AAND Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

COMITÉ PERMANENT DES AFFAIRES AUTOCHTONES ET DU DÉVELOPPEMENT DU GRAND NORD

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, October 29, 1998

• 1112

[Translation]

The Chairman (Mr. Guy St-Julien (Abitibi—James Bay—Nunavik, Lib.)): The meeting will now come to order. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), we now begin our study of aboriginal economic development.

Today, we are honoured to welcome then mayors of Quebec's northern municipalities. These individuals work very hard to ensure the welfare of the citizens and Inuit of Nunavik. With us from the nordic municipality of Akulivik is Adamie Alayco; from the town of Umiujaq, Robbie Tookalak; from the corporation of the village of Inukjuak, Siasi Smiler; from the town of Kuujjuarapik, Anthony Ittoshat; and from the corporation of the village of Salluit, Qalingo Angotigirk. Mr. Angotigirk is accompanied by an interpreter, George Kakayuk.

Today's meeting will have a round table format. I'd like committee members to introduce themselves, and state the riding and party they represent. Mr. Konrad.

[English]

Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): My name is Derrek Konrad and I'm the Reform member for Prince Albert, which is in Saskatchewan at about the same parallel as Edmonton—in the middle of the province.

[Translation]

Mr. Ghislain Fournier (Manicouagan, BQ): My name is Ghislain Fournier and I represent the riding of Manicouagan which is located in the far north, but on the opposite side. I live in Sept-Iles, a city of 28,000 where mining and pulp and paper are the main industries. I am the Bloc Québécois critic for mines. I'm very pleased to be here this morning. Thank you.

[English]

Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): My name is Gerald Keddy. I'm the Progressive Conservative member of Parliament for the South Shore riding in Nova Scotia.

Welcome to the meeting today. We're glad to have you here.

Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): I'm Peter Adams. I'm the MP for Peterborough, not the other Peter Adams you all know. I've been on the coast and been in most of the communities, because many years ago I lived for three years in Schefferville, and we used to come to the coast.

It's a great pleasure to have all the communities represented here today.

• 1115

Mrs. Judi Longfield (Whitby—Ajax, Lib.): I'm Judi Longfield and I'm the member of Parliament for Whitby—Ajax. Many years ago in my early twenties I had the opportunity to teach in Moosonee and in Attawapiskat. So while I'm not familiar with your area, I certainly love the north and am familiar with parts of the north.

Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): I'm John Finlay. I'm the vice-chair of the committee and I'm from southwestern Ontario, Oxford County, about as far as you can get from where you are to the southern borders of this country. I have served on the environment committee and for a year and a half on this committee. I'm committed to your problems and your future.

Mr. David Iftody (Provencher, Lib.): My name is David Iftody. I'm the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I represent the riding of Provencher in southern Manitoba. I want to welcome you here to the committee today and I look forward to your presentation.

Of course you're all familiar with your chairperson. I should just tell you it's customary, when we have visitors from the far north such as you, that at the end of the evening the chairman takes you out for a steak dinner at his expense.

Mr. Gerald Keddy: Absolutely.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you. At the committee's expense, if there are no objections.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: We are always warmly received when we travel to a community in Nunavik. If ever you have the chance, I encourage you to visit one of the communities represented here today. You will be surprised by the reception you get. Rather I should say that you won't be surprised, because people are known for always being friendly and outgoing.

I now invite the witnesses to make their presentations. As a rule, each witness has anywhere from 5 to 10 minutes to speak, following which committee members may put their questions.

[English]

We'll start with Mr. Adamie Alayco.

Mr. Adamie Alayco (Mayor, Nordic Municipality of Akulivik): I would like to thank all of you for inviting us to this sitting. We'd like to present our problems in our region.

First of all, I'd like to say you have a nice building and hopefully we'll come here more often. It's an opportunity for us to meet the people from the Parliament Buildings who represent the Inuit as our nation.

We know we have problems in our social life, first of all. We have a lot of problems regarding housing mostly. The housing situation in our communities is very much a big problem. There are a lot of families with a lot of people. We have three-bedroom houses with about 16 to 20 people living in each of them. The population is growing every year and we haven't received any suitable housing for at least 4 to 5 years now. That's the major concern in our communities of Akulivik and Nunavik. We'd like to get some assistance from the federal government in this matter.

As we speak, I'm quite sure there are a lot of people with social problems within the houses. It creates more work for social services and health services because of the environment. The government has to pay more for health because of the kind of places we have. We haven't seen any renovations of our houses for quite a while now. These renovations could help, but they wouldn't solve any problems.

• 1120

I'd like to suggest we should get some assistance for our people from the coast guard. There are no resources available in our region for coast guard purposes, except in Nunavut in Iqaluit, and that's very far from our region in Hudson Bay. There are a lot of problems we have to face when people are lost or stranded. We have to rely on country food for our survival, and we can't guarantee the safety of the boats we have up north. We can't forecast what the weather will be, and that's a very important situation. If there's a hurricane in our region and we can't communicate with the boats, it's kind of like saying “You have to go. You have to come back to the village without any forecasts.” That's very important.

There are a lot of things we can talk about. There are a lot of health hazards in our communities. For instance, our roads are not paved. They're only gravel, and that causes a lot of dust. That's not very good for our elders and our youth. If you ever have time to come up north, I'm quite sure you will see we have very dusty roads. I don't see any dust when I come down to Montreal, Ottawa or any of the major cities.

We would really like to have some assistance in getting our environment cleaned up. We know the government is dealing with this matter, but we'd like to push this as much as we can. We'd like to table these matters with you for our elders and our young people. It's the kind of situation where the local people are beginning to ask why we haven't tried to get some pavement instead of gravel. Sometimes we have to send the elders to camps where they get less dust in their lungs.

• 1125

So we'd like to see if the government could help us in this matter. If there's an environmental study in our communities, I'm quite sure there'll be a lot of things you'd like to work into.

Most of all, I'd like to say I know that Guy is representing us, and is very helpful, but he has a very big territory to himself. If we could have an MP representing our region at Nunavik, I'm quite sure the federal government would listen more to what kind of problems we have. We tabled this with Guy when he was in our community, and we suggest that we'd like to see an MP in our region to represent us. That's one of the things I'd like to see—to get the government to start dealing with northern communities as much as possible. We know there's a Nunavut government coming in 1999, but in Nunavik territory it's a very different situation, because we have no MP representative in the government building. I really would like to see this happen in the future.

For these reasons, it's a very short speech we have right now. There are many items I'd like to speak about, but these three items are most often recommended in my community. I'm quite sure that the other communities will say what they'd like to say. That's all I have to say for now. I have a lot of things I'd like to present, but we have Guy St-Julien, and we'd like to respect him. Hopefully, all the parties in the government will respect our needs in our communities.

Thank you again. I'll pass to another person. I'm quite sure there'll be questions later on. Thank you. Nakungmiik.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will now hear from Robbie Tookalak, the mayor of the town of Umiujaq. You have 10 minutes, sir.

[English]

Mr. Robbie Tookalak (Mayor, Town of Umiujaq): Thank you. If I may, I'd like to use the interpreter, Anthony Ittoshat, mayor of Kuujjuarapik, if I may. I'd like to speak Inuktitut.

The Chairman: Fine.

Mr. Robbie Tookalak (Interpretation): Although Adamie Alayco from Akulivik has expressed his view of the problems relating to the community, I would like to add to that and show my support for Adamie in terms of the housing shortage in his community. Since CMHC is no longer participating, the housing problem has reached crisis proportion.

• 1130

To go a bit further on the housing issue, when you look back at the 1975 agreement on northern Quebec—the federal government, the Quebec government, the Cree and the Inuit—it was a celebrated agreement. That agreement clearly states that the federal government is committed to funding 75% of housing and education. If you could review this issue at this table, I would highly recommend that this housing issue and the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement be reviewed.

The federal government has to respect the signing of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.

In regard to the housing proposals that are being discussed with the Quebec government, namely the SHQ, there is a lot of discussion going on about ownership of houses. But our people, as hunters—only a small minority of them have full-time jobs—cannot afford to buy a house. To them, social housing is the best answer. Considering that you get very limited income as a hunter, you cannot start to build a credit rating at a bank so that you can afford a house. This is not the answer, although it's very attractive for some people. Some people may have jobs and may be able to afford it, but it does not answer our overall needs.

• 1135

You will hear, and it is a given fact now, that in the region of Nunavik there is a housing shortage of at least 400 units. In my case, in my community, I am fully aware that there are eight families that are badly in need of housing, that cannot be allocated a house. There are also some single people who need houses. There's none available. And to go back to the point of not being able to afford them, most of our people are hunters and some of them live on social aid, but then again, social aid does not answer their needs in regard to housing.

To get back to the issue of economic development in the region, it should be clearly understood here that the standing committee should also review the taxation issue of Nunavik. It is all linked to economic development. With the taxes being so heavy in our region, it is very difficult to maintain sustainable economic development, more so since the introduction of the GST. It has become harder, as people in Nunavik are heavily taxed. And as most of you may not know, Inuit people are taxpayers, perhaps the highest taxpayers in the country.

• 1140

With the cost of living so high up north, let's say a person on social assistance or an elder on a pension has to pay approximately $319 a month for their rent, but their income is about that much. Considering that the income tax is being deducted from your pay if you are a wage earner, it is phenomenal, it's sky high. Also, considering that the jobs are scarce in the region, even the people who do not have an income are forced to pay a high rate of tax in their community. Keep in mind that when you go to buy something in a store the taxes up north are about three times as high.

Shouldn't the federal government review the fact that the Inuit are taxed very heavily, and shouldn't they even go so far as to declare them non-taxpayers, as they do with Indians across Canada?

As an example, I want to share with you the price of an essential product, which is baking powder. In Montreal, or anywhere in the south, you can pay approximately $2 for it, but by the time it reaches the store in my community it costs about $8 for the same product. That represents about three times the amount that you would normally pay down south.

To finish off, I would like to point out that Inuit people rely heavily on harvested food. Being raw meat eaters, if they did not have this supplement, if they were forced to eat as any other non-native southerner, it would be even more difficult today. They are fortunate that they have country food as a supplement. Otherwise, they would be in dire straits.

Also I would like to mention that we will never stop hunting. We will never stop harvesting country food.

• 1145

One more point I would like to finish off with, for your information, is directly related to the economic and cultural development of the people. Back in 1958 or around the 1960s, the federal government decided that the Inuit no longer needed their dogs and they had them all eliminated. This has been a sore spot between the Inuit and the federal government for a long time. The Inuit people have not received an apology or any compensation.

You should realize that the Inuit, by nature, are hunters. Back then when this happened, when their very livelihood, the tool to keep themselves alive economically speaking, was eliminated, there were no snowmobiles available, so they had nowhere to turn. There was nothing left for them to exercise their right to hunt, to maintain a healthy living and to feed their families.

I wonder if the government was angry at the Inuit people then, and so had all their dogs eliminated. Even the well-respected hunters in the community were powerless to stop this massacre of their dogs, of the very tools to maintain a livelihood. It also denied them their cultural identity.

Today the Inuit find it more difficult than they did in the past to try to maintain at least some sort of income with the snowmobiles to feed their families. Snowmobiles, as you may know, are very expensive and in some ways ineffective. They tend to break down and they are very costly. Who is going to help us? Who is willing to help us get back on our feet?

I know for a fact the hunters in the NWT are subsidized by the government even up to, let's say, 50% of the cost of this equipment. I know this for a fact, because I have some relatives living just off the shore of Hudson's Bay in what you would probably know as the Belcher Islands, which is known as Sanikiluaq today. These people, my cousins and my friends, are all governed by the NWT government. I ask again, who is going to help us? Who can help us?

• 1150

Finally, I would like to speak on behalf of the people of Nunavik, once again in reference to the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. In that agreement it was stated that should the discussions involve the offshore of the Hudson Bay or the Nunavik region, the government was committed to represent the people of Nunavik. As a community representative from the Makivik Corporation, I am fully aware of these files because I am directly involved in some of them.

As a matter of fact, I'm sure you're all aware that the people of Nunavik's concern right now is that the Nunavut government will be effective in April 1999. Our concern is that in that agreement the Nunavut government will be the owner of all the offshore islands up to the high tide mark.

We had managed to come to some sort of understanding with the Nunavut delegation that out of the lands allocated to them, 40% would be set aside for the Inuit of Nunavik, although we consider this to be a very small amount. Although it is not our preferred choice, we felt we had no choice but to accept that option.

The Nunavut government will be also given approximately $500 million to govern themselves. My question is which group of Inuit the federal government will support when it comes to dealing with the offshore. Can we turn to the federal government and ask for their support in identifying the offshore islands as historically being used by the Inuit of Nunavik?

• 1155

[Translation]

The Chairman: Some committee members, including the PC member, have to attend other meetings at 1 p.m. and therefore will have to leave. We've allotted 10 minutes to each witness because some members have to leave to attend meetings scheduled for 12:15 p.m., 12:30 p.m., 1 p.m., 3:15 p.m. and 3:30 p.m.. We also wanted to give the members an opportunity to ask questions.

[English]

Robbie, very short please.

Mr. Robbie Tookalak (Interpretation): I just want to add to the offshore file that sometime in 1903 the federal government sold seven islands—not Sept-Îles but seven islands in front of Umiujaq—to some Americans, individual Americans who lived in the United States, without so much as consulting the Inuit people in the region or even in the neighbouring communities. We would like support from the federal government to return these islands back to the Inuit.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Your comments have been duly noted. Thank you.

The Chair now recognizes Mrs. Siasi Smiler. I would appreciate it if you could confine yourself to 10 minutes because a number of similar points will be raised by witnesses from Makivik and Kativik who are scheduled to appear before the committee in the very near future.

[English]

Ms. Siasi Smiler (Mayor, Corporation of the Northern Village of Inukjuak): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the committee. Thank you for having us.

A lot of what has been said already is of the same concern to us in our community. I'd like to add a few things.

We have a lot of relocatees in our community alone. We have had a group of people trying to move to another community for the past 12 years, and this has been really hard for them.

Mr. Peter Adams: Excuse me, on relocatees, I didn't understand the point.

Ms. Siasi Smiler: I am from the community of Inukjuak, where there are about 1,200 people. A lot of that group of people were moved to the High Arctic, a fair number of them, about 50 families. Also, those families have relatives in the community. There are a lot of families who were left behind. What I'm trying to say is that we have a group in Inukjuak who have been trying to move to their original campsite for the past 12 years and have had a lot of setbacks and problems trying to get funding for this need. So I want to touch a bit on this area, which does affect our community because we have such a high number of people who were relocated to other communities in Canada.

• 1200

Also, I want to add to what Adamie was saying in terms of roads. We also do support what he was saying in our town, that it's still very important for the government to consider putting in some funding for this. And it would also create jobs.

Also, I'd like to mention that in the past year there was an announcement about the healing fund. We were also very excited about this because we thought maybe this was an opportunity for us in the communities to do some economic development. But so far from what we have experienced in the past couple of months, it seems that funding is geared more to the victims of sexual abuse, and very little for social changes that we have encountered over the years with the Inuit people. These social issues have been a big part of the economic development that has not taken place because of all the changes we had to go through over the past few years. So I wanted to mention this as well, that not having money to do any kind of economic development is a big part of the problem.

What I'll do also is leave this community development plan study that was done three years ago about our community, so you'll get a better idea of what we have planned. The high unemployment, the education system, the social problematic issues in our community are all in here, and also what is good about this is it includes the strength of our community. And in there, there are needs that we may be able to identify more, and that you will maybe be able to see more, because they need money.

So I think I'll just stop here. However, I do want to mention that we have a lot of people in our community who want to go into their own businesses and have not been able to do so because of, again, lack of funding and federal programs. We just had a couple of soapstone carvers do a joint venture a few weeks ago, and we were trying to get funding going to have those people go out and get their soapstone. We had to all chip in with the money, and every time we did we had very little funding because the project wasn't recognized as a project.

I want to say that for these people this is their only source of income, and the kinds of projects we try to develop in our communities sometimes don't apply to the federal or provincial funding. So there again, if we have programs through the federal government, hopefully they will allow us to look at how we want to do this in our communities. I wanted to mention that as well.

• 1205

In regard to the housing problem, what was said is also our concern. A lot of the families go through the same kinds of problems as were mentioned here.

I'm going to end with that, and again, I will leave this document so you can see more of the situation in our community.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We will see to it that copies of your presentation are made and distributed to all committee members. Thank you very much.

The Chair now recognizes Mr. Anthony Ittoshat of Kuujjuarapik for 10 minutes.

[English]

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat (Mayor, Town of Kuujjuarapik): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I doubt that I will use 10 minutes, but in our discussions we kept coming back to the issue of 10 minutes being too short.

Before I begin my presentation, I would like to point out that as Inuit people living in northern Quebec, we have a lot of educating to do of those in southern Canada, namely because in the invitation I received I was addressed as chief, Chief Anthony Ittoshat, when in fact we're called mayors. The sad part is that we seem to get caught up in the global picture when you deal with aboriginal issues, first nations or Inuit people. We get caught up in the whole picture; down south it's stereotyping. You mention aboriginal people, so you figure the Inuit people are aboriginal people, therefore they're non-taxpayers and they should be included in the whole picture.

Although my colleague Robbie mentioned that we should be treated like the Indians and be non-taxpayers, I somewhat disagree. However, I believe the taxation issue should be seriously looked at, reviewed, and perhaps adjusted to make it more equitable for the people of Nunavik and to make it a bit more equitable for people living down south.

We are Canadians as much as you are. In fact, I could go beyond that and say we are true Canadians, but we seem to be getting shoved aside rather frequently by the federal government, and sometimes by the Quebec government. Today our relationship with Quebec is improving quite rapidly. I wish I could say the same of the federal government, but I'm sad to say that has not been the case.

The issues you heard today are all linked to economic development and the well-being of northern people. You heard about housing. You're going to hear about housing more frequently. As a matter of fact, I want to reiterate what my colleagues have mentioned in terms of housing and shed a little bit of light on our situation back home.

As of today, I have with me a list of so many people and their requests for housing, and I would like to demonstrate why I call the housing crisis a crisis.

Last week when somebody vacated a two-bedroom unit, out of 23 eligible people we could allocate only one house. Before, it used to be helplessness in regard to housing; today, it's more like anger. Why can't we do something for the housing of the Inuit people?

It is more painfully obvious in my position, because I happen to live right next door to a reserve. As a matter of fact, geographically speaking, we are right in the same area. We share a lot of the infrastructure, namely a post office, a nursing station, and other basic services. We share a lot of these, but there is one thing we do not share—the housing. It has become very painful for us to see new units being erected each summer by CMHC on the reserve. We can see it happening right in front of us, but there's nothing happening on my territory. To me that's unfair. It's unacceptable and needs to be addressed.

• 1210

Sometimes we wonder what we have to do to get the federal government's attention. Do we have to block roads; do we have to have another Oka crisis to get your attention? To be quite honest, we don't have roads to block. We have no big impact on the rest of Canada. We live in isolated areas. I guess the only channels we can use are committees such as this. We can lobby our MPs. We can do as much as we can. That's about it.

But this question keeps coming back. What do we have to do to get the attention of the federal government? It's not only in regard to housing; there's also economic development in the region—and taxation. You heard about the cost of living up north. To try to make this a bit clearer, for every dollar you earn, you put 25¢ in your pocket. That's how bad it is up north. I don't know what it's like down here, but I'm sure it's a lot easier in terms of taxation.

People have to remember we are tax-paying citizens and we have been supporters of the federal government. I know it's no secret that the majority of the people in northern Quebec voted to stay in Canada. How can the federal government say no to our social requirements and our need for economic development and housing? How can they say no when they know we have been adamant supporters of federation, of wanting to stay in Canada? That is a question that's been brought up so many times. How can that be? Where is the fairness in all this? What do we get in return? Just a slap on the hand.

The problems we experience because of the housing shortage situation and economic development have a chain reaction to all the problems we experience up north. We have social problems, but these social problems stem from lack of economic development and frustration because there's no housing. They're all interrelated.

Somebody mentioned infrastructure. We have a lack of infrastructure. There's little or no input from the federal government when it comes to infrastructure. Somebody mentioned paving our roads. This is something we've been asking for for quite a long time. It's not like we're asking for swimming pools, pool halls or recreational facilities that you take for granted back home. You pave your backyards and your driveways, but when it comes to helping the people up north there seems to be a resistance.

I ask the same questions as Robbie did. What have we done so wrong to make the federal government angry, to make them not want to respect us, to make them not want to respect the agreement they signed with us? He also mentioned that when the signing of the James Bay agreement took place it was a celebration that four groups of people, including the federal government, could get together and decide to work on something. Today, the federal government keeps denying us those privileges we feel are due to us.

There has to be some fairness in all of this. I could go on and on. Like my colleagues, I feel 10 minutes is a bit too short. I am confident our regional representatives will be facing this committee as well in the coming month of November, if that is to be.

• 1215

I thank you and the committee, Mr. Chairman, for giving us this opportunity to express ourselves. Hopefully there will be some results that stem from such a meeting. Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, sir, for your presentation. I can understand that you are frustrated with our government. However, this is not the end of this. We plan to follow up on this matter very closely.

We will now hear from our final witness, who hails from Salluit, one of the most remote villages in Quebec. Go ahead, Qalingo.

[English]

Mr. Qalingo Angotigirk (Mayor, Municipality of Salluit, Corporation of the Northern Village of Salluit) (Interpretation): Thank you for the opportunity to be here and to meet you. Instead of writing to you all the time, I have a chance to see you face to face.

As you know, we were driving here this morning from Montreal. All the way, we were driving on a very smooth surface. I believe this is normal down here, and maybe most of Canada is paved. People mentioned here that in our community there are no paved roads. In the summer, when there is a lot of dust, we try to hide our faces from this dust.

I want to mention right from the start that even though you look at me and I look like a white man, I can't speak any English. It so happens that when I was conceived, my father just forgot about me and left me. It was one of those stories.

We're from the community of Salluit. It is one of the farthest away, northernmost communities in Nunavik. We're the providers of the services like garbage collection, sewage, and water delivery within the community. Our funding, the money that we receive from the government, is shrinking, and the cost of living is soaring. We're at the point where this year we had to cut down on our services. For example, we cut one full day from our work week and one full hour from our day.

This is where we are right now. We're at the point where we're trying to cut down on simple things like that. It's becoming a crisis in our communities, because the fund is not increasing. In fact, it's decreasing sometimes, and the cost of living and the cost of services is going up.

• 1220

There is also the fact that we don't have paved roads. We have to use our equipment to deliver. It's not like down here, where you just tap the water and it's going through the system. We have to deliver by truck, and stuff like that, and with the roads up there, the equipment breaks down very quickly. It costs a lot of money to get equipment up there, and it costs a lot for repairs.

Those are the reasons we have to cut down on our services in order to provide the basis services.

Some of our colleagues here mentioned housing. It's pretty well the same thing in our community, where this translates to social problems in the homes. When adults with children have to live together, you can imagine what the situation is in the home. This even goes so far as to become a workload for the police, for the social services, because it trickles down to that. The lack of housing has become a major contributor to social problems we have in the homes, where a large family, adults with children, have to live together in one small home.

One example we can give is the recent situation we had in Salluit. We mentioned that to Guy when he was in Salluit, and we even showed him which house it was, where there was a family of sixteen people in one small three-bedroom home. The municipality had to try to come up with an answer for that.

That's just one example. On the other hand, people from out of town, people from the south going up there to do a job, to teach, get a nice big house all to themselves.

• 1225

For every dollar you earn, you have to pay pretty close to 50% in income tax. That's how it is.

When you go out to buy something with the remainder of the money, the cost of living is, as somebody mentioned, up to three times higher than down here. Imagine how much more tax you have to pay to buy a little baking powder. We're taxed and taxed. Because of the cost of living up there, transportation costs are very high and our basic needs are taxed and taxed. Our earnings don't go very far.

The social assistance recipients go through the same thing.

People are starting to wonder how this happens. For example, we're Canadians, and tax is universal; it applies to everybody. We're beginning to wonder if it's fair for us to be taxed in the same way as you're taxed down here, because of these concerns we have about the cost of living up there. Is the tax system fair, taking these things into consideration?

Take me, Qalingo Angotigirk, for example. I am a wage earner and the mayor of the town. I take my earnings and go home. I have three adult children over the age of 20. Because they're living with me, because of lack of housing, they're considered to be my dependants. They can't collect any social welfare or any other assistance because I, as the homeowner, am earning money. So I have to provide for those children and can't get any GST or even child tax credits because I am the wage earner.

This is just one example. It's the same thing for almost everybody.

• 1230

I want to reiterate the concern Robbie brought up earlier in terms of the extermination of our dogs. As you may or may not know, Inuit people depended heavily on their dogs for hunting and travel. They were basically their lifeline. But back then, as Robbie mentioned, the federal government decided the Inuit people didn't need those dogs any more.

You hear a lot about the healing fund that was proposed by the government for people who were abused in residential schools, to help them heal and deal with their problems for the pain and suffering they went through. But in my opinion, this type of reconciliation should also take place by the federal government; there should be some sort of understanding or even compensation for the hard times these people suffered when the government decided to exterminate their dogs.

There's no way to describe how valuable your dog team is. All I can say is that back then it was your lifeline. There were no jobs available in the communities, and the government was not providing social aid or anything else. The devastation these people suffered is unimaginable. You can see the emotion and how much of an effect it still has on us today.

The Chairman: Are there any questions?

Mr. Konrad.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: I'm really sorry I don't have longer to talk to you, because I feel the same way as you do, that we are very restricted in getting to the bottom of these things. I have three and a half pages of notes here and I could ask a question on every line.

• 1235

I come from a rural area in Saskatchewan. I can assure you that paved roads are not a fact of life where I come from. They're in the larger centres. So we have the same problems.

But out of all that I see that our terms of reference are economic development, and that's what we need to be focusing on. One important question is, why are relations improving with the Province of Quebec but not with Canada? What can we do to reverse that trend and ensure that Canada has an improving relationship with your people?

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: I mentioned that the relationship between the Quebec government and the Inuit people was improving. As you may or may not know, the Government of Quebec recently committed to reviewing the housing issue, with no participation from the federal government or CMHC.

The Makivik Corporation, which is the birthright corporation that is the representative of the Inuit people, has decided again to launch a lawsuit against the federal government for not respecting the James Bay agreement and not fulfilling their obligations in terms of housing.

I said that the improvements have been noticeable. The Quebec government by itself, without the support of the federal government or CMHC, has committed to reviewing the housing issue. Because we have lobbied them quite frequently, they're fully aware of what I call our housing crisis.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Those are the two main things. One is the non-fulfilment of the James Bay agreement, and the other is the commitment to review the housing situation without federal help.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: It's not only that. The Quebec government also did commit to renewing our capital projects program, which can assist the 14 municipalities.

By the way, I forgot to mention this. You see in front of you five representatives of five different communities, but I'm sure we sound a lot like the other fourteen communities up there. There's a total of fourteen communities in that Nunavut region.

The Quebec government has committed to helping us renew our infrastructures in the areas for municipal services. Again, we believe that the federal government should help out and assist, but we have had no indication of any financial support from the federal government.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Thank you. That's very helpful.

The Chairman: Mr. Wilfert, then Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to say how pleased I am that you're here. I'm a former municipal politician, and I know Mrs. Longfield is as well. As the former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, I can tell you that I've had lots of dealings with mayors and councillors from the north and other regions. So it's always nice to hear from the people who are closest to the people and certainly have a good perspective.

Clearly, Mr. Chairman, the basic needs of anyone anywhere in the world are shelter, food and water, and clothing. The issues we're looking at deal with economic development. You talked about the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement of 1975. Obviously, Mr. Chairman, we're going to have to ask the officials from the department to come in. The agreements were made, therefore they must be adhered to.

I'm a little confused. Of course the Quebec government is no different from any other government in that municipalities are the responsibility, if you will, of the provincial governments, and the powers municipalities have or don't have are derived from the province.

• 1240

Your communities are too small, presumably, to have participated—and again I don't have that information—in the international infrastructure program, which was, of course, the tripartite relationship among the three. I know the Quebec government changed the tax structure in Quebec regarding municipalities, which had a severe impact a couple of years ago, so I was surprised to hear of the improved relationship. Obviously, infrastructure is key. And it's a fundamental issue that you can't have economic development if you don't have the proper infrastructure in place. Clearly, the department officials, when we get them in here, will have a few questions with regard to that.

You mentioned the healing fund. We tend to be so politically correct around here that we spend money on things that...I don't believe you can rewrite history. In fact, once you start apologizing for one thing, I don't know where you stop. If we're going to have a fund that is supposed to provide dollars, I believe those dollars should go for economic development. We don't want to give a handout, we want to give a hand up, and I think that's what you're here talking about. You want to improve the daily lives of people in your own communities.

The issue of taxation is an excellent one. Everybody should pay taxes. I don't think anybody should be exempt, but the fact is we have an inequity here. You also have a problem with the fact that your cost of living is three or four times higher than that down south and yet you're still paying the same tax rate.

On your comment with regard to being next to a reserve where they are constructing housing and yet you have people in your own communities who clearly see this and are not able...to me, we are going to have to raise that issue with the officials. There is obviously the relocation issue, and they'll be asking for information with regard to that.

Probably a lot of us were surprised to hear that whereas aboriginals on reserves don't pay taxes, the Inuit do, and obviously the implications are quite severe. Basic roads, water, sewage, and housing are a right, and in this country everyone, regardless of where they live, needs to be provided with that. I don't want to hear that people in your communities are on social assistance. What I want to hear is that they are given the opportunity, because of the economic incentives that hopefully will be created, to be able to work, to provide food for their tables.

Lastly, I have no understanding of the issue with regard to the elimination of the dogs in the late 1950s. Presumably, dogs have been reintroduced in terms of your dog teams today. If they're not, I'd like to know why.

Mr. Chairman, the bottom line is that we've been given a great deal of information from these mayors. What we need to know from the department is what they have been doing, what they are doing, and what we need to correct. Obviously it's the correction, particularly when we have an agreement in place that doesn't sound like the moneys...and this is often a problem. I'm probably going to sound like my friend across the way. Does the money actually reach the people who need it most? That's the problem.

Mr. Derrek Konrad: Partisan.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: The subsidization of up to 50% for housing, which you gentlemen mentioned, in the Northwest Territories versus your region was an interesting point. Basic housing, decent housing for people is a right. It's not something we should even be debating.

Mr. Chairman, I would end by saying that the sooner we get our officials in here, the sooner we can pose the questions directly and the sooner we can get some answers back to these mayors so we can correct what is certainly not acceptable. Although I haven't been in your particular region, I've been to Iqaluit and other areas in the north and I can say that doesn't make me happy.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Before I turn the floor over to Anthony, I'd like Mr. Wilfert to confirm that he does indeed want officials from the Department of Indian Affairs to testify before the committee at the earliest opportunity.

[English]

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: That's correct.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Please proceed, Anthony.

• 1245

[English]

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Mr. Chairman, I can only partly answer some of your questions. You mentioned the infrastructure program, and that it was a tripartite agreement. It does work in larger municipalities. Let's say in Akulivik, where my colleague is from, with a population of about 400, the contribution by the municipality is so small that the Quebec government and the federal government have to match it. It doesn't get anywhere. So in that aspect it has not worked, although it's a good program. I'm sure larger municipalities welcome it, but it does not work for everyone.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Chairman, that points out what I have said for years. The federal government is the only government in the western world that I know of that does not contribute directly to municipal infrastructures. Whether it's a tripartite agreement...and in small communities it's not necessarily practical, and I agree with you.

I do think the federal government has an obligation to provide financially to municipal governments in some form, in other words, based obviously on a ratio. Clearly, in terms of infrastructure, we're the only government I know of in the western world that doesn't do that directly. I continually natter about that because I think it is outrageous. We should have an ongoing national infrastructure program in this country, period. So I am totally in agreement with you.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: To answer your question on the elimination of dogs, today they are being slowly reintroduced into some villages, if not all of them, but mostly for tourism. People do not actually use them to conduct their daily lives. People who have maintained that tradition were fortunate enough to slowly get back into it.

If any of my colleagues want to add to that, I would leave it open to them.

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

[Translation]

The Chairman: To answer Mr. Wilfert's question, I have just consulted our calendar. We are scheduled to welcome officials from the Department of Indian Affairs on November 3 to discuss chapter 14. In order to give them enough time to prepare themselves to answer all of the questions raised today by the mayors and to familiarize themselves with their statements, we should give them until November 5. Are we agreed then that these officials should be called to testify on November 5 at 11 a.m.?

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: As long as we have enough time....

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Can you send the information to us also so that we can look at it.

The Chairman: Five days is enough time to get the answer for each community.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I don't mean the length of time to prepare...I mean that they are before us for a sufficient amount of time on the 5th so that we can get the answers we need. We have many questions that need to be discussed.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Yes.

[English]

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Is two hours sufficient? That's what I'm asking.

[Translation]

The Chairman: We could start at 9 a.m.

[English]

I could start the meeting at 9 a.m.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I have enough questions to last quite a long time. I'd like to start at 9 a.m. We can always end earlier if we're finished.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I would also like them to send us the material on those key issues. They're obviously going to be presenting some material and I'd like to get a look at it in advance. I don't like receiving it cold turkey.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Understood.

Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I too was impressed by our witnesses' presentations and I'd like to thank them for coming here today. Before being elected to the House of Commons, I served four terms on city council. I gave that up when I was elected to the House.

• 1250

You have raised some very good points, presented some good cases and made some valid observations. The issues that you have discussed are very important because they involve extremely urgent problems that people are facing.

You have made your position quite clear. Your needs must be met as soon as possible. I agree with the member seated to my right who in some respects stole the question I wanted to ask you: Why are things going well at the provincial level and poorly at the federal level?

I disagree with my colleague opposite who criticizes when things go wrong, but can't say anything good either when they are going right. He is surprised that things are going smoothly at the provincial government level. I would remind him that the federal government has considerable responsibility in this area given that it is a signatory to the James Bay Agreement.

Nearly five months ago, my colleague Claude Bachand, the Member for Saint-Jean, put a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs concerning development in your region. It went something like this:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs.

The federal government has already acknowledged the importance of making up for lost time in terms of residential housing construction in Nunavik in northern Quebec. Despite this, it stopped awarding subsidies for residential construction in 1995, whereas the province has continued to do so on its own.

That was nearly six months ago. Mr. Bachand went on to ask this question:

Is the minister prepared to recognize that by failing to act, not only is she not helping to resolve the housing crisis in Nunavik, she is also violating the provisions of the James Bay Agreement to which the federal government is a signatory?

The Minister, Ms. Jane Stewart, responded that she was aware of the need for housing, that the government was concerned from a humanitarian standpoint and that the issue would be further examined in the coming weeks and months. However, we have still not received any official indication that initiatives will be undertaken in the near future.

Understandably, I am delighted that the Quebec government is stepping up its efforts in this area. You are critical, not surprisingly, of the federal government's failure to act, not only on the housing issue, but in other areas as well.

You say that you can't understand why the federal government is upset with you. Perhaps my colleagues opposite won't be happy to hear me say this, but these days, the federal government seems to be upset with everyone. The evidence of this is irrefutable and much has been made about this by the media.

I think we have duty to get the government back on the right track. Again, I think this committee should examine this issue, take a stand and make some recommendations. As a member of this committee, I'm prepared to ask that we make some recommendations to move forward on these matters quickly and to resolve the problems to your community's satisfaction.

I'm just about finished, but I want you to know that you have the support of my party because, strictly from a humanitarian standpoint, the circumstances that you describe in your presentation are outrageous. You need someone to listen to your concerns and I hope that this committee will do so. You have made a very strong argument.

• 1255

However, there are other matters that are not quite so clear. If I can continue for a moment, Mr. Chairman, since my colleague asked two of the questions that I had in mind... you stated earlier that your dogs had been killed. I'd like to know why that happened and how many animals you lost. Were they all killed? Were they considered a nuisance or dangerous? What prompted this action? And if they were all killed, I'd like to know why?

The Chairman: Mayor Robbie.

[English]

Mr. Robbie Tookalak (Interpretation): We'll have a bit of a history lesson here. The federal government was solely in charge of the Inuit people in what we now know as the Nunavik region. But before that, back in 1967, that's when the Quebec government finally stepped in and said they were going to put the Inuit people under the Quebec wing. In 1962 and 1970, there were some Royal Canadian Mounted Police based in Kuujjuarapik. There were also some Quebec provincial police in this community of Kuujjuarapik, where I'm originally from.

At that time, we heard simultaneously that the same thing was happening in all of the other communities. I was working for the federal government then and the federal government apparently ordered all their RCMP officers to terminate our dogs. Up to now, I am asking the same question as was asked here. Why did it happen? The federal government did not give so much as an explanation of why it was being done. The people felt powerless to do anything about it.

• 1300

As Qalingo mentioned, these were police officers. They were armed. They're RCMP. How can you go against an intimidating force like that?

The government did not give an explanation back then, and until now they have not answered the question of why this took place in all the communities unilaterally. It happened at the same time in other communities. There was obviously an order given by the federal government to carry out this tedious task.

I want to reiterate that being recognized, this wrongdoing should be compensated for. I just wanted to reiterate that, because up to now I'm still asking the same question: why did it happen?

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fournier.

Mr. Ghislain Fournier: I'd like you to clarify something for me. If I understand correctly, you can't tell me why this happened. You don't know the reason yourself because no one told you. Therefore, I will endeavour, along with my party colleagues, to find out exactly why such action was taken.

I understand that you are in urgent need of housing, roads and clean drinking water. You require infrastructures.

You also mentioned taxes. I take it that the cost of living is very high in your part of the country and that it is unfair for you to be taxed at the same level. I think the tax burden should be shared among the regions.

I hope that committee members have listened closely to your concerns and will act on them in the very near future, because, Mr. Chairman, this situation is indeed urgent.

I want to thank you for coming here and for voicing your concern about the well-being of your fellow citizens.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fournier.

[English]

Madame Longfield.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to say, Anthony, you asked what you have to do to get our attention. You have my attention. I can tell you I've heard some very disturbing things today, and as others have indicated, I have many questions I'm going to put to the department, as I think other members of the committee will.

So if you've at least got five, six, or ten more people on board as a result of your visit, I think that's probably fairly productive.

I heard someone mention—I think the figure was 400 units—that you felt there was a shortfall, and I want you to tell me if that's exactly what I heard. I want to tell you I agree, and I think it's imperative we live up to any agreements that have been made. I think we absolutely need to honour those. I'd like to get to the bottom of which issues you feel, from your perspective, the federal government has reneged on.

I must admit I was not aware of the differences in taxation and status between Inuit and other first nations people, and I think I need some answers about why they exist. I understand you're saying you don't want to be treated differently, but I think there needs to be some equity and some understanding, particularly when you live side by side with these other people and somehow you begin to wonder what you're doing wrong, or why you are not getting the same kind of treatment.

One of the questions related to economic development, and it was Ms. Smiler.... You have a community economic plan. I'm interested in who prepared it. Was there any funding that came from any level of government? Perhaps you could give us some idea of the kinds of business ventures. You mentioned the soapstone carving, but are there others we might be looking at? And could you give us some explanation of why you feel the programs or businesses you're attempting to start up or put forward are not being funded, or why they don't qualify? Perhaps you have some suggestions on how we may change those rules to reflect the very unique concerns and needs in remote northern communities. I don't think it should be a one-size-fits-all kind of approach.

• 1305

So perhaps you need to educate us, to help us, so we can help you. What is it specifically we can do to change—to help you?

I have hundreds of other questions, but I think most of them are as a result of questions you asked us, and I don't think you have the answers either. We need to get answers from departmental officials. If you could just touch on some of those, I would be most appreciative.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Yes, the figure that was given to you today represents the needs of the entire region we come from, what is known as Nunavik. It is a territory north of the 55th parallel.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: If I might ask, is it 400 units you think would resolve your problems in housing?

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Actually, he just gave you a round figure of 400. It was 430 or something. That's only a catch-up program, to catch up to the needs today. There would have to be supplementary understanding that these 400 units will only meet the needs of today.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: That's the backlog, I suppose.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Yes.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: Okay.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: As the population is growing, the need becomes greater and greater. It has to be addressed. It's only a catch-up program.

[Translation]

The Chairman: I just have one question for you. I believe it was George who talked in his presentation about children and parents. Often, when 16 people live in a two- or three-room house, it's a situation where parents, children and grandchildren are all living under the same roof.

[English]

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Yes, that is the case. In my community it's pretty much like that. That was just one example, as he mentioned. There are many situations like this. Maybe that's not the most extreme case, either. From what I understand, there are more than 16 people living in one house at another place. It's basically a catch-up program. They were starting to catch up in 1995, when the CMHC decided they were no longer going to participate. In the last three years the needs have skyrocketed.

I would just like to add that when you deny people a basic service like housing, they have no incentive to make families. They don't have an incentive to start a family. Because there's no place to live. Where are they going to go? It's very saddening.

[Translation]

The Chairman: During the summer, which lasts one or two months, conditions improve slightly for families. They fish, live in tents and go trapping. The problem becomes more critical during the long winter months.

I'd like to emphasize one thing. Public servants, whether federal or provincial, are very well housed. Teachers, doctors and the like each have their own home. That's not a problem. You and your families are the ones who have to deal with a very difficult situation.

[English]

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Yes, for the local families it is difficult. As I mentioned, in my community it's even more difficult to see construction taking place right in front of us for families, and nothing for us. It's even harder to see, for example, that if a teacher decides he or she is not going to be finishing out the year, their apartment sits in the dark because it's not accessible to local people. You have to be a teacher from out of town to use that building. Even if it's liberated, we have no access to it.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: I think I had some questions directed to Ms. Smiler.

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Yes, this study was done everywhere in our communities a few years ago, I think, by what we call KRDC, the Kativik Regional Development Council, and it's funded through KRG, the Kativik Regional Government. They did the study for all of us, for all of the communities.

• 1310

So it's three years old. Of the things you may read about in there, the most outstanding one would be the daycare. We do have a daycare today, and also this year we are getting the recreation centre. These are the two main outstanding pieces in here that are different today.

In response to your question, a lot of the programs given to our people, or that our people are eligible for, many times don't fit the population for reasons such as that they have to be social aid recipients and they have to have so much money to start up a business, for instance. There may be 40 questions before you write an application for a business venture—things like that. I certainly feel there has not been enough emphasis on how a person in my community can try to have their own business without going through so much red tape. A lot of those 40 questions don't allow this person to proceed with their own ventures for business.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: What kinds of businesses would we be talking about?

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Maybe starting up a small store, starting a clothing store or a material store. It's a variety of small community businesses.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: So not just working out of a home? It's not a home business—

Ms. Siasi Smiler: No.

Mrs. Judi Longfield: —but actually trying to start something up in the community.

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Yes.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Mr. Keddy, the PC Member, has asked me to convey his apologies to you, but he is expected at an urgent meeting. The same holds true for Mr. Konrad. They have meetings to attend that were scheduled in advance. They send their regrets to the other members as well.

Please proceed, Mr. Finlay.

[English]

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to thank everybody for coming. The weather didn't cooperate, but here we are and we're happy to give you the time.

I have a couple of little points I want to clear up and I have a question that Mr. Adams left me before he had to go somewhere. The first one is with respect to a very little question, perhaps, but as for this termination of the dogs that is bothering all of us, did it happen in the western Arctic as well?

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: Apparently it did.

Mr. John Finlay: Apparently it did. Thank you.

The other question is for Mayor Smiler. I was a little confused, and I think Mr. Adams perhaps was, but did you say that many families were moved to other communities from your community and are seeking funding to return?

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Yes.

Mr. John Finlay: Did that have anything to do with the people who were relocated in Resolute and Grise Fjord?

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Some.

Mr. John Finlay: And some came from other communities in Nunavik?

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Our community was the main community for about six or seven other kinds of camps around our main community. What has happened in the past 30 or 40 years is that those small camps had to leave their home base camps to come into our community, mostly because the children had to come in and go to school.

Mr. John Finlay: Right.

• 1315

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Many times the families and the children were forced to come to our main community. Apparently all the camps today have moved to this one community. Now, 30 or 40 years later, some of those people want to move back to their base camp homes. That's what I was saying. This involves not only the people who were relocated to the High Arctic but also families close to our community, because they were all living off the land at the time and now they want to go back to the land.

Does that make it clear?

Mr. John Finlay: Yes, I understand partly. But Mr. Adams' point was, didn't those people who were moved to Resolute and Grise Fiord get compensation? I thought that had been dealt with. But you're talking about those who, for reasons of family, health, education, communication and so on, were moved into a centre like your own, where services could be better provided. Now they want to move back to their home place. I guess that's a different problem.

Ms. Siasi Smiler: Although they were moved in for good reasons—you and I can agree on that—the impact of the change over the years has been terrible. There has been all the drug abuse, alcohol abuse and that kind of stuff over the past years due to the impact of change. Now they're saying they want to go back to their homeland to get away from all of the impacts of change. That is why these people want to go back to their land—their home, really.

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat:

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in his native language]

Ms. Siasi Smiler:

[Editor's Note: Witness speaks in her native language]

Mr. John Finlay: I think we can all understand that from a human point of view, and I guess that movement is taking place all over the world in every country and province for the same sorts of reasons.

I see no objection to someone wanting to go back and live on the land the way they or their ancestors did, if it's possible, but there are certain services that will not be available to them.

Ms. Siasi Smiler: I agree. But I think it's also important to remember that over the past few years there's been a lot of change that has had a very negative impact on our people, and therefore there are a lot of social problems. These are things we should be looking at and also questioning and trying to find—

Mr. John Finlay: I couldn't agree more. Your development plans, your working on these things with other communities and your need of more support are absolutely legitimate.

Anthony mentioned that all the social problems are interrelated, and that's the point we sort of just made. And housing is basic. You asked why the Canadian government doesn't keep the agreement. That's something we're going to find out, but it's not quite as simple as my colleague over there would suggest. There's a political element. Unfortunately, I don't think anybody should be a political football, but perhaps you are a little bit of a political football right now.

You said four groups signed. Who were the four groups? Were they the Quebec government, the Canadian government, Hydro-Québec and you, or did you mean you yourselves, the Cree, the Ontario government and the provincial government?

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: The four parties I mentioned were the Quebec government, the federal government, the Inuit party and the Cree party.

• 1320

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much.

I have one last question, Mr. Chairman.

I was just at a breakfast this morning with Jack Anawak, the Interim Commissioner of Nunavut, so this question came to my mind and to that of Mr. Adams. How will the coming into being of Nunavut next April affect you, if at all? How do you see it affecting you?

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: As Mr. Tookalak mentioned, it's clear in the agreement that when the Nunavut government comes into effect, they will be declared the rightful owners of all the offshore islands from twenty feet from the shore up to the high tide mark. Our concern is that our historical use of these islands will be given to another Inuit group, and that we will then be regulated by their regulations and their laws. We feel threatened by that, although we've had discussions with them and have tried to get some assurances that we can continue to use these islands as we have done for so many years. That is our primary concern.

Mr. John Finlay: Thank you very much. Since we just had a meeting with the Cree-Naskapi commission, we were aware of that problem. We're also aware that they have a similar problem with respect to certain islands in the southern part of Hudson Bay, and I'm sure things will be looked after. I appreciate that you've already made a suggestion as to how this might be done, and I think it probably will be done. We'll certainly keep it in mind when we talk to the department.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Finlay.

In conclusion, let me just say that we were honoured to have your here among us today. Thank you for sharing with us your legitimate demands and concerns about the welfare of the Inuit of Nunavik.

You have a serious housing crisis on your hands. Rest assured that our committee will monitor the government's actions in this area very closely.

I have a question for all of the witnesses. Do federal officials often visit villages in Nunavik to view the problems that you are experiencing? Personally, I tour the area each year.

My riding is the largest in the ten Canadian provinces, after the Northwest Territories. It covers an area of 802,000 square kilometres. The entire province of Quebec covers an area of 1,400,000 square kilometres. My riding has a total of 96,000 inhabitants.

Frankly, I'm looking forward to seeing an Inuit member of Parliament. I'm very attached to your people. Currently, I'm your representative in Parliament, but I look forward to the day when perhaps one of the persons seated here, male or female, is elected the first Inuit MP in the House of Commons.

I'd like to know if you sometimes receive visits from government officials who wish to view firsthand the housing, economic or other problems that you are experiencing.

[English]

Mr. Anthony Ittoshat: No, we have not seen any representatives from the federal government specifically coming to look at the problems of housing, economic development or social problems. We have, however, seen Mr. St-Julien travelling in his riding a couple of times this year, and a few times before that.

The only sign of the federal government that you see up north is usually the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, because they have a job to do. The same thing can be said for other departments. And there's the Canadian flag, which is ever so present in our communities. But that's about the thrust of it. We have not seen anybody else coming to see or deal specifically with our problems. It's basically only to do their daily functions or seasonal functions, such as implementing the agreement with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in regard to the harvest of beluga whales.

• 1325

The Chairman: Thank you. Nakungmiik.

[Translation]

I wish you a safe trip home. Mr. John Finlay will now replace me in the chair while Dr. Sydney Gorrioch testifies and I serve as your Parliament Hill guide.

Thank you again for coming. Your visit was important to all committee members. Nakungmiik.

We will now suspend our proceedings for several minutes.