Interventions in Committee
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and everyone, for allowing me to ask some questions.
I know I probably surprised a few people today. I'm very confident that through this committee process and my discussion with the minister that, with some amendments, including with the Inuit, we will be able to come to some common ground so that we will have unanimous support at third reading. I want to make that very clear right off the bat. Those are topics for another meeting.
Professor Newman, while looking at the different clauses, I noticed that clauses 5 and 8, for instance, talk about co-operation with provincial governments. Provincial and indigenous governments are mentioned throughout the bill. From your point of view, would that include territorial governments, or are they excluded by their not being named here?
Thank you.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Okay. Thank you.
Again, Mr. Newman, I'm not sure if you're familiar with the Nunavut Agreement and the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It's an anomaly; it's unique. It's a land claims agreement with Inuit that instead of choosing to go to self-government, as in Nunatsiavut where a lot of these things are geared toward, they chose to have a public government to administer all of the programs and services.
In the beginning of the bill, in the definitions where it talks about “indigenous governing body”, the unique situation of Nunavut, where the land claims agreement chose to have a public government to administer the territory, should be included because if I read this “indigenous governing body” wouldn't cover the territorial government that has the responsibility for delivering programs and services, especially with the languages as well.
Thank you.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
I appreciate it. Thank you very much.
Welcome. It's good to see you again.
In listening to your stories, it seems like it could be our premier saying the same thing for Nunavut. It's one thing the Inuit have in common, I guess. We've been ignored for far too long by the federal government.
I guess you want to talk about the infrastructure deficit. I can totally relate. We're in the same kayak, if you want to say that, right? Do you think the federal government needs to focus more directly with the Nunatsiavut government, the Nunavut government and the governments of the jurisdictions to come up with something to address that infrastructure deficit insofar as what your priorities are and in dollars that will actually get something done quickly?
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Okay, thank you, Minister Philpott.
I guess one of the other things, and it was mentioned earlier in comments, is that under the land claims agreement, there is a public government established under that modern treaty. The territorial government is responsible for providing some of those services like health care, education, and housing. I'm just wondering, because you talk about working with Inuit leaders, is there also a committee that you're working on with the territorial government as well so that they're not being left out of the picture?
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I have a few questions, but maybe I'll start off with either Ms. Woodley or Mr. MacKay.
You talked about the overlap agreement with the Denesuline. I vividly recall that a memorandum of understanding was reached between Canada and Nunavut in 2016 that ensured that the jurisdiction of the Government of Nunavut couldn't be altered, and that the Government of Nunavut wouldn't incur any financial obligations through any amendment to those final agreements and implementation plans without its consent.
It seems to me a no-brainer that the Government of Nunavut would be a signatory to those agreements. Can I get your thoughts on that?
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Bossio.
Welcome to the witnesses.
You mentioned earlier on that you're hearing a lot of talk from the government on nation-to-nation relationships and reconciliation, but you're not seeing much action, and in the last round of questioning, little support is coming from the third party managers. I want to draw a clear distinction between the government and the bureaucracy. The third party managers should be trying to work themselves out of a job as quickly as possible to bring up capacity, but it seems as if it's in their own interest to keep things the way they are, at half a million dollars a year.
From the bureaucracy's point of view, they're probably looking at it as they know how much it's going to cost them. They don't have to worry about expanding the expenditure base that may be required and has been ignored for years. I look at that—I've heard a lot about it—and it seems to be an entrenched culture within the bureaucracy. I'm wondering if both the witnesses seem to be hearing one message coming from the political leadership and running into the same old challenges dealing with the bureaucracy.
View Hunter Tootoo Profile
Ind. (NU)
I don't have a problem sitting down and discussing issues with other stakeholders. I know this is an issue with the province, and I've met with all stakeholders. Whether they be recreational fishers, anglers, indigenous groups, I've committed to open to dialogue with everyone.
Actually, I met with a group this morning who said they'd been trying to get in the door with a request. No one has talked to them, and I told them—just as I did when I was in New Brunswick with a first nations group over there—that our officials are here to work with them on whatever the issues are and to do anything we can to help make progress on certain issues. Basically, we're all in this together. Having that dialogue is important to being able to make progress. That's the only way it's going to happen.
Results: 1 - 7 of 7