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

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Okay.

Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak and Mr. Lévesque.

It is now over to Mrs. Hughes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

You won't need a translator. I can speak English and I will speak English for you. I'm actually fluently bilingual.

You've mentioned article 24 on a number of occasions. I get the impression that you still have a lot that you want to share with us. So I think a lot of my time I will give to you as a group to talk about this article 24.

I'd also be interested in hearing from Jeffrey, given that he's a fisheries adviser, as to some comments that haven't been made and things of importance that he says should be made.

There was mention with regard to gaps. Mr. Cousins, you mentioned the need for multi-year flexible agreements, a regional approach to priorities, and that there are gaps. I'm wondering if you could just expand on those gaps.

We talked about the infrastructure, and I did get a chance to go to a few of the areas yesterday. I went to a long-term-care facility and the seniors drop-in centre, and I also talked to the Nunavut Employees Union. My comments were that a lot of the places I had been at previously, a lot of the businesses, have a lot of white people working there as opposed to the Inuit people. I can understand where there may be some difficulties with some training and stuff.

So I would really like to hear from you with regard to article 24, the fisheries, and anything else you have to share that you think we, as a committee, should know.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, madam, for that question.

For many years we have been trying to make the Department of Fisheries and Oceans understand that we have a potential here for fishing allocations in Nunavut. They need to be adequate, because we have limited opportunity in Nunavut right now. In terms of resources that are untapped, it's not only fisheries; there's the mining sector. It is always highly untapped.

We see that the waters and oceans around Nunavut—our adjacent sea, as I mentioned—have big potential, if we had nailed down the fishing industry that we have currently in Nunavut. We are losing out on millions.

There was a study done a few years ago about how much we have lost to date. I think the fishing industry right now rakes in about $10 million or $20 million or thereabouts. We could be doing $80 million, if we had the right allocations and the fishing infrastructure in place in Nunavut; we could be gaining that much more. That is how much you lose out because you don't have the facilities.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Let me ask about the fishing allocations that you mention you need. Could you expand on this, as to what you would really need?

[Paul Kaludjak]

Yes. Jeff can add to this as well.

We've been lobbying to get to the 100% level, if we can; we were looking at 80% to 90%. Right now it is cut into different zones. We talked about the 0B zone, where it is 41%. That is almost halfway there. If the proper allocations can be given, that is what we have been after. This industry could grow on its own, if it had the right quotas or allocations. It could sustain itself.

In terms of other comments, I will refer this to Mr. Cousins, or to Jeff, if he wants to add a little on the fishing side.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Mr. Maurice.

[Jeffrey Maurice, Fisheries Advisor, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The problem is twofold in the fisheries. The first problem is access. As Paul pointed out, Nunavut still only has about 41% access to turbot in zone 0B, compared with the national norm or national average whereby provinces have about 80% to 90% of their adjacent resources. That is the first problem.

The other problem is economic leakage. Nunavut is not fully utilizing the economic potential of our fisheries right now. Annually our fisheries are worth over $120 million. Nunavut might see about 10% of that, and the reason for that is infrastructure. There is not one small craft harbour in Nunavut, not one. In the provinces, you see the minister announcing new small craft harbours—actually, they are trying to move out of small craft harbours, but there are millions for repairing the existing ones—but Nunavut does not have one.

In terms of vessels, Nunavut in the past five years has been investing in trawlers and gillnetters, but we only have four offshore fishing vessels.

So the leakage is immense, from training to spin-offs to small craft harbours—everything in the fishery. Once we start developing that nation-building, then we will start seeing the returns.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Maurice.

Thank you, Mrs. Hughes.

I should add, by the way, to members and witnesses—members will know this, of course—that all of our proceedings through the course of these hearings are transcribed. Everything you put on the record in fact becomes the basis of the report that we will take forward. It is good to have. We have these wonderful people behind me, the proceedings verification officers, who are here to make sure that everything gets taken into the record.

Now let's go to Mr. Rickford for five minutes.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to the witnesses for being here today.

I just want to talk about this government's northern strategy paper that was released this past summer and focused on four pillars: arctic sovereignty, environmental heritage, social economic development, and improving and devolving northern governments. I'm going to focus on the fourth pillar and I'm going to direct most of my questions, I believe, to Mr. Cousins, because as we drill down on this fourth pillar, indeed, these considerations go to some important points you raised with respect to the 2008 framework, which involves HRSDC, INAC, and land claims. I would respectfully submit that it has as much to do with land use planning and management, as well, and I'm going to get your thoughts on that, Mr. Cousins.

In the context of a number of successes you highlighted, through the CEDOs that are operating in the region, can you talk to me a little bit more about how this idea of integrated economic development works here in the territories, in the context of the framework and Canada's northern strategy?

The reasons I'm asking these questions are twofold. First of all, I think it's fair to say we've heard some frustrations in some of the other territories about an inability to have all of these work together in the context of the different levels of government and some of the chambers of commerce, etc. Second of all, I understand and I want to highlight the importance of this for the record. You mentioned you felt as if you were on the right track with the fully integrated economic development model for the region. In my riding, in northwestern Ontario, we clearly understood, and moving forward most of our efforts are aimed at ensuring that more than 25 isolated first nations communities have full participation in the economic development strategies. That is not confined to the business aspects of this. It includes land use planning and management, and it draws on important traditions within the first nations communities, who have frames of reference going back thousands of years with respect to resource utilization.

So it sounds like a big question, but I want to focus on some of the positives you feel you have in the context of all these other things that impact business development and perhaps training.

[Glenn Cousins]

I'll try to cover as much of that as I can. With regard to land use planning, I may have to defer on that.

As to the integrated approach or the regional approach we have to economic development, as I mentioned, we are able to bring in, through these Inuit CEDOs, the third-party delivery of HRSDC training and employment programs, youth and child care support programs, disability programs, and business support programs. We do have a one-stop shop and, for example, we might be able to take a client in the door and talk to that client and find ways we could support their initiatives, their projects, from more than one perspective at a time. We might be able to put together some combination of equity and debt financing for their business start-up and also go across the hallway and find some support in terms of some training dollars for the person's staff—that sort of thing. Right at the ground level, that's the kind of thing we can do, and that's what it boils down to.

In 2008-09, Kakivak Association, in the training and employment department, if I'm not mistaken, supported almost 700 participants through the delivery of third-party programming—close to $3 million. A lot of that is support to individuals—student financial assistance type programs—but also assistance to, say, Arctic College to purchase a program so it can be delivered through the Arctic College here in Iqaluit or at the community education centres, that sort of thing. The tentacles are out everywhere, I guess. There's close integration with the Department of Education, through the training and employment department. There's integration and a close working relationship with CanNor now, previously INAC, in terms of business development and also with Aboriginal Business Canada, because we also provide third-party delivery on that.

I'm not sure if that answers your question completely, but I think it's an example.

[Greg Rickford, Conservative, Kenora, ON]

I wish there was more time to go further with that. It's worth pointing out that the participation of the college is essential with respect to the training, but I believe I'm out of time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

You mentioned, Mr. Cousins, that someone else might want to add something on Mr. Rickford's land use planning question.

Go ahead, Mr. Kaludjak, just very briefly.

[Paul Kaludjak]

Through the land claim agreement, we have what we call the Nunavut Planning Commission, which looks after the interests of our land and what goes on that land in the future. In terms of that, they have a mandate to redo their assessment of land, the purpose of Inuit-owned lands, every five or more years.

Right now, they're redoing those. We were told just recently, last week, at their annual general meeting, that work will be completed by 2011, which is a couple of years from now. That will give us a good indication of how much mining we can do, how much development we can do on Inuit-owned lands. Where it then comes into partaking in the development of that land, how much activity can we undertake overall, how much mining can we undertake, and how much development can the land take? I'm told all of those will be finalized by 2011.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Rickford, Mr. Kaludjak, and Mr. Cousins.

Now we'll go to our second round, beginning with Mr. Russell for five minutes.

[Todd Russell, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Good morning to each of you. It's good to see you again.

I want to concentrate on two primary areas. One is the fishing industry. I come from a coastal area, the coast of Labrador, and I know there are lots of partnerships and there is a lot of discussion and collaboration between the fishing interests in Nunavut and the fishing interests in Labrador—sometimes a little conflicting, but most of the time it's pretty cooperative. As you know, there's always a fight for quota when it comes out and everybody is going after that fish.

I'd like to get a sense of what your structure is like. When you say your fisheries are worth over $120 million and you get only 10% of it, that's not a very good return. I'm sure you want to do better than that. What's your vision for the development of the fisheries? I can only say, from a Labrador perspective on the coast, that even though we talk about mining sometimes, or in small part, forestry and tourism, without the fishery on the coast of Labrador I don't know where our communities would be.

Yes, part of it has been around the development of infrastructure such as small craft harbours and the supportive nature, and we're still looking for more to support the change in dynamics in the fishery. So I'd like to have a sense of that.

To Paul, in regard to devolution, when the land claim was originally signed and agreed to, was there a sense in the signatories' minds that something was going to change, 10 or 20 years down the road, that the territorial status might change? There could be a downloading of powers, more territorial powers, or even moving towards a provincial type of system. How does the land claim fit into that overall devolution process?

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, Mr. Russell, for that very good question.

In terms of the fishing, you understand that we want to partner with the other regions, such as Makkovik and Nunatsiavut, with the fishing strategy that we have. We do now partner with them, but we want to expand that as well. Jeff can elaborate more on the strategy side.

If you go to the beach over here, what do you see? There's a bunch of rocks at the shore, there's a dock there with a hoist, and that's pretty much it. When we have to launch our boats, we're forced to put our trucks in the salt water. Vehicles are not immune to salt water, as you know, and they get ruined right away. I've seen guys put their trucks halfway in the water, with the doors in the water, trying to launch their boats that way because of the inadequate facilities. It's worse in the smaller communities. If we had proper infrastructure in the communities, the fishing industry would be a lot better. That's why we'd rake in, from that $120 million, a little more in volume in terms of return. That's why we've been crying foul all the way. The revenue we could make is greatly lost because of a lack of facilities, and Jeff can elaborate on that.

In terms of devolution, we did sign a protocol with Chuck Strahl back in September of last year, agreeing to negotiate devolution within our territory. It's a three-party arrangement. It's supposed to be with direction from the land claims agreement and it's with the Nunavut government, the federal government, and ourselves. It's a protocol arrangement that will negotiate devolution prospects in terms of resources and ownership. I think we call it autonomy; you have direct control over those resources and negotiate them accordingly. We do our part in terms of the crown lands jointly with Inuit-owned lands.

The devolution talks are about to begin. We currently have negotiators ready to go. I believe those with the Nunavut government will need to be identified. I know that on the federal side they have appointed someone already; I think it's Paul Mayer, but I could be wrong. They have identified somebody to talk specifically about or negotiate devolution. That's about to begin.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Go ahead, Mr. Maurice.

[Jeffrey Maurice]

Thank you for your question, Mr. Russell.

For your information, we and the Government of Nunavut do have a joint fisheries strategy. In terms of our vision for the future, Nunavut would like to see somewhat of a balanced approach to developing our fisheries, both inshore and offshore. We don't want to develop one too much over the other. We recognize that the offshore fishery is probably more economically viable, but at the same time the development of our inshore fishery will create more immediate economic benefits. We want to see a balanced approach.

I think we've done quite a bit in terms of developing the offshore fishery, but I think our next step is developing the inshore, and we can't do that without infrastructure such as small craft harbours. We are making progress with the announcement from Pangnirtung last year, but there's still more work that needs to be done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Maurice, Mr. Kaludjak, and Mr. Russell.

We'll now go to the second questioner, Mr. Payne. I think he will split his time with Mr. Dreeshen.

Go ahead, Mr. Payne.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming today. It's nice to see you again, Mr. Kaludjak.

I apologize for having to sneak out. I had a bit of an emergency call to make and I missed part of your presentation. However, one of the areas that interests me, an area you briefly talked about, is HR development.

I'm not sure if it would be in conjunction with Mr. Cousins, but could you expand on what you saw as the need for HR development? In what areas would it take place, and how?

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, sir, for that question.

Through the land claims process we have article 23, which covers participation in employment within government and in meeting training needs within Nunavut through our involvement with the governments. At the outset, when the Nunavut land claims began in 1993, we had a target to split the territory as it is now, through article 4. We said at the time, in 1999, that we had a target of 85% Inuit content within the government in Nunavut. If the government is going to function, it needs to hire 85% Inuit content into the government system—both sides, federal and territorial.

We had those targets, but we realized in 1999 that we could not reach those targets, because we had just started setting up the government. We needed to start somewhere, and we said in 1999 that for now our target would be 50% Inuit content within the two governments. But our target down the road remains to be at 85% Inuit content within the two governments. We're sitting at 45%, I believe, with the Nunavut government, and at 33% or lower with the federal government; that is how much Inuit content we have reached.

Article 23 stipulates that training needs must also kick in to reach that human resources capacity; that the government must actively create a training strategy so that those levels can eventually be reached: 85% or better. This is something we have initiated. It has been a long haul to make them understand that there are targets. Those targets are pretty low right now. We're more or less halfway in the Nunavut government, and the number is growing really slowly. We want it to grow more quickly, but it's difficult, because people need to be trained. We do not have the skills level right at the start.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll need to leave a bit of time for Mr. Dreeshen as well, Mr. Kaludjak.

Thank you very much, Mr. Payne.

Go ahead, Mr. Dreeshen.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

It's nice to be able to meet with you gentlemen today.

I want to talk about the capital fund you spoke of earlier. Obviously, those who are handling that fund for the land trust have done extremely well in these economic times, having only lost that 8% to 9% in the fund.

I know that in other areas of the country construction costs have dropped perhaps 30%. Are you seeing the same type of thing occurring up here? Can you can give me a bit of an idea how that is working and perhaps also enlighten me somewhat on what the structure of the land trust is and whether or not you're able to take advantage of those kinds of savings, if they are indeed there?

[Paul Kaludjak]

Thank you, sir, for the question.

The Nunavut Trust is an organization created under the land claims agreement to look after the settlement money, which was a $1.14 billion settlement through the land claims agreement back in 1993. They take that money and invest it throughout and in whatever way around the world.

From the interest on these, we operate organizations. It's running, in round numbers, at anywhere from $40 million to $45 million, which we use to operate our organizations. Over the year it has taken quite a negative hit. They lost something like $150 million over the year because of the market crash and downfall. We were assured—last week, in fact—that those moneys would eventually be recovered, if the markets kept climbing back. We have that confidence level.

The moneys invested have what is like a lifetime mandate. We protect the land claims money so that our grandkids could eventually run it one day. We will not all be here 100 years down the road; they could take that money and use it, maybe differently from the way we do today.

We earmarked those moneys to go on forever. We have what we call a low-risk investment policy within the trust, so that they invest prudently. They don't put our money into high-risk, but into moderate-risk investmenst—that's what they have called it—so that we don't end up losing it along the way. We want to keep building it forever.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We'll have to leave it at that.

Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak and Mr. Dreeshen.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Gaudet.