Thank you, Madame Chair. I'm going to continue on with Stanley's remarks; we work on an integrated basis.
We like that the second call from the national trade corridors fund was exclusively for territorial projects. This is a recognition by Transport Canada that basic trade infrastructure in the north lags well behind the rest of the country.
We like that remote airport projects are eligible projects. These facilities are our lifeline, and many have rundown buildings, inadequate support systems and gravel runways that are increasingly making jet access difficult.
We like that the NTCF will fund activities that lead to construction instead of requiring that projects already be shovel-ready. Permitting and engineering design of major infrastructure in remote northern regions can cost significantly more than equivalent projects in southern Canada. Due to the scarce financial resources of our territorial governments and indigenous organizations, very few projects would be able to advance to shovel-ready status.
On a side note, we've all been very impressed with the government officials from Transport Canada we have met with and who are assessing our applications. They have been very nice, helpful, constructive and thoughtful in their dealings with us.
Nunavut Resources Corporation is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. Along with other business lines we pursue, we have been charged by KIA to execute its role as the proponent of the Grays Bay project. In this capacity, we have developed the business model leading to two applications to the NTCF and have been the primary liaison between KIA and NTCF staff.
As President Anablak laid out, there is a lot that's good about the NTCF. One other feature, which is not included in the remarks, is that the willingness of the NTCF to fund up to 75% of the capital cost of territorial projects is crucial. It recognizes and reflects the high cost of operating in the north and the fiscal challenges that all the territorial governments face, so we view that as being a very positive feature.
There are also many ways to make this program better or more effective. Number one, from our perspective, the total funding envelope is far too small and needs to be dramatically increased. This became abundantly clear in a debrief we had with the NTCF adjudicators last year when they explained that our initial application for $415 million in funding was one of more than 70 applications seeking more than $20 billion in support on projects totalling more than $70 billion.
There is clearly a need for more support of trade corridors in Canada than monies available. Equally true is the inadequacy of NTCF's funding of $400 million for territorial projects. The concept of a separate carve-out for northern projects is sound and is a good start. However, comparing this allocation for northern trade corridors in Canada against the billions in infrastructure investments that other Arctic nations have made in recent years, especially Russia, demonstrates that we're simply not in the same league.
Two, given its existing budget, the NTCF seems to be somewhat misnamed as it suggests it can significantly support trade corridor development. This is not entirely accurate. Transformational trade infrastructure is very expensive, and the NTCF is not large enough, in its current form, to do any more than support—