Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2010

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, witnesses, committee members and guests.

This is the seventeenth meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development. On the agenda, we have the study on Northern Territories Economic Development: Barriers and Solutions.

This afternoon we're welcoming three different organizations to our continuing study on barriers and solutions faced for the economic development of Canada's north. Under the category of northern regulatory bodies, we welcome Thomas Kabloona, chairman, and Dionne Filiatrault, the executive director from the Nunavut Water Board. We also have Stephanie Autut, the executive director from the Nunavut Impact Review Board. We also welcome Violet Ford, the executive council member and vice-president on international affairs for the Inuit Circumpolar Council. I see we also have Mr. Chester Reimer, who is also with the Inuit Circumpolar Council.

It's great to have you with us.

The way this works, we begin with ten minutes each for each presentation. We'll do that in the order as we have it in our agenda here today.

We're going to have a joint opening presentation both from the Water Board and the Impact Review Board. That will be ten minutes. Then we'll go to the Circumpolar Council for the second ten minutes. After that we'll go to questions from members.

We'll begin with the regulators. Who would like to lead off? Mr. Kabloona, would you like to go ahead?

We're delighted to have you here, sir. Go ahead.

[Thomas Kabloona, Chairman, Nunavut Water Board]

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

My name is Thomas Kabloona. I am the chair of the Nunavut Water Board and I live in Baker Lake, Nunavut.

With me today are Dionne Filiatrault, executive director of the Nunavut Water Board, located in Gjoa Haven, Nunavut; and Stephanie Autut, executive director of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, located in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut.

Lucassie Arragutainaq, chair of the Nunavut Impact Review Board, asked that I express his regrets to you. He is unable to attend today, as he is on medical leave.

First of all, thank you for the invitation to speak with you today.

We are presenting jointly, as the boards have common views on the barriers and solutions to economic development in Nunavut. Today we would like to review the main points of our written brief and answer any questions you may have.

First, I would like to tell you about the work of the boards and about Nunavut. The Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Water Board are institutions of public government created by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, or NLCA.

NIRB's mandate encompasses the environmental impact assessment of proposed development projects and the monitoring of approved development projects. The primary objective of the board is to protect and promote the existing and future well-being of the residents and communities and to protect the ecosystemic integrity of the Nunavut settlement area, while taking into account the well-being of residents of Canada outside the Nunavut settlement area.

NIRB is a safeguard to ensure that environmentally, socially, economically responsible developments occur in the Nunavut settlement area, which we will refer to generally in our presentation as Nunavut.

The water board, under the authority of article 13 of the NLCA, as well as the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, then goes to work to license the use of fresh water in Nunavut and deposits of waste that may enter into these waters.

The objectives of the water board are to provide for the conservation and utilization of fresh water in Nunavut in a manner that will provide for the optimum benefit for those waters for residents of Nunavut in particular and Canadians in general.

Nunavut is unique. It is a vast territory, with 26,000 people living in 28 communities widely scattered across two million square kilometres. Communities are accessible only by air and by sea. Our language, Inuktitut, is spoken by 80% of the population. Half of the population is under the age of 21. Many do not hold high school certificates. The unemployment rate is 20%.

The result is that in tiny hamlets with limited capacity, narrow labour markets and limited employment opportunities leave many Inuit dependent on the land and water to fulfill their needs.

This puts into context why the NLCA provides the right for Inuit to participate in decision making concerning the use, management, and conservation of land, water, and resources.

The boards are also required, to the extent consistent with the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness, to emphasize flexibility and informality, giving due regard and weight to the traditions of Inuit oral communication in decision-making. Working in three official languages to ensure a process that respects oral traditions creates unique challenges.

Both boards rely on consultation with all levels of community and governments to carry out our work, and the efficiency of the process is affected by the capacity issues realized on all these levels.

The reality in Nunavut is that the people and communities to engage in the regulatory process are limited. With this background in mind, I hope you will understand when I say that while the boards fully support the government's vision of a new north that realizes the full socio-economic potential and secures its future for the benefit of all Canadians, we do so with a cautious eye to the challenges that increased economic activity will bring.

I will ask Stephanie and Dionne to speak more specifically to the barriers and the solutions.

[Stephanie Autut, Executive Director, Nunavut Impact Review Board]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

As Thomas said in introducing me earlier, I am Stephanie Autut, executive director for the Nunavut Impact Review Board. Before I talk about specific issues and recommendations, I want to follow up on Chairman Kabloona's comments about Nunavut.

It is important to remember that while there are similarities between the regulatory regimes in the Northwest Territories and in Nunavut, there are also important differences. In particular, NIRB and the water board were formed and operate pursuant to a single land claims agreement. Currently, in the Northwest Territories there are both settled and unsettled land claims and multiple regional boards carrying out impact assessment and regulating the use of water. The boards agree that without due care and attention, there is a risk that the existing regulatory processes in Nunavut may create barriers to economic development.

We are in a unique position to assess potential bottlenecks and implement solutions. As set out in our written brief, we have identified four barriers that we hope you will consider in your deliberations: the lack of a land-use plan or plans for a significant part of Nunavut; delays in board member appointments; funding constraints; and local, territorial, and federal government capacity.

In the absence of land-use plans for each region of Nunavut, there is currently no single entry point or “one window” into Nunavut's regulatory system. This can result in delays, lack of consistency, and uncertainty about the regulatory process for applicants and industry. Currently, where land-use plans are not in place, coordination efforts of the boards and the impact assessment process must fill that gap.

Implementing land-use plans for Nunavut will increase regulatory certainty and consistency by clearly defining where development is appropriate and under what conditions at the start of the process. These plans enable industry and other land users to strategically plan their investment in Nunavut and put forward project proposals that respect Inuit values.

We appreciate that land-use planning is a priority. However, there is a risk that the single Nunavut-wide land-use plan that is being proposed will not provide the level of detail necessary for decisions to be made at a local and regional level.

If that is the case, it will effectively push planning decisions and the related community consultation back into the impact assessment process. This risk can be minimized by ensuring full public consultation and ongoing coordination and cooperation between the boards and the Nunavut Planning Commission from the earliest stages of the planning process.

Accordingly, the boards recommend that the process to develop land-use plans be made available, with early notice to all affected parties and the general public of opportunities for input that reflect the appropriate levels of consultation. We recommend that a consultation record be maintained and priority be given to the completion of regional or sub-plans, with sufficient detail to guide development in areas facing the greatest development pressure, and that prioritization should include firm timelines for completion and the allocation of the resources necessary to complete the task.

Moving from land-use planning to impact assessment to date, article 12 of the NLCA has provided NIRB with a very workable framework for carrying out impact assessment. That may explain why it has taken some time to develop implementing legislation for article 12. Over the past four years, NIRB has actively participated in the development of a new act respecting land-use planning and the impact assessment of project proposals in Nunavut.

The draft Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act, given first reading in the House yesterday—NUPPAA, for short—includes timelines for decisions, increased consultation with industry and others, new language requirements, and new enforcement and reporting provisions.

The draft legislation will create the one-window approach that is currently lacking; however, this does not eliminate the need for the Nunavut institutions to continue to work together. Rather, it is increasingly important in preparation for the law coming into force.

Additional resources will be required for the boards to participate in this implementation planning and in equipping the organizations to meet new requirements and timelines. It will be essential for the Nunavut Planning Commission, as the single window into the Nunavut regulatory regime, to access the expertise held within these organizations in order to fully understand the impact assessment and regulatory processes that occur.

I also want to discuss one of the most significant ongoing challenges facing the boards, which are delays in the appointment of board members. This delay can result in a loss of quorum. The boards rely on board members to make the decisions required to fulfill their respective mandates.

The members of the board are appointed by the minister on nomination by Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Government of Nunavut, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. While there has recently been some improvement in appointments, the boards remain very concerned that there will be a disruption in service if nominations and/or appointments are not made in a timely manner. Furthermore, there is a significant training period required for new members, and there is limited funding and resources to provide training.

Accordingly, the boards recommend that by legislation or amendment to the NLCA, the following be implemented: that transitional provisions be made to restore the staggering of terms of appointments for members, consistent with the initial appointments as set out in section 12.2.7 of the NLCA, with future appointments to be made only to fill the balance of the term of the predecessor; that each chairman be given the authority, in defined circumstances, to extend the term of a member for expired appointments until new appointments are made; and that except in exceptional circumstances, all new appointments be made to each board once annually and resources be provided for training of new board members.

Dionne will cover our last two points.

[Dionne Filiatrault, Executive Director, Nunavut Water Board]

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.

As Thomas introduced me earlier, my name is Dionne Filiatrault. I'm the executive director for the Nunavut Water Board. I'm speaking to you today about the board's funding constraints. Given the vast territory, the obligation to hold hearings in communities most directly affected, working in three languages, and the limited capacity of people and communities to engage in the regulatory process, the cost of fulfilling the mandate of the boards is high.

In recent years there is clearly an increased emphasis being placed on economic development in the north. The Government of Canada has committed billions of dollars to Canada's northern strategy, yet the boards have not been informed of parallel increases in the funding to respond to this increased development. To be effective, the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the water board must have adequate financial and administrative resources to hire, train, and retain qualified staff and to ensure that the necessary systems are developed to communicate requirements and track a wide range of project proposals and related applications.

The reality for both boards is that there has not been a long-term funding contract in place since 2003. With the exception of supplemental core budget increases in 2007, the boards are operating under the 1993 funding allocations. The work of the boards is project-driven. In order to fund core staff needed as a result of growth, the boards have cut out basics necessary to maintain the organization.

As an example, for the Nunavut Impact Review Board, there has been no core funding available to fund non-beneficiary board and staff professional development in over a decade. All beneficiary training has been funded through outside sources, which is administratively complex and uncertain. Both boards are committed to hiring and training Inuit beneficiaries, with more than 50% of the employees in this category. Fulfilling this part of the Nunavut land claim agreement mandate has been possible only because of training resources provided by the Nunavut Implementation Training Committee, NITC. The NITC was funded through a single one-time grant negotiated as part of the NLCA. In April 2010 the boards were advised by NITC that unless new funding could be negotiated, as was expected in 2003, all training programs would be discontinued within two years. This will severely constrain the boards in their efforts to train Inuit beneficiaries, particularly for senior positions within the organization.

If economic development potential in the north is a key objective of the federal government, it is the board's view that equal measures to promote and support the regulatory regimes are required to effectively and efficiently fulfill the commitments made in the Nunavut land claims agreement.

The boards rely on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for the administration of core funding and funding for public hearings. The boards are taking active steps with the Nunavut implementation branch of INAC to eliminate existing roadblocks in the funding process. Recommendations from the boards to remove funding barriers include completion of negotiations for a ten-year funding program, including streamlining and clarifying core and public hearing activities that are eligible for funding; improving communication and reporting systems, including increased consistency and training for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada personnel assigned to work with the boards on funding; establishing an effective procedure for future funding negotiations; and assessing long-term cost advantages of new initiatives to streamline processes and provide mechanisms for early funding when long-term advantages support the change.

You should know that in parallel, the boards are actively working to improve internal processes and coordinate impact assessment and the water licensing processes. Together, and with input from a broad range of stakeholders, including industry, the boards have developed a detailed coordinated process framework to address requests from proponents to proceed with the impact review and water licensing in a coordinated manner. Both boards are also impacted by resource constraints in federal and territorial departments and agencies and at the community government level.

The boards rely on the participation of all levels of government. Further, the water licensing regime relies on Indian and Northern Affairs Canada to carry out inspections and enforce water licences. There are currently six inspectors, three for land and three for water, for 28 communities and developments spread across 22 million square kilometres.

The new legislation that Stephanie spoke about earlier contemplates further enforcement responsibilities for Indian and Northern Affairs, making increased resources even more critical.

In light of serious compliance issues with municipal licences, the Nunavut Water Board staff recently hosted a series of workshops for all of the parties involved. However, it is clear to the boards that compliance requires additional resources to support essential community infrastructure. Accordingly, the boards recommend a review of federal and territorial resources available and required to fulfill the NLCA functions and reduce barriers to development in the north. The boards also encourage INAC to give attention to the impact its decision-making processes have on the overall timelines for impact assessment and water licensing in Nunavut.

Of significance, the Nunavut Water Board is also actively engaged with INAC, the Government of Nunavut, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated in the development of water regulations for Nunavut. This includes a mechanism to simplify the approval requirements for minor use projects. Ultimately, the goals of water regulations developed specifically for Nunavut are to address deficiencies in the application of the current regulations and provide increased clarity to the water licensing process. Operationally and administratively, the regulations are a good step towards improving the regulatory system in Nunavut, in that they provide clarity and are understandable, consistent, and enforceable.

Moving forward, the NIRB and the water board recommend that they be fully engaged in the implementation planning for new land use planning and impact assessment legislation and water regulations, and that we be adequately resourced to ensure the organizations and systems are in place to effectively and efficiently implement the new requirements prior to the new laws coming into force.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[Thomas Kabloona]

Thank you, Stephanie and Dionne.

In closing, as I stated at the start of this presentation, Nunavut is unique. It is our hope that you will consider these barriers to economic development in the north and our related recommendations in your deliberations.

On behalf of the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Impact Review Board, thank you, Mr. Chairman and committee members, for the opportunity to speak with you today. We are pleased to answer any questions you may have for us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much.

Members will know that we received in advance, I think in both official languages, your very thorough presentation. I know you did your best, and you were right on time, by the way, between both of you. You must have that very well rehearsed. Thank you for a very thorough brief.

Now we'll invite Ms. Ford and Mr. Reimer. I presume Ms. Ford will lead off. We'll hear your presentation now, and then after that we'll go to questions from members.

Ms. Ford, go ahead.

[Violet Ford, Executive Council Member, Vice-President on International Affairs, Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to thank the committee chair and members for having invited the Inuit Circumpolar Council to present some of our ideas on how to meet the economic development challenges of northern Canada.

ICC is an organization that represents the Inuit living in Russia, Alaska, Canada, and Greenland. The ICC Canada office represents Canadian Inuit on matters of international importance, while at the same time serving as a two-way conduit of ideas and information flow between Canadian Inuit and other Inuit. ICC celebrates the unity of Inuit as one people, yet we each have a particular identification with the country we live in.

I am assuming, since ICC was invited to be a witness here at this very important panel, that the committee wishes us to speak of the challenges and opportunities of economic development that have an international dimension.

While so much can be done on developing our northern, and especially our Inuit economic activities that are strictly domestic, I would like to put forward the idea that Canada is missing the boat on something that is a reality for ICC every day, and that is the east-west and west-east thinking that has to happen at this level as well, and as an extension, east-west and west-east Arctic trade.

Given that there is a lot to be done in a strictly domestic market environment, and given that international trade for Canada generally is thought of as north-south, especially with our American neighbours, it may take a bit of a paradigm shift for some of the members here to think about the Canadian Arctic as having more than a “south” to fly to or a “south” to trade with or a “south” from which to procure goods. By thinking east-west and west-east in the Arctic, as ICC is mandated to do, Canadian Inuit and indeed all Canadians may be able to capitalize on new opportunities that have previously been left dormant.

Now, the Inuit Circumpolar Council is not an economic development body, but we do have longstanding relations with not only Inuit outside of Canada but with Nordic countries to the east and with the Russian Federation as a whole to the west. Along with the federal government’s assistance and possible partnerships, I believe ICC Canada and the federal government can do much for economic development in northern regions.

Much remains to be explored, Mr. Chair and committee members, and I would suggest that as a first order of business a partnership might do a complete inventory of what is already being done and then of what might be done in the future. While we would not preclude any and all Canadians from participating in this newer economy, it would be in ICC Canada’s interest and, given the focus of this committee, I would imagine the members’ interest as well, to find ways of generating employment and income for Inuit individuals and corporations.

Much could be done, Mr. Chair, in the fishing and the shrimp industry, for example. In our neighbouring Greenland, shrimp is a major export, and for Greenland Inuit this is not only a source of employment, but for its self-government it is a source of foreign revenue. Most of this shrimp, as well as most of Greenland's trade, goes to or from the EU and Denmark in particular, even though we are just next door. Inuit in Canada also have an interest in the fishing industry, as you know, and we need to explore ways in which we can work together with Greenlanders on this.

Another barrier, Mr. Chair and committee members, that I'd like to draw your attention to and that you've heard much about is the EU seal ban. This seal ban is not only a huge barrier to our own economic development from region to region, but it also interferes with the economic development goals set under our Inuit Land Claims Agreements. This EU seal ban is a result of the lobbying of many environmental and animal rights groups who hold different values and beliefs from those of the Inuit. The relationship that we have with the environment is totally different from that of those animal rights people.

To move on to the Russian market, while many Canadian corporations are in the northern parts of this vast country building houses, drilling for oil, and mining, often reportedly in an unsustainable way, I think Canadian Inuit individuals and corporations could be involved more.

We have much to offer, not necessarily in the large-scale projects that Canada supports, but in offering advice on indigenous governance, for example, in environmental cleanup, something the Inuit in Canada have a lot of experience with. Many committee members may not know that ICC Canada, along with the assistance of CIDA, headed an eight-year project on indigenous institution-building a few years after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not only did we assist in the building up of the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the far north of Russia, ICC was the executing agency with the assistance of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada.

While this project was aimed at the whole of the Russian north, ICC Canada also works closely with our own people, the Inuit of Chukotka, just across the Bering Strait. While they have lived in poverty for some time, I believe that with greater assistance from the Canadian government, ICC Canada can serve again as an agent to help them get back on their feet. The work we could do there may also help address the east-west and west-east trade potential. And what about Alaska? While Inuit in Alaska certainly live in much better conditions than our Russian cousins, we could do more with our close neighbours to the west.

While the focus of my presentation here today is on the east-west and the west-east, I would like to conclude by saying that other broader international opportunities exist. ICC Canada and other Canadian Inuit have much experience in different areas of the world. We were asked by indigenous leaders of Belize, for example, to help set up training centres there to deal with a myriad of issues that our indigenous reality and experience could do.

However, Mr. Chair, not all economic relations are good, as the members here know and as we as indigenous peoples know. I won’t go into the centuries of exploitation that we have suffered at the hands of colonizers and their industries. You may know of these issues and stories. But I would like to share with you some of the work that ICC Canada has done in the area of access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources. Increasingly, others want access to our genetic resources, which are on Inuit lands, and researchers, including pharmaceutical companies, universities, and others, are accessing these types of resources as we speak. As an aside, there are now 29 companies worldwide that are carrying out research and now moving into the development stage on Arctic genetic resources. We have no idea where those companies are or what genetic resources they are taking from Inuit lands. This in itself is interfering with our own potential to become economically self-reliant due to the marketing of those genetic resources.

ICC has been heavily involved in a new international legal regime pertaining to this issue and ICC has been part of Canada's official government delegation negotiating this new treaty with other countries under the Convention on Biological Diversity process. We have discovered that this research in May also advanced our own economic goals, as we have found out the information from some of our own land claims regions on these very genetic resources.

I would urge this committee to help ICC explore these ideas further in a formal way.

There is one more barrier than I would like to mention, Mr. Chair, and that is intellectual property rights. Traditional knowledge is now being taken by researchers and being published in journals. There is also the fashion industry. Donna Karan's fashion industry is taking the designs of Inuit women's fashions and others and we have no say in this. This interferes with our own ability to market Inuit women's parkas, for example, because there have already been products put on the market by such large fashion designers as Donna Karan.

As I mentioned, we are not an economic development agency, but we could facilitate the development of one, for example, that focuses on the east-west dimension that I have shared with you today and on other dimensions as well.

I hope this has been of some use in your important work. Nakurmiik.

Chester Reimer, who is ICC's senior policy adviser, and I would be happy to take any questions the committee may have. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you very much, Ms. Ford. I would also say thank you for your brief, which was circulated to the committee here as well and which you've spoken from this afternoon.

Now we will move to the time when members can ask questions.

We will start with Mr. Bagnell. You have seven minutes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for coming. This is very helpful. I know you've come a long way. This is very helpful for our study. Nakurmiik.

The problems you're having that are slowing you down on the boards are something I've heard about right across the Northwest Territories and Nunavut.

First of all, let's start on the delays in appointments. I've heard of delays of one, two, three, four months and longer than that, especially when someone else is doing the appointing. The federal minister just appoints someone who's already selected by the Nunavut government or by someone else who selects people.

Are you seeing that both in your board and in other boards?

[Stephanie Autut]

Thank you for that question.

If I understood correctly, is it whether we are seeing the delays in all of the appointing bodies, or just...?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Yes, in your boards and in other ones, if you see it in other ones too.

[Stephanie Autut]

I can speak to the planning commission, the water board, and NIRB. I'll speak to NIRB first.

This is my tenth year with the board. For the first time in ten years we officially have a full board, as of three to six months ago. We went for the first nine years of my tenure with the board dealing with quorum issues on many occasions. I know the water board has also had to address the quorum matter, having basically come to a halt in terms of decision making, because that can only be done by the board members. The staff can be doing all the work they can be doing, but without the membership being there to make the decisions, essentially the work comes to a standstill.

I believe the membership of both the commission and the water board is fully appointed by Indian and Northern Affairs. With respect to the Nunavut Impact Review Board, we have two seats that are appointed directly by the Government of Nunavut. In some ways that has saved us a little bit, because that membership seems to come in on a more timely basis. But appointments have been an ongoing issue since the first term of the memberships came to an end after the first three to four years.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

There seems to be a similar problem right across the north. In my opinion, we should be further ahead in land use planning.

Your comment is interesting. The minister tabled, as you said, the NUPPA Act this week, which is great. He said it's done with consultation with Nunavut and everyone, so it should be fine.

You talked about needing regional, local plans. Does this bill allow for that, or does it direct the “one big plan” that you're trying to get away from?

[Stephanie Autut]

It's my understanding that ultimately it allows for both. The drive right now is to have a Nunavut-wide plan in place first. The commission will then have the ability, as I understand it, to develop sub-plans as needed, if they choose to do so later.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So that's not a problem. You have the option and you can go ahead that way with the sub-plans.

[Stephanie Autut]

That's my understanding, yes.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Okay, that's good.

Did I hear you correctly that you've been at the same level of funding since 1993, which is, with huge inflation, long ago?

[Stephanie Autut]

Yes, the implementation contract was signed off in 1993 for a ten-year block of funding to take us through to 2003. We started with that base figure, and every year they would adjust it with the FIDDIPI factor.

The contract that was to then be in place in 2003 has not yet been finalized. There's been no completion to those negotiations to re-evaluate and re-establish the new benchmark for funding for the next ten-year block.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

So we're in 2010, and you've been negotiating for seven years?

[Stephanie Autut]

We were offered a seat at the table one time, back in 2001, to give a sort of overview of a ten-year work plan and what our budget should look like. We were allowed one other opportunity to update it two years later. There was a minor adjustment, in the case of NIRB in the amount of $354,000, and that has been the only adjustment to our funding since 1993, other than the annual FIDDIPI increase.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Ford, one of the barriers you mentioned—or opportunities, I guess—is in fishing. I'd like to ask about two potential barriers. There was a study done a few years ago that recommended six small boat harbours in Nunavut, which we actually promised in our last campaign. Would those harbours help the fishing fleet to be more competitive, like Greenland's?

My second question is this. My understanding is that there was some problem with adjacency quotas being given to the south that Nunavut people would rather have more of, quicker.

Can you answer either of those questions?

[Violet Ford]

I'm sorry, I don't have the information in front of me to answer those two very detailed questions. It requires a lot of detail to be able to answer them, but what we can do is submit this information to you at a later time.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Sure, if you'd send it to the clerk, that would be great.

You brought up fishing as an opportunity. Is there anything you're aware of right now that we could do to help?

[Chester Reimer, Representative, Inuit Circumpolar Council (Canada)]

I can answer that to some degree.

Fishing was given as an example. it is important that the market that Greenland has to Europe... For example, there are opportunities that we have discussed in terms of Inuit-to-Inuit negotiations and perhaps cooperation in bringing Canadian fish and other products, for that matter, through the Inuit gateway, you might say.

Greenland used to be part of the European Union, but in the early to mid-1980s it withdrew, which is a bit of an anomaly. It would be like Prince Edward Island withdrawing from NAFTA, in a way. But they still have strong relations with Denmark but also with the Europeans through fishing agreements and that kind of thing. We're offering a way for both ways: piggybacking maybe onto the Greenland Inuit trade to Europe, and in reverse buying things from or selling things to them as well. That's all we meant.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Thank you, Mr. Bagnell.

Just before we go to our next question, Ms. Autut, you used a term “FIDDIPI”. Could you tell us what that is? Is it an annual inflationary index of some sort?