbour built here or elsewhere? Aspects of development are coming.

I believe as well that, as an Inuit community, you pay taxes like the rest of Canadians. Oh, that is not true. In Nunavik, people pay taxes. They want tax deductions for the business services of entrepreneurs.

Nunavut has 34,000 inhabitants. Is that right?

[Elisapee Sheutiapik]

Yes.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

When you have a population of 34,000 people, $1 billion may seem like a huge sum. But you need to invest a lot of money when you develop a territory. Have you negotiated agreements regarding territorial powers?

[Robert Long]

Yes, we have territorial powers. We would like to move towards provincial powers. Devolution is the next step towards equivalency to a province.

You thought $1 billion was a lot.

[Yvon Lévesque, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

To people in the south, $1 billion in federal royalties for 34,000 inhabitants may seem like a lot because 34,000 inhabitants is equivalent to a small town in the south.

I am not questioning it, just making a comment. In the south, certain people who live in a small town will find that $1 billion for 34,000 inhabitants is a lot of money, because they will not look at the size of the territory.

How big is the territory?

[Robert Long]

That's the most significant thing, sir. We are 20% of Canada's land mass. So as a territory, we have few people, and we're seriously spread out. I don't think there's a town anywhere in Canada that requires 25 airports, 25 health centres, and more than 25 schools. The cost of providing these services to our people is incredibly expensive. This is important to Canada from a sovereignty point of view. As I mentioned earlier, on the future revenue potential of our territory, we want to move from the point of being dependent on Ottawa to the point where we are a fully contributing member of this country in terms of the revenues we bring into the country.