Thank you, sir.
Bonjour, monsieur.
Thank you for joining us by video, sir, in New Brunswick.
I'd like to go to a theme we're hearing a lot about in the mining sector. It really does touch on the important issue of first nations participation in mining operations.
It's hard to reconcile the different testimony we've been receiving. Some folks come in and tell us, as you have, sir, from the Québec Mining Association, that there are three new impact benefit agreements. The Northwest Territories require socio-economic agreements. Some folks say the capacity problem is so large that it is very difficult to engage and hire and ensure the participation of employees who have first nations backgrounds. Others come in and tell us that hundreds have done post-secondary training as a result of federal and territorial and provincial investments, and occasionally investments by private sector companies like BHP.
I want to go back and put two comments to you for your consideration, particularly with regard to the Quebec mining situation. One was a comment made by a company called Fortune Minerals. In their testimony they said that we should be now reviewing completely our approach to the engagement and the participation of first nations peoples way beyond impact benefit agreements and socio-economic agreements.
With regard to the second comment, I want to read into the record testimony from John Cheechoo, who is the ITK director and who appeared here on November 23. It's very compelling testimony I want to put to you for your consideration, and then I'll stop and ask you to respond.
He said:
That message is that proponents of major development projects in the Inuit homeland should actively seek Inuit partners, and in all cases they must turn their minds to how their proposals can deliver maximum benefits to Inuit communities and households as well as to their shareholders.
The old days of Inuit being passive observers to such fundamental decisions are gone. No approach to resource exploration development in the Arctic will be successful unless Inuit are full partners and draw direct and substantial benefits. This last message was forcefully made and upheld by the Nunavut Court of Justice....
He went on to say the Inuit people forced this Conservative government to halt seismic mapping in Lancaster Sound.
Why aren't we talking, why isn't the Québec Mining Association talking, why isn't the deputy minister from New Brunswick talking about full equity participation by our first nations in these projects? Why aren't our first nations peoples owners of these projects? Why are we only circumventing their participation, hiving it off as capacity to simply be employed? What is it going to take for us—based on your experience with northern Quebec, for example—to simply move to the next step, which is to make first nations peoples full partners with equity participation in these projects?