National Defence Committee on Oct. 1st, 2009

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Merci, monsieur le président.

I have a great deal of interest in the concept, and the significance of the concept, “the honour of the Crown”. I noticed that you mentioned it at the top of your remarks.

This is basically an open-ended question: how does your community interpret and see the concept of the honour of the crown being applied currently; how would it want to see it applied; and does it also carry beyond the borders of Canada?

[Mary Simon]

In terms of crossing the boundaries of Canada, no, we work within Canada, as Canadian Inuit. We have relationships that we're building with other Inuit globally on issues such as the environment and education, but we work within the perimeters of Canada.

In terms of the honour of the crown, maybe John can answer this in a more fulsome way, but the honour of the crown is very relevant to Inuit. We have signed these land claims agreements that are constitutionally protected. They are very comprehensive land claims agreements. They're signed by the crown, and we expect them to be implemented in a fashion that will be useful not only for the governments but for the people as well. So the honour of the crown and the fiduciary responsibility to Inuit is very important to us and very valid.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Now I will give the floor to Monsieur Bachand.

You have seven minutes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would like to welcome Mary Simon, who was an excellent ambassador to Denmark. Might I add that I had the pleasure of having dinner with her during one of my visits to Denmark.

Ms. Simon, I understand that you represent all of Canada's Inuit. Is that correct?

[Mary Simon]

Yes.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay. You talked about land claim regulations, referring to Inuvialuit in the west, Nunavut and Nunavik. What is the name of the Inuit region in Labrador?

[Mary Simon]

It is Nunatsiavut.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Okay.

In your presentation, you also mentioned the importance of the Northern Strategy. You know that Canada has launched a strategy representing a significant investment. The Bloc Québécois recognizes that there is little flexibility and that no discussion of Arctic sovereignty can take place without Inuit at the table. That is extremely important in our view. We have repeatedly made that clear in our policies and in open letters that we have written. We recognize that you are a people. You are recognized as a people in the Canadian Constitution, for that matter.

I would like to hear your opinion, as someone who represents all Inuit, including those in Nunavik in Quebec. The seven Inuit villages north of 60, in Nunavik, are not included in the Northern Strategy and are therefore not eligible for federal assistance.

What are your thoughts on that? Have Nunavik and the province of Quebec approached you to force the federal government to include them?

In my opinion, they have a strategic position in the north. Vessels coming in from the Atlantic Ocean have to use the Hudson Strait. Quebec considers it a very serious injustice that they are not represented.

Can you tell us whether Nunavik has raised the matter with you? On your end, have you brought the matter to the attention of the federal government to correct this injustice?

[Mary Simon]

Thank you very much for your question. That is a very important question for ITK, because we represent the four regions, which include Nunavik and Nunatsiavut.

When the strategy was announced, we did write to the Prime Minister and to Minister Strahl about the need to be comprehensive in terms of encompassing all Inuit regions. Whether or not we live below the 55th parallel or the 60th parallel, we face the same living conditions as people face above the 60th parallel, so it's necessary for us to work together as Inuit, first of all. We don't always deal with these jurisdictional issues when we're looking at the bigger picture, because we are one people.

We have asked the Prime Minister, and when I met with him in Iqaluit, I also raised that issue with him. We haven't had a response as to whether Nunavik and Nunatsiavut are going to be included. The only thing that has been said, really, when the map was published, is that they said they were going to fix the map. I'm not sure whether that includes the fact that they're going to change the policy to include Nunavik and Nunatsiavut in the strategy itself. We haven't received any confirmation of that, but our position is that it should. It needs to include the four regions.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

If I understand you correctly, the Inuit region in Labrador or Newfoundland is not included in the Northern Strategy either. Only Nunavut and Inuvialuit are included in the strategy.

Do you see that as an injustice for these Inuit communities? Should they receive compensation and be included in the Northern Strategy?

[Mary Simon]

Yes, they should be included in the entire strategy, because as I said, we face the same challenges as other Inuit do in the territories. This strategy is really devoted to the two territories. It's devoted to Nunavut and the Northwest Territories, which includes the Inuvialuit region. But it excludes Nunavik, which is in the province of Quebec—the tip north of the 55th parallel—except it's interesting to note that some of those communities in Nunavik are above that latitude.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Exactly.

[Mary Simon]

So we don't even know how that's going to be addressed. In Nunatsiavut, in northern Labrador, they are also within the province of Newfoundland and Labrador, so it's not included either. Our position is that we want those regions to be included.

John is going to say a couple of words.

[John Merritt, Senior Policy Advisor, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami]

Just a supplementary piece of information. It's my understanding that last year the National Assembly of Quebec adopted a resolution urging the Government of Canada to include Nunavik in the strategy, and both Makivik and ITK welcomed that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

You have 15 seconds left, Mr. Bachand.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I would just like to thank you, Ms. Simon, for the excellent job you are doing. I am very happy to see that you are also protecting the people of Nunavik and Labrador in an effort to include them in the Northern Strategy. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Bachand.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Harris.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

And welcome to you, Mary Simon. I'm very glad you're here. It was I who urged the committee to bring you here, and I'm very proud to tell my fellow colleagues that you hail from Nunatsiavut, the translation of which, as I understand it, is “our beautiful land”. Thank you for coming, and thank you for all the work you do.

I find it disconcerting as a Canadian, knowing the effort and the length of time that goes into land claims negotiations—I know it was over 30 years in the case of Nunatsiavut—that you end up having to sue the government to implement them. I know what it takes for people to sign this kind of agreement, because it is a permanent decision. I'm extremely disheartened to know that has happened, and also that the government has failed—one of the few countries in the world that has failed—to sign on to the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It makes it very hard to see a partnership coming under these circumstances.

Is the failure to sign the UN declaration meaningful in practical ways, other than the symbolic importance? Does that have any effect on the rights of the Inuit, or is it something that's more important from a recognition effect?

[Mary Simon]

I think I'll let John answer part of that question, but I will start by saying it's more than symbolic. It has had the effect, where countries have signed, of starting to help shape the domestic policies within those countries. Countries that have embraced it are using it as a standard-setting process within their borders, so it's a very useful tool.

In regard to the international context, I think John is probably more able to answer that question, because it has some legal connotations to it.

[John Merritt]

Thank you, sir.

ITK found the arguments that Canada put forward in the run-up to the adoption of the declaration quite curious, because in the run-up to the votes in New York in September 2007 there appeared to be an argument that adoption of the declaration would cause legal mayhem in Canada. In fact, there was even reference to elements of the National Defence Act somehow being subject to question.

Once the declaration was adopted by votes from every country except four, the federal government's posture seemed to go in the exact opposite direction. The argument has been that the declaration has no effect in Canada. So we went from an argument that the declaration would have huge impact in Canada to a position that it would have no impact in Canada. We found that both very curious and very unconvincing.

The reality is that most international lawyers would agree that the declaration does have status in Canada. It is part of the international human rights architecture. Human rights instruments are not subject to countries opting in and out. If that were the case, there would be very few reliable human rights standards anywhere in the globe.

It's my understanding that two judges in Canada have already recited the relevance of the declaration in efforts to interpret Canadian law. Obviously it does not have the force of a formal treaty or statute, but it does have significance in international law, and Canada does operate within that arena of international law.

We've already seen one of the four countries that expressed opposition change its position--that is, Australia--and there's some indication that both New Zealand and the United States are reconsidering their positions. So Canada may end up very much alone.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

So this could be an important first step, I gather from what you're saying, Ms. Simon, in the building of a trust and the potential of a partnership on sovereignty in the Arctic.

I'm interested in your point on the inclusion of Nunavik and Nunatsiavut in the northern strategy. The arbitrary nature of the Arctic Circle doesn't define the Inuit people in Canada and perhaps shouldn't be allowed to define a northern strategy. Nunatsiavut is on the route north, and the conditions in terms of ice, weather, and the lives of people are very similar.

A lot of our talk in this committee has been about climate change. Obviously it has some significant effects on the way of life of the Inuit in Canada. Is there a problem on the development side? Will the need for more small harbour or wharf development be more important as conditions change? Is it something that would be on your agenda, as far as the kinds of expectations you would have from a northern strategy and a northern sovereignty effort are concerned?

[Mary Simon]

Thank you for your question.

Anything that will reduce the cost of living up north is of interest to us. The building of small harbours is part of that, so we support the idea that more than one would be built.

Going back to what you were saying about the Northwest Passage opening up, just to illustrate how we see the partnership that needs to be built around what's happening, that could be related to climate change, because many things are changing. We feel that climate change is having a serious impact on our ability to live traditionally in the Arctic as a people. Many things have changed.

But I think it would be very productive to explore the possibility of a joint Inuit-federal government Northwest Passage authority. It would offer a proactive regulatory regime against the expected increase in ship traffic, for instance, while at the same time respecting the history of Inuit use and the central importance of sustainable economic development for Inuit communities.

We're really trying to build a better education system that will then support a better economic base for our people. They're intertwined, so when you talk about the Northwest Passage and the possibility of the exploration that might take place in the High Arctic, this is something we see as being very useful.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

You don't have any--

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

The partnership idea of the development of sovereignty is a very interesting one, and that's a great practical example. I wish we had more time to explore other aspects of that, but maybe other people will ask questions.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Harris.

Now we'll give the floor to Mr. Hawn.