Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2017

[William MacKay]

No, I don't think there is a non-balancing. As a territorial government or a federal government, we enter into these agreements knowingly restricting our legislative jurisdiction in order to bring certainty to the indigenous group, to ensure that their rights are officially recognized in a constitutional document.

In exchange for the benefit that the territorial government will get by having specific rights outlined in those agreements that the Denesuline have—we'll have that certainty—we are willing to restrict our legislative jurisdiction in that settlement area.

[Romeo Saganash, NDP, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

At the end of the same paragraph, you talk about the Nunavut government being “a separate party to the agreements and its consent be sought”. How do you explain, then, that you participated in these negotiations from 2001 to 2011 and then you withdrew, and came back recently? Is it related to what you talked about, the fact that the territorial governments have an evolving role in the territories?

[William MacKay]

Yes, I would say that's a big part of it. As you know, the territorial government has entered into a protocol with the federal government to negotiate devolution of lands and resources to the territorial government. That was a key point in time that made us realize that we had to have a little more of a role, a bigger role, in those negotiations, and that was part of the reason we weren't participating.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Thank you.

The questioning goes to MP Anandasangaree.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will be sharing my time with MP Tootoo toward the end.

Thank you to the panel.

Welcome back, President Obed, and thank you for educating us on an ongoing basis on many of the issues since the first meetings. I want to talk to you about the declaration that was signed with respect to the Inuit Nunangat, and what you envision that declaration to be in terms of implementation. I know it's somewhat abstract, whether we're looking at it as a form of self-government or a regional self-governance authority or just the current state of four different jurisdictions that will have, as you mentioned, one common homogeneous policy with respect to the Inuit population.

[Natan Obed]

The idea that there is an Inuit democracy and it stands beside the Canadian democracy is still one that we're trying to educate Canadians about, and even to build ourselves. The democracy that we have is founded on land claim agreements and the governance models that we've created to implement those land claim agreements. Our four land claim presidents are elected from all eligible beneficiaries over a certain age in each one of the four jurisdictions. Then those four presidents sit on the board of directors for ITK and give me my mandate and my ongoing direction as to the national interests of Canadian Inuit. They also do the same for our Inuit Circumpolar Council.

From the international level to the community level, we have an unbroken chain of democracy in which we are self-determining our future. The Inuit-crown partnership and the declaration that was signed imagines that we, as Inuit, will have priority areas, as will the federal government. Each year we will create a committee that then would decide what our shared priorities are within that particular year and then go about achieving those shared priorities through action. We don't see this as a partisan effort, we see this as a permanent mechanism that we expect we will work with the federal government on from this time forward. The idea is that we get down to practical work and that we respect each other's rights within the process and the role that we play within Confederation and within providing services and supports for Inuit within Inuit Nunangat.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Just so I'm clear, now we have two territories, Nunavut and NWT. They're actual governments. For example, your children will be studying in Nunavut under the Nunavut territorial system. How does that interplay with the vision of, say, improving education for children, and does that need to include a third player as part of the declaration?

[Natan Obed]

Each jurisdiction has a different relationship with Inuit, as per land claim agreements, and it is up to Inuit to decide how to create those partnerships. The federal government has a very clear role in all of this. Its role, its direct relationship with Inuit, is side by side with the role that the federal government has in providing equity for all Canadians and ensuring service delivery in those essential features of health care, education, and housing—the fundamental pillars of a just society.

We're saying it's more complicated than that, and with service delivery there's a role that Inuit can play. It also does not preclude Inuit from taking over public government responsibilities. It imagines that we have a role to play in our communities and for our lives about how those services are offered and delivered, and the relationships that happen before those services hit the ground.

[Gary Anandasangaree, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge Park, ON]

Thank you to both.

I'd like to yield the rest of my time to MP Tootoo.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

MP Tootoo, two minutes.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a few questions, but maybe I'll start off with either Ms. Woodley or Mr. MacKay.

You talked about the overlap agreement with the Denesuline. I vividly recall that a memorandum of understanding was reached between Canada and Nunavut in 2016 that ensured that the jurisdiction of the Government of Nunavut couldn't be altered, and that the Government of Nunavut wouldn't incur any financial obligations through any amendment to those final agreements and implementation plans without its consent.

It seems to me a no-brainer that the Government of Nunavut would be a signatory to those agreements. Can I get your thoughts on that?

[William MacKay]

The MOU was signed to secure a role for the territorial government, a role that we think is necessary for the successful conclusion and implementation of those agreements. To us, you can't have a successful agreement in Nunavut unless the territorial government of Nunavut is signatory to the agreement. That's why we wanted to conclude that MOU.

We don't think there's that much question about that, but we did want to appear here just to make the general point that territorial governments need to be part of these agreements.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

You have 30 seconds left.

[Hunter Tootoo, Independent, Nunavut, NU]

I'll go quickly to Natan, and then I hope to get another chance to go back to the GN.

You mentioned the Inuit-crown partnership committee.

I think it's about time, but since that's been created, what kind of real progress are we seeing? What do you envision there?

[Natan Obed]

It has been a rocky start, but we are getting there. I think the committee process is now more broadly understood than it was in the beginning. I think the Prime Minister has to own this process in the large sense, but then I think we will also see things like the elimination of TB, or housing investments, or specific actions that come out of this Inuit-crown process that will then show the utility for both sides for this new mechanism.

[The Chair, Liberal, MaryAnn Mihychuk]

Our final round of questioning will go to MP Viersen.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to our guests for being here today.

Natan, you represent five different groups. Is that correct?

[Natan Obed]

I represent four land claim regions.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

How did the negotiation between those groups go, as to where the lines between them ended up? We looked at B.C., and 130% of the province's land mass has been claimed, so that means there are significant overlaps. How did it work in your area where they negotiated these specific claims?

[Natan Obed]

It's a fascinating question. I think from the first time that the Inuit met together and mobilized in the early 1970s, there wasn't any preconceived notion of what would happen, or even this idea that there were land claims that were going to happen. This was pre the Calder decision.

It happened mostly in relation to economic development and the threat of economic development projects that would need to be at least rebutted by the assertation of rights within a specific area. That's why, in 1975, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement happened. It was pushed along by Hydro-Québec and the developments there. It was the same thing in the west and the idea of oil and gas pipelines in Mackenzie Valley. In many cases, our path toward the four Inuit regions flowed through economic certainty for Canada and the need for jurisdictions to develop resources in Inuit regions.

There are other stories as well. I think there are remarkable, interesting, and fascinating stories behind where the boundaries are and why they're not, but in general, the principle of certainty, and also the threat of economic development without consultation or agreement with Inuit, drove a lot of the finalization of our land claim agreements.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Turning to the Government of Nunavut, I have a similar take on the divisions or the lines being negotiated, which seems to have gone fairly amicably. Have there been any discussions since the lines have been...or is there an ongoing discussion on who has jurisdiction in some of these areas?

[William MacKay]

I don't think, at least for the Government of Nunavut, there has been any discussion about changing the boundaries of that.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

So that seems to be set and we're going forward with that.

[William MacKay]

The Nunavut settlement area, as Natan mentioned, is a constitutionally protected area, and then the territory of Nunavut is somewhat co-extensive with that, but it's defined by the Nunavut Act. If you want a take-away from that, the Nunavut Act is a federal act and can be amended, so I guess the boundaries of Nunavut could probably be changed a little easier than the Nunavut settlement area, which would require an amendment of land claims, but they're pretty set.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

How does land ownership within the territory work? Can I go up there and buy a piece of land?