National Defence Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Good morning, everyone. Let us begin our 37th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 23, 2009, we continue our study on Canadian Arctic sovereignty.

I'm very pleased to have with us some witnesses from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: John Amagoalik, George Eckalook, and John Merritt.

Thank you very much for being with us.

I will give the floor first to Mr. Amagoalik. If you would like to introduce the people with you, please go ahead.

[John Amagoalik, Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

My name is John Amagoalik. I'm the policy advisor to the executive of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, one of three designated Inuit organizations in Nunavut.

If you look at the map, Nunavut covers about 40% of the land mass of the whole country. QIA is responsible for approximately 50% of the land mass of Nunavut and about 52% of the population live in our region.

With us today is John Merritt. He's the lawyer for Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. He'll answer any legal or constitutional questions you may have.

George Eckalook is acting president of our Inuit organization and he'll be making the opening statements. Elizabeth Roberts will do the interpretation.

George will be speaking in Inuktitut during his opening statement.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Mr. Eckalook.

[George Eckalook, Acting President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'm really pleased to be here and for the invitation to the Nunavut Qikiqtani Inuit Association.

As John Amagoalik said, I'm the acting president right now.

I will be speaking mostly in Inuktitut. I'm really poor in speaking and understanding English.

I really appreciate your inviting us to be here. You already have my presentation in Inuktitut and in English.

Depending on the time we have this morning, I'll talk more about the High Arctic. I'm from Resolute Bay in the High Arctic. We've protected the Queen Elizabeth Islands since 1953 and 1955. I'm originally from northern Quebec in Inukjuak. That's my hometown.

But we were relocated to the High Arctic by the federal government in 1955. My parents are in the High Arctic. That's where we are right now. I grew up in the High Arctic, and that's now my hometown. Whole families are up in the High Arctic right now.

I would like to give you more details about the High Arctic, where we were located by the federal government in 1953 and 1955. It's really important to us to notify the federal government. That's why this morning I would like to explain how difficult life in the High Arctic is. We've been in the community for a little more than 60 years.

Mr. Chairman, I would rather speak in Inuktitut.

Our interpreter hasn't shown up yet. I think they're on the way.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you.

Do you want to interpret for George?

You will translate? Yes?

Okay.

[George Eckalook]

You pay a very high sacrifice by living in the High Arctic. Being brought up in that general area was very difficult. Just to come here and make a presentation cost me $5,000.

Having been relocated up to the High Arctic by the federal government, I can tell you that it's overwhelming and costly. Having to go from place to place, to the communities up there, is exhausting. To purchase fuel and gas in order to survive up there is very costly.

Keep in mind that we are people up there, and we would like to get some kind of recognition and have it kept in mind that we're part of Canada up in the High Arctic. It's not a fun situation to have grown up there.

[Witness continues in English]

Mr. Chairman, our living is really difficult. To use the example of gasoline, the price is really high, $1.2520 a litre, and diesel costs us $1.1920 a litre. So it's really very expensive for our equipment

Also, Mr. Chairman, to give a few more examples, we have only one store, a co-op store, with really expensive groceries. For example, two litres of milk is $8.49, and the bread is $4.69. The eggs are $5.89. Those items I've mentioned, we buy them and we use them every day. It's really difficult to live with that.

We also get the machines from down south.The machines that we use cost about $10,000 for the skidoos or four-wheelers, and on top of that is freight of $3,000 or $4,000. That's really difficult for the hunters. It's really expensive. In terms of shipping, the road is only for freight. We use the boat to ship, and also First Air. Those are the only two we use for anything, for transportation. It's not like down south.

[Witness continues in Inuktitut with interpretation]

The people in Resolute are struggling right now....

Sorry; I'm one of the descendants.

They really don't understand what their values are up there. They don't understand what their purpose is up there.

Our parents, grandparents, are buried, frozen up there. We loved them very much....

[Witness continues in English]

I'm so sorry, Mr. Chairman; really we are a family up there.

Today our complaint is to the federal government to recognize the people up there. There are only three people left from the original 1950 group that was located in the High Arctic. We have only one elder left. He's still alive. We ask the federal government to talk with him and apologize to him. That's all we ask and ask....

I'm sorry, but we are so sad about it. It's really difficult to explain to you. We're sorry about that, but for us who live up there in the High Arctic, it's really just so sad. It's difficult to explain it to others.

Also, Mr. Chairman, our little family up there has grown up there, were born up there. They are going to live there forever, so we've got to be with them. We ask the federal government to recognize it more...[Inaudible--Editor]...to Resolute. That's all we've been asking for.

As I said earlier, it's really expensive to live up there. Also, three months a year there is 24-hour sunlight, and the dark season lasts almost six to eight months, so it's really difficult to live there.

[John Amagoalik]

Mr. Chairman, if I may, I want to talk a bit about what we are attempting to do up there. As George has explained, the families living up there are not there by their choice; they were relocated by the Government of Canada in 1953 and 1955. Most of the adults have returned to northern Quebec or have died. The second and third generations are still living up there. They still consider themselves guardians of the High Arctic islands. We consider the Northwest Passage internal waters, and it's a position that we're not prepared to abandon.

I'd also like to mention a study that we carried out back in 1973 or 1974, which was called the Inuit Land Use and Occupancy Project. It was done by a professor from Calgary, and it showed just how much the Inuit used and occupied the lands and waters of the Arctic. I think you all would be very surprised to see how much land use and occupancy there actually is. When you look at the study, almost every square kilometre of this territory is covered by land use by Inuit people, and it has been like that for thousands and thousands of years. So there's no question that we use the Arctic every single day.

There are also three or four projects that I want to mention. We have been working with Parks Canada over the past couple of years to work out a memorandum of understanding for a national marine conservation area for Lancaster Sound. Lancaster Sound is the Northwest Passage and we're trying to do a study on creating a national marine conservation area for the eastern part of Lancaster Sound.

We're also in discussions with Parks Canada to negotiate the creation of a national park on north Bathurst Island. North Bathurst Island is part of the famous Polar Bear Pass.

We have also been in discussions with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans on possible marine protection areas, which I believe are under the Oceans Act.

We're trying our very best to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Unfortunately, the NTI is in court. They have taken the Government of Canada to court because they feel that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has not been implemented properly.

As I said, relocation is a big issue in the two communities that are on the Northwest Passage—Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. We negotiated a compensation package with the Government of Canada back in the 1990s. We were also asking for an apology from the Government of Canada, which to us was more important than the compensation. That apology has not been forthcoming, and as long as we don't have that apology, we still consider the case to be open. We will continue to work for an apology as long as it's not forthcoming.

I think we've probably gone over our five- or six-minute time limit, so we'll leave it at that for now. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert, for seven minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I want to thank you for coming. I realize this is a very emotional, a very personal, issue for all of you. I have been struck, very clearly, by a number of your comments.

In 1993 the Parliament of Canada passed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act. In 2006 court action was taken, given the failure to implement it. Can you briefly indicate what the key issues are regarding that failure to implement the act?

Going through the courts, of course, is always the most expensive and most time-consuming way. Surely there is a methodology we could use to deal with something that is constitutionally protected and was passed by Parliament in 1993. That would be my first question.

The second one is on the issue of relocation to the far north, which we'll come back to.

Then I think Ms. Neville has a question.

[John Merritt, Legal Counsel, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.]

Thank you, sir, for that question.

Just as a background point, members may recall that I was here a few weeks ago with Mary Simon, the president of ITK. I actually split my time between the ITK and NTI. The Inuit practise a very effective form of federalism, and that's why I'm able to do those two things and work for the two organizations at the same time.

In terms of your particular question, yes, NTI brought a comprehensive court case in 2006. That court case asserts that the crown, represented by the Government of Canada, is in breach of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement on 39 different points. The case is before the courts, so you will understand why I don't want to offer too much detail.

In terms of the most important issues in the case, I will bring two to your attention.

The first is that article 23 in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement says that the crown has to work with the Inuit to try to make sure that the workforce in Nunavut reflects the population, so that there is a representative workforce in the public sector. Of course, by working on that on the public sector side, you also create education and skills for the private sector. So according to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, the federal government should be working towards a workforce in Nunavut that is 85% Inuit. Since 1999 the ratio of Inuit in the government workforce in Nunavut has been below 50%. What's more disturbing is that the number is not increasing.

There was a mediation report done by former Justice Thomas Berger. In the spring of 2006, he recommended specific training and education measures that all parties should adopt. Nunavut Tunngavik endorsed the report within weeks of it being made public. Unfortunately, the crown has essentially gone sideways on it. We don't yet know whether the Government of Canada will commit to the Berger mediation report. It was the frustration at the lack of response to the report that actually triggered the commencement of the lawsuit.

The only other thing I'll add, if I have another moment, is that the dispute resolution system is not working in the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It's not working in any of the major land claims agreements. The Senate Standing Committee on Aboriginal Peoples completed a report last year that stated that the implementation policy of the federal government should be fundamentally revised and that there should be an objective way of resolving disputes so people don't have to go to court.

In the case of Nunavut, NTI has referred 17 different issues for arbitration, and the federal government has rejected all 17. From NTI's point of view, this isn't a very satisfactory way of conducting business. On the other hand, when litigation is the only option available, that's the option people are compelled to use.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

So 17 were sent to arbitration, and all have been rejected?

[John Merritt]

That's right, sir.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's sounds like a staggering number.

On what basis were they rejected, in general?

[John Merritt]

Clearly you'd have to ask a representative of the Government of Canada to give a full explanation. We speculate on the Inuit side of the equation. Our reading tends to be that an arbitrator can come back with a decision you don't like, so why take the chance if you can just veto it in the first instance?

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

That's a hell of a way to run a country, isn't it?

[John Merritt]

I would agree with that.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Chair, how much time do we have left?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Two minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Well, I'll give them to Ms. Neville then.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

You can keep going, because I want my whole five minutes.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Fine.

On the issue of the relocation to the north and the apology, what avenues have you taken to seek that apology, and what are the stumbling blocks? We seem to have announced apologies for various issues over the years and this one, obviously, has been very central to your comments.

[John Amagoalik]

We've tried to use every avenue to gain an apology from the Government of Canada. We have appeared before various parliamentary committees to tell our story; we told the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples 10 or 15 years ago; and through our members of Parliament, we've been lobbying the government for a number of years.

As I mentioned, we were able to come to an agreement on a compensation package 10 or 15 years ago, but we've been trying to use all avenues to gain an apology--appearing before parliamentary committees, through our members of Parliament, through the media.

As everyone knows, governments are always very reluctant to apologize. I guess it's because they're afraid it will lead to other things. But we have never been given a clear explanation of why that apology is not forthcoming.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

I assume that you would expect an apology to be announced formally in Parliament, presumably by the government, the Prime Minister, as we did for the residential schools issue.

[John Amagoalik]

We do feel that the apology should come from the Prime Minister of Canada. Whether it's done in the House or on a special occasion arranged for the relocatees, we feel that the Prime Minister has to be the person to make this apology.

[Bryon Wilfert, Liberal, Richmond Hill, ON]

Okay.

Thank you very much.