FINA Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Finance

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 2, 2002

0930

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.))

Mr. Keith Peterson (President, Nunavut Association of Municipalities)

0935

0940

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux (Mayor of Enterprise; Director (Charter Communities/Hamlets/Settlements), Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities)

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

0950

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt (Mayor of Dawson; President, Association of Yukon Communities)

0955

1000

The Chair

Mr. Whit Fraser (Political Adviser, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami)

1005

1010

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar (President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association)

1015

1020

1025

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

The Chair

1030

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

1035

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

1040

Mr. Charlie Penson

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Charlie Penson

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

1045

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

1050

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Glen Everitt

Mr. Bryon Wilfert

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

Mr. Glen Everitt

1055

Mr. Shawn Murphy

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

1100

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

1105

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Whit Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Ms. Maria Minna

The Chair

1110

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.)

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Yvan Loubier

The Chair

Mr. Whit Fraser

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

Mr. Yvan Loubier

Mr. Whit Fraser

Mr. Yvan Loubier

1115

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Mr. Roy Cullen

1120

The Chair

Ms. Veronica Dewar

The Chair

Ms. Winnie Cadieux

The Chair

Mr. Keith Peterson

1125

The Chair

Mr. Glen Everitt

The Chair

Mr. Whit Fraser

1130

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Finance

NUMBER 097

1st SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 2, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

¿ (0930)

[English]

The Chair (Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West, Lib.)): Ladies and gentlemen, witnesses, good morning. Welcome, everyone. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the subject of this meeting is pre-budget discussions.

We have a number of witnesses with us today. Over approximately the next two hours, we'll hear from our witnesses and have questions from and answers for our panel, the members of the finance committee.

We welcome the following witnesses: Mayor Glen Everitt, who is from the Association of Yukon Communities and is also the president of that association; Whit Fraser, who is a political adviser to the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami of Canada--thank you very much for joining us; Veronica Dewar, who is president of the Inuit Women's Association; Mayor Winnie Cadieux, of the Northwest Territories Municipal Association—and I think the mayor will be joining us shortly; and Keith Peterson, who is president of the Nunavut Association of Municipalities.

Who would like to go ahead? Keith, would you like to start us off? For time, you have up to ten minutes.

Mr. Keith Peterson (President, Nunavut Association of Municipalities): Thank you, Madam Chair, for the invitation to participate on this panel on northern issues. It is an honour to sit before your committee again today. Last October, we met your committee in Edmonton. We had a great presentation, and you invited us to Ottawa. Of course, you also asked us to invite a lot of MPs to Nunavut, and we'll certainly have a lot of them come to Nunavut after this week.

We appreciate the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance convened this panel while the mayors of Nunavut are here this week for our AGM. Many of them have come here today as observers, and I welcome them to this event.

My name is Keith Peterson, and I'm the mayor of Cambridge Bay, which is located above the Arctic Circle, in the Kitikmeot region of Nunavut. The Nunavut Association of Municipalities represents 25 Nunavut communities and 28,000 residents.

Madam Chair, after our last appearance before your committee, we realized it was critical that we lobby federal politicians in order to make them aware of the issues affecting Nunavut's municipalities. It is not often that all the mayors of one territory travel to Ottawa to meet federal politicians. This is an opportunity for your committee to learn more about Nunavut, and our mayors hope to learn how Ottawa makes decisions that affect Nunavut.

We're learning things just by being here this week. We were in the House of Commons the other day. We also met with the Minister of Finance and outlined some of our concerns. Unfortunately, however, I didn't leave with a cheque. I learned afterwards that you're supposed to do that.

During my last appearance, we stated that the flow of federal dollars into Nunavut is not a one-way movement of capital. Based on that discussion, we commissioned the firm of KPMG to undertake a study to determine the impact that Nunavut had on the rest of Canada in 1999 and 2000. I think you have copies of that study before you.

KPMG utilized information from Statistics Canada to complete the study. It shows that almost all the capital invested in Nunavut by the federal government has an exceptionally strong impact on the rest of Canada. In 1999, for example, the federal government transferred $610 million to the Nunavut government. Our government raised 10% in own-source revenues. Our study estimates that Nunavut spent $450 million in the south.

Madam Chair, that $601 million is required to operate Nunavut, and everyone knows it. It's not like it disappears into a money pit. Unfortunately, we hear that the taxpayers of southern Canada think all that money goes up north and disappears, but that's not the case. These dollars flow back into many of the provinces as expenditures on foodstuffs, vehicles, lumber, and hardware.

Our study results indicate that, for each of 1999 and 2000, between 4,000 and 9,000 person-years of employment outside of Nunavut were directly attributable to Nunavut's imports from the rest of Canada. The study also estimates that, again for each of 1999 and 2000, between approximately $300 million and $400 million in value-added was generated in the rest of Canada from Nunavut's imports from the rest of Canada. Madam Chair, as I said, these numbers show that Nunavut is not a drain on the federal government.

At the last meeting, you suggested that we try to outline what the federal government can do to help Nunavut. I will start with infrastructure. Nunavut is very disappointed and frustrated by the allocation of only $2 million out of a total national pot of $2 billion under the Canadian infrastructure program. Per capita allocations of capital do not work for Nunavut, and they never will. We have a very small population base of 28,000 people, so it just doesn't help us. Our municipal infrastructure needs greatly exceed this amount. When I met with the Minister of Finance the other day, I presented him with a list that adds up to a value of $250 million, minimum.

In the past week, NAM polled sixteen Nunavut communities and asked them to provide us with their lists. They need water plants, desalination plants, roads, and schools—the basic stuff that people in the south require.

Madam Chair, in December, the federal Minister of Finance announced the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation. This fund will be capitalized at $2 billion and is targeting large strategic projects. I learned this program is being designed for large urban projects in southern Canada that have a minimum price tag of $50 million, including light-rail transit systems in Toronto, a clean-up of Halifax Harbour, and perhaps a convention centre for Vancouver. Again, Madam Chair, this will not help us in Nunavut.

¿ (0935)

This infrastructure program will not meet the needs of Nunavut's communities any better than Canada’s infrastructure program does. Before this program is finalized, it is imperative for the federal government to ensure that the criteria are suitable to Nunavut, or that it designs a program for rural areas—I understand the criteria aren't fixed yet; they're still under development—because, Madam Chair, by providing us with the basic infrastructure that we need in Nunavut in order to provide our residents with roughly the same standard and affordable quality of life as other Canadians, the investment in infrastructure will stimulate economic development, employment, and training opportunities for our residents.

The federal government has established four regional economic development organizations for different regions of Canada. They are designed to reduce the degree of economic disparity in Canada's regions, as demonstrated by differences in unemployment rates, labour force participation, and personal incomes. I'm talking about Western Economic Diversification, the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency, the Federal Office of Regional Development—Québec, and FedNor in northern Ontario. The four regional development agencies focus specifically on economic development, and they encourage solutions that are specifically adapted to the regions they serve.

The activities undertaken by RDAs are designed to strengthen the regional economies, build on the strength of the economic potential of the regions, and contribute to the overall strengthening of the national economy. EDAs, or economic developments agreements, are partnership agreements between the federal government and provincial and territorial governments to stimulate economic development in the applicable province or territory. Yet, Madam Chair, Nunavut—and the entire north, for that matter—does not have a regional development agency or an economic development agreement. We do not have some of the basic economic building tools that exist in the rest of Canada to help us to stimulate economic development and create economic wealth and jobs for our territory.

The federal-territorial framework within which to foster the broader economic development that Nunavut and the north needs to develop our economies does not exist. Our municipalities in Nunavut are nearly 100% dependent on government transfer payments. We're in desperate need of significant investments in basic infrastructure, stimulative investment policies, tax breaks, and economic development strategies. A territory cannot create economic wealth for its people when this situation exists.

Economic development in Nunavut is also undermined by a number of other factors, such as high transportation costs, high construction costs, distances to markets, and a very young and growing population. Our young people are our future, but what can we offer them if conditions are very difficult now?

About 60% of Nunavut lacks the affordable, efficient Internet access that people down south take for granted. There are no high-speed cable modems or fibre-optic lines in Nunavut. We still have to dial long-distance for this service. This impedes economic development, distance education, and medical treatment for our residents.

The cost of travel in the north makes it almost impossible for businesses to be competitive or for individuals and families to travel nowadays. The price of a round-trip ticket from Cambridge Bay to Edmonton is over $2,000. It cost me over $4,000 to come here. To fly to our capital of Iqaluit from Cambridge Bay, it costs me $4,500. It's hard to travel, and we rely totally on air travel in Nunavut to get around.

The economic potential of Nunavut is tremendous and must be recognized and supported by our governments in the rest of Canada. There are mineral resources everywhere. Two new diamond mines in the NWT and talk of an oil and gas pipeline have had a major economic impact on that territory. We have excellent tourism potential, there are opportunities in renewable resources, and the DEW Line clean-up could create an economic boom for many of our communities.

Our communities want to break the cycle of financial dependence and make significant contributions to the economy of Canada. Investing in the north by ensuring that federal programs and policies are suited to our needs will pay dividends in terms of taxes and a higher gross domestic product for Canada and Nunavut. In addition, these things will foster our own sense of self-reliance. Without this investment, our communities will be fighting an uphill battle for decades to come.

Madam Chair, we ask for your committee's help in working to ensure that Nunavut and the north have access to important developmental policies, programs, and initiatives, including an economic development agreement and a regional development agency. The devolution of federal programs and powers to the territorial level is another process that will bring many benefits to Nunavut as a huge step in the evolution of a territory, as we're learning from the Yukon.

In the past few months, the Nunavut Association of Municipalities has tabled three new resolutions at the national board of directors’ meetings at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. These resolutions pertained to a new formula for the allocation of municipal infrastructure dollars, the need for an economic development agreement, and the necessity to implement the devolution process. Our Northern Forum, which includes all the communities north of 55°, supported these resolutions—and my colleague Glen Everitt, mayor of Dawson City, Yukon, is the chair of the Northern Forum.

¿ (0940)

Although addressing the physical infrastructure needs of Nunavut is an arduous process, it is at least quantifiable, and we can give a dollar figure to the Minister of Finance. As mayor, I can assure your committee that addressing Nunavut's social development needs is infinitely more difficult. How do we quantify these problems? Where do we start? The task is daunting. The level of education is an important component, as is the quality of health care. Residents of Nunavut must have the same access to medical services and education as other Canadians, but this is not the case these days.

We believe part of the solution to addressing our social issues includes finding a starting point at which to begin. The most concrete place to start may be by formulating an economic development strategy for Nunavut. This, combined with improved standards of health care and education, will gradually improve our quality of life in Nunavut and will lead to self-reliance.

It's important to note, Madam Chair, that I don't think we have a northern economic development strategy between the federal government and the territorial government for Nunavut or the north. Municipalities must participate in the identification of priorities that affect us all. These priorities must be advanced in such a coordinated and effective manner that policy development is influenced at the national level.

Before I close, Madam Chair, I'd like to extend an offer to your Standing Committee on Finance to meet somewhere in Nunavut, perhaps in Cambridge Bay, Rankin, or Iqaluit. You can bring your entire panel of fifteen to twenty MPs. We'll welcome you there. Come at anytime of the year.

An hon. member: We can come in July.

Mr. Keith Peterson: July? I have everybody coming in July. It will be good for the fishing industry.

An hon. member: How about January, then?

Mr. Keith Peterson: January is good too.

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We now welcome Ms. Winnie Cadieux, who is a director with the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities.

Mayor Cadieux, would you like to start with your presentation, please? You have up to ten minutes.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux (Mayor of Enterprise; Director (Charter Communities/Hamlets/Settlements), Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities): I have to tell you that I'm really nervous.

The Chair: There's nothing to be nervous about. They're all kind people here.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: I'm very honoured to be here.

In discussing my nervousness with my husband before coming, he said to pretend that you're customers of my business. The unfortunate thing is that the customers of my business are truck drivers, so I may tell you a bad joke or something.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Winnie Cadieux, and I am the mayor of a very small community in the Northwest Territories called Enterprise. I am also a director of the Northwest Territories Association of Municipalities, and on behalf of the communities of the Northwest Territories, which we are representing here today, I would like to thank you for this opportunity to meet with you.

Personally, I'm very excited that our association is participating in these discussions. Issues like health care, education, water quality, resource projects, taxes, and sustainability affect us too.

Our communities are affected by the same issues as other communities all across the country. Canadian soldiers on the front lines in Afghanistan are just as honoured in Enterprise or Fort Simpson as they are in Edmonton or Ottawa. I am very proud to be a Canadian, and in our different ways, we have all helped Canada achieve a very prestigious designation of being one of the most desirable countries in which to live in the world. Doing our part by helping Canada to keep this designation is why we are here.

How do we release the creative energy of our people? I believe the communities of the Northwest Territories contribute an incredible cultural uniqueness to the Canadian society. Most people who think of the NWT think of Yellowknife or Inuvik. These communities are our biggest ones and are great ambassadors of the north. However, the true essence of the north is the mystique of the wilderness, and although small communities may not have the same levels of services, they definitely have a thriving relationship with the land. In Canada, but especially in the north, the people's relationship with the wilderness and the realities of it are a way of life. By ensuring that we continue to facilitate the sustainable development of strong and healthy northern communities, we will do our part to help Canada best assure the highest quality of life for all.

I would like to tell you a little bit about the organization that I represent. The NWT Association of Municipalities, also known as the NWTAM, has been in existence for 35 years. Our mandate is to promote and facilitate the exchange of information to, from, and among communities of the Northwest Territories. Much like the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, the FCM, we represent communities throughout the NWT with a unified and collective voice. Through our membership, we umbrella most of the people and organizations at the community level. Through our members, the elected leaders of community governments, we have direct and effective communication channels and networks with nearly every community in the Northwest Territories. Whether bureaucrat, professional, politician, or private entrepreneur, we have links and provide direct or indirect services to all.

Community governments have responsibility for recreation, local law enforcement, roads, garbage and waste, water supply, fire protection, airports, public health matters, building and development controls, business licensing, and public transportation, among other matters. By extension, our networks include the professional and volunteer organizations established in these function areas at the local, regional, and territorial levels. Our association has developed a true partnership with the Government of the Northwest Territories, and we're working together to create sustainable communities across the entire Northwest Territories.

I would like to address both the issues of economic prosperity widely shared by all Canadians and how our governments can best assure the highest quality of life for all, from a northern perspective. These issues bring forth many fundamental principles of governance. Current negotiations between the federal government, the GNWT and our local aboriginal governments have yet to produce a clear picture of what the future responsibilities of our territorial government will look like. But we know one thing for sure: that the current resource economy of the Northwest Territories is moving ahead whether we're ready or not.

Diamond mining has become an established industry in the north. By the year 2005, Canada can expect to have three diamond mines operating in the Northwest Territories, producing approximately 12% of the world's gem-quality stones—or $1.6 billion annually—mostly in exports. Once on track, the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Project will be a major supplier to the Northern American natural gas market. Over the next twenty years, existing and proposed diamond mines and petroleum developments alone promise to contribute some $57 billion to the national GDP—as cited by a University of Calgary study—create 294,000 person-years of employment across Canada, and generate approximately $5 billion in tax revenues nationwide.

These recent private-sector investments have catapulted short-term economic growth in the NWT. Nevertheless, the whole of Canada stands to gain the most from the investment in the Northwest Territories' massive economic potential. Northerners will not be able to fill all the direct job and business opportunities that will be generated by our expanding non-renewable-resource sectors. Machinery, equipment, materials, and consumables will have to be sourced from southern suppliers in the main Canadian markets.

While these resource exploration activities have created numerous employment and business opportunities, our current infrastructure is being stretched to the limit by the pressure from these gas pipeline and diamond mine developments. In the NWT, the federal government currently sets and retains 100% of the royalties collected from non-renewable resource projects, and 100% of the exploration fees collected from firms acquiring the rights to explore—for example, the oil and gas permit fees. Corporations expect the public sector to supply the required essential services, such as adequate roads, affordable and serviced land for housing, and adequate water and sewer facilities. The GNWT estimates that meeting these public-sector obligations may require an injection of $120 million to preserve and upgrade existing roads and airports, and $80 million for municipal infrastructure over the next four years. The lack of such essential public services may discourage future investments by companies that would otherwise be willing to invest in Canada's north.

The communities of the Northwest Territories do not have all the resources needed to help to prepare and position the residents and business community to fully participate in development opportunities. Community sustainability in the Northwest Territories can be achieved through a process of balancing the effects of large resource projects and nurturing the creative energy of local peoples.

With an uncertain future, a community must look at all the options in front of them. The spirit of the community must be considered, and in this spirit, we find the very essence of what it is to be Canadian. The centre of our community spirit is in our schools, not in our legislatures. This spirit must be nourished. The enthusiasm of our peoples must be nourished. We must try to connect ourselves to a more holistic expression. The grassroots principles developed by the FCM—such as the quality-of-life reporting system, which looks at more than just economic growth indexes as a means to measure our productivity; and the ten-point guide for building sustainable communities—are excellent examples of how we can address these issues. All the communities of Canada developed these statements. These principles balance development and growth.

Canada's investment will enable the Northwest Territories to create an environment that attracts industry, manages development effectively, and balances the benefits of resource development not just for northerners, but also for all of Canada. In our view, this investment in the Northwest Territories is an investment for all of Canada.

Thank you.

¿ (0950)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

We will continue with the Association of Yukon Communities, and we'll hear from its president, Mayor Glen Everitt.

Mr. Glen Everitt (Mayor of Dawson; President, Association of Yukon Communities): Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

As mayor of Dawson, president of the Association of Yukon Communities, and chair of the FCM's Northern Forum, which represents all communities north of 55°, it's a pleasure and an honour to be here to speak to this important committee.

In order to assist in creating stability in economics in the Yukon, we must accept the fact that dollars have to be spent on building and replacing infrastructure throughout the territory. Today, the Yukon is in a huge economic slump. This slump is the result of many factors. Low mineral prices are one example. A second is a lack of vision by government to ensure economic diversification. And a third is environmental legislation that continues to overlook the balance between environmental protection and economic development.

When these three ingredients are mixed together, the mixture has the potential to create a recipe for a stagnant and shrinking population, an increase in bankruptcies, and a climate that makes investment appear to be risky. Today, municipalities across the Yukon are experiencing these things. Populations are shrinking; stores are cutting back hours, if not closing altogether; the tourism industry is being devastated as a result of September 11; infrastructure is in major need of repair; and accounts receivable are continuing to increase as people find it more difficult to make ends meet and pay their taxes. The public is looking for answers, solutions, and hope as the ability to turn to senior levels of government becomes increasingly more difficult.

Throughout the communities I represent, I've heard of many cases of families being split as one parent is forced to leave the territory in search of work in order to be able to send money home. The question becomes what we can we do in what timeframe, and who can do it.

It is time for relationships to grow between the federal and municipal governments across the north. As a board member of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, and with twelve years in municipal government, I am well aware of the different initiatives that have been negotiated or worked out in partnerships between our respective levels of government. The most recent was a series of municipal infrastructure programs.

It is important for the government to realize that many of its programs, although successful, do not work for the municipalities of the Yukon or for small communities in northern jurisdictions. Capital funding agreements leave the territories in an awkward position. The amount of money is trivial: $2.5 million out of $2 billion goes to the Yukon, and that won't even pave three miles of road. Let's not forget about that fact that many of the territories and northern communities can't afford to cover the one-third contribution that is required. They don't even have the ability to apply for the funding.

We were very excited when the finance committee made mention of northern and small communities across Canada. We were even very excited when the Hon. Minister of Finance, Paul Martin, stated that northern communities are faced with different challenges. Every day, we get encouraging news coming from our member of Parliament—and I'm very impressed that he's sitting here today; I'm not used to seeing that type of representation coming from our MP, so thanks for being here, Larry.

A study is currently under way in the Yukon to identify the infrastructure needs throughout, with an emphasis on future needs and economic diversification. It is currently estimated that roughly $160 million is required to bring Yukon communities to a level that will help to make them competitive with their southern and northern neighbours. This is not a great amount of money that we're asking for, yet it would accomplish many things that would not only address economic activity, but would also provide training opportunities for our youth and retraining for our adults. It would replace much needed infrastructure, such as roads, water and sewer, and high-speed cable fibre, and build a much needed bridge across the Yukon River in the Klondike, completing a solid link through the north between the Yukon and our Alaskan neighbours.

This money would also see airports paved. Many research papers show that, on a per capita basis, there are more small planes in the state of Alaska than in any other jurisdiction. Surveys reveal that many Alaskans would fly to the communities in the Yukon if our runways were paved.

Other communities would benefit from riverfront docking facilities and upgrades to recreation and cultural facilities. And most importantly, partnerships would form between first nation governments and municipal governments as local-hire and training guidelines are negotiated.

¿ (0955)

Another initiative that is required is the signing of an economic development agreement between the Yukon and the federal government. The other jurisdictions in the country outside of the territories have these agreements, leaving the territorial governments of today and the past constantly campaigning, when they're running an election, on the idea that they will get an agreement signed with Ottawa. It has become a political issue rather than a commonsensical approach.

I'm not sure if you're aware of it or not, but at their board meeting last December, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities passed a unanimous resolution that Ottawa should complete negotiations and sign economic development agreements with the territories. It was important for me, as mayor of Dawson—and this goes back to the invitation you received from my friend Keith Peterson—that the board of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities needed to come to the Yukon—and particularly to northern Yukon—in the winter, and not in the summer, when everybody likes to come play in our backyard. They needed to see what our living conditions were, and we were successful at getting them to come last December.

When it was minus 38 degrees, mayors and councillors from across Canada came up to Dawson and saw the travel problems we're faced with. Some drove the roads and found the frost heaves that occur and that we're living with every day as a result of global warming—our highway systems are heaving all over the place. And many were shocked to find out that, in a community so close to the Arctic Circle, Dawson is required to put freezer units in to keep sections of our town frozen because the permafrost is melting underneath.

Since that visit to Dawson, there has been huge and unanimous support from across the federation on issues that are tabled by Nunavut, the Northwest Territories, and the Yukon. It is important for this committee to experience this type of event, so I also invite you to the Yukon. If you go to Nunavut in July to go fishing, then I'd like you to come to the Yukon in the dead of winter to see what we're living with, because saying it and seeing it are two different things.

A forest agreement is being negotiated with the territory right now. However, there are problems that plague this negotiation and many other negotiations going on throughout our region, with devolution around the corner. Environmental groups are tilting the balance of representation on the forestry committee and the Yukon Placer Authorization review board, to name a few. Ottawa must ensure that environmental groups have one representative in a process, not four or five out of seven. Miners, loggers, outfitters, fishermen, trappers, small businessmen, guide operators, rafters, and tour boat operators do not have the money to ensure that their voice is being heard throughout many of the reviews now underway. Environmental groups have the benefit of endless wells of cash. Federal departments such as Environment Canada, for example, continue to provide dollars for transportation and representation to environmental groups whose underlining goal is to clearly create a huge park in Canada called the Yukon.

This is a real touchy issue for us. We support environmental issues, but with a balance of economics. We don't have that right now. They have meetings for miners, and the miners are expected to pay their own way and are allowed one seat. In contrast, every environmental group across the country gets its way paid to go sit on those panels. We're seeing the industry and investors just walking away from the Yukon at a time when they should be celebrating because devolution is around the corner and we will have authorities similar to those of a province. So while I know Nunavut and the Northwest Territories look forward to the day of devolution, I caution them to take one step backwards and to wait and see how it unfolds in our territory, because it’s a scary issue right now.

In closing, I would like to again take the time to thank you for these few minutes to speak. This opportunity provides me with the belief that there may be a light at the end of the tunnel. Many people in the territory are waiting to see some good news coming from this committee, or some good recommendations. I'll echo again that an infrastructure agreement signed between the municipal association and the federal government for $160 million over the next four years will provide the tools needed for us to succeed. I will be providing a copy of the completed report—it’s scheduled to be finished on June 30, which is a month away—to every member of this committee.

Thank you very much.

À (1000)

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Fraser, please go ahead.

Mr. Whit Fraser (Political Adviser, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami): Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is Whit Fraser, and I'm employed as an adviser on political and communications matters by the national Inuit organization, the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, which means “Inuit united in Canada”. Many of you may know the organization by its former name, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada.

May I say, Madam Chair, that I'm really delighted to see so many mayors and others from Nunavut here today, and I'm also surprised to see them. I didn't know this particular presentation was going to coordinate with their visit. Of course, Nunavut, as you all will know, is just one of the four great regions represented by the national Inuit organization.

Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami changed its name recently in order to better reflect its commitment to this country and I will hope that our president, Jose Kusugak, will be forgiven for being unavailable today to speak to you directly. At the moment, Mr. Kusugak is preoccupied with the last-minute details of preparing for the launch of a new Inuit logo that he and the honourable member for Nunatsiaq will unveil later today in another part of the Parliament Buildings.

I know all members of the House will look with favour at the image reflected in that logo. Without giving away any secrets, I can tell you it will demonstrate for one and all the extent to which Inuit are embracing Canada and its most cherished national symbol. Inuit will say they are more than aboriginal or first Canadians; they will also say they are Canadians first.

What is unfortunate is that while Inuit are preparing to make an unwavering commitment to Canada and to all of our institutions, too often they are beginning to find it is becoming a one-way street. What Inuit are increasingly observing is a move within the government and the public service toward a one-size-fits-all approach when dealing with aboriginal peoples in Canada. Moreover, from an Inuit perspective, these programs or policies are too often designed or directed toward first nations or Indians on reserve. That trend is happening across government programs and departments, and while there are exceptions, they are rare.

Too often there is little or no recognition of the fact that Inuit occupy more than 40% of the land mass of Canada. There is little or no recognition of the fact that Inuit aboriginal rights were confirmed and recognized along with the constitutional rights of Indians and Métis in the Canadian Constitution in 1982.

In recent years, Inuit have gone to some lengths to educate the Canadian public about their unique cultural and geographical connection with Canada. Inuit are full-taxpaying Canadians, but too often because of their isolation and distance, they receive fewer services for their tax dollars than do most other Canadians.

Inuit, like other aboriginal peoples, are struggling at the extreme end of the social statistics in Canada. They have the highest cost of living, the lowest per capita incomes, the highest rates of unemployment and poverty, the poorest health, and the lowest levels of education. Add to this the fact that the rate of suicide among Inuit youths is more than ten times the national average, and you can make the argument for a social crisis in Canada that raises legitimate questions about why more is not being done.

Let me point briefly to some Inuit initiatives to change this terrible reality. The Inuit of Canada are very active in social and economic renewal. In recent years, they have settled all their major land claims across Labrador, Nunavut, Arctic Quebec, and the western Arctic of the Northwest Territories.

The land claims corporations have invested money received from these settlements back into local economies, in transportation, resource development, real estate, natural resources, and community development. In some regions, the land claims corporations are the biggest employers. But land claim settlements are compensation for land surrendered. They were not negotiated and designed to subsidize and replace government's responsibility to provide basic public services that all Canadians enjoy.

À (1005)

Through their territorial, provincial, or regional governments, Inuit are working at all levels to raise their standard and quality of life. If you are to review the activities of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, you will see a commitment to working with a wide range of government departments to provide solutions to the health, socio-economic, and environmental issues challenging and facing northern peoples.

In order to meet the growing and legitimate demands of Inuit for social and economic equality, ITK has taken the position that it must enter an effective and fair financial partnership with the Government of Canada. Most people in Canada are surprised when we tell them that of ITK's annual budget, which typically is about $4 million per year, the organization can count on only about 8% of that money being committed by the federal government. That means that each year, our staff develops about forty or more contract proposals with various departments of the government.

In order to survive as a national organization and address Inuit needs, the organization finds that it's often forced to follow the government's own agenda and deliver programs that suit the government's policies or programs. Increasingly, ITK is also finding that in the development and creation of these programs, the government is pursuing a single policy framework that responds to the interests and needs of first nations or Indians. This one-size-fits-all approach does not work for Inuit. Inuit believe that the answer to many of the social, economic, and health challenges that they face lies directly in their own communities.

The Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami has been calling on the federal government to develop a partnership in order to develop together a workable, performance-based Inuit action plan that sets out a clear long-term commitment from the Government of Canada. As part of an overall Inuit action plan, ITK is insisting that the federal government embrace the principle of Inuit-specific programs—that is to say, programs that are focused directly on Inuit needs, geography, language, and culture. This is not a principle that is new to the federal government, which has a wide range of regional programs to address regional differences in Canada—programs that can be found in fisheries, energy, agriculture, or many other areas. To address Inuit or Arctic priorities, northern peoples deserve an Inuit-specific approach to the social, economic, health, and environmental challenges they face.

With that backdrop, members are probably asking themselves, “What's the problem? Didn't the last federal budget and the throne speech commit to addressing those issues?” Well, unfortunately, that 2001 budget did more to illustrate the government's increasing tendency to deal with first nations issues than it did to address concerns of the Inuit.

Let me quickly review some of the figures in the $185-million aboriginal envelope. Out of that amount, $25 million was aimed at reducing fetal alcohol syndrome on reserves. Inuit do not live on reserves, but their children suffer the same fate. Another $60 million was specifically for on-reserve aboriginal children with special needs. And $100 million went to Aboriginal Head Start Initiative programs.

While the budget should have been good news for Inuit, they instead felt excluded. The socio-economic situation in the northern communities is as severe as, or in some cases worse than that on reserves. All aboriginal communities in Canada need help, especially in childhood development, health issues, and head start programs.

What further troubles the national Inuit organization is the fact that, following the budget, Mr. Kusugak wrote to the finance minister to ask if Inuit were to assume that these programs were not to apply to Inuit. Mr. Kusugak has yet to receive a reply in regard to his concerns.

As members consider their recommendations for the next budget, may I raise one issue that was dropped last February? Northern regions look with great anticipation to the possibility of a broadband initiative. This matter should be reviewed, if not in a national context, then at least for rural, remote, and all aboriginal regions of Canada. Its potential benefits in terms of distance education, telehealth, and remote medical delivery systems, are immense. It may not be whether the country can afford the investment, but whether Canada can afford not to move ahead with at least an Arctic broadband service.

When Inuit began their land claims initiative and considered their future relationship with Canada about thirty years ago, implicit was a return to self-reliance, and they have made some remarkable achievements. But they've also made it clear that the road to self-reliance is only half-travelled. The remainder of the journey will be long, and it will take national investment, commitment, hard work, and partnerships. Their message to the federal government is that it should not abandon them midway. We urge the government to address the needs of all aboriginal peoples. In doing so, do not forget Inuit.

Thank you.

À (1010)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Veronica Dewar, please go ahead.

Ms. Veronica Dewar (President, Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association): Qujannamiik. Thank you.

I would like to begin by thanking both the chair and the committee for the opportunity to bring forth the needs and priorities of Inuit women in Canada. This is the first time we have been provided with the opportunity to meet with you time since Pauktuutit was incorporated in 1984.

My name is Veronica Dewar, and I am the president of Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association. I was born in Coral Harbour, a small Inuit community in the Kivalliq region of Nunavut. I lived and worked in Rankin Inlet for many years, but I have lived in Ottawa with my family since being elected Pauktuutit president in 1998.

Pauktuutit is the national organization that represents all Inuit women in Canada. We act as their official representative at the national level, and advocate on their behalf on a range of social, cultural, economic, health, and political issues. The success of our work is recognized internationally, and it has earned us consultative status with the United Nations. Unfortunately, we often do not receive the same recognition or credit from the Canadian government.

As women, our priorities tend to centre on the health and well-being of our families and communities. We believe that by investing in the health, safety, and well-being of individuals, we can ensure a positive and productive future for all Inuit.

We are proud, taxpaying citizens of this country. We have and will continue to embrace both the benefits and responsibilities of our citizenship.

Inuit live in six regions of Arctic Canada, from the western Arctic across Nunavut, in Arctic Quebec, and along the northern coast of Labrador. Our culture and language are unique. We speak Inuktitut, one of only three aboriginal languages in Canada that are expected to survive. We are seeing a resurgence of pride in our culture and language, which are cornerstones of the development of our new territory of Nunavut.

Inuit have achieved greater success in settling our land claims and self-determination than have other aboriginal peoples in Canada. Not all Inuit, however, have access to the programs, services, or education that are taken for granted in southern Canada. Within our population, we have many vulnerable people, many of them women with needs that are not considered and therefore not met. We believe it is essential that the views, needs, and priorities of Inuit women be taken into consideration in budget planning and in program service development and delivery from inception.

While we have specific rights pertaining to gender, as described in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and while many federal departments now have official policies on gender analysis, too often we find that these commitments and obligations are not translating into practice. I feel compelled to urge the Canadian government to ensure that you honour your domestic and international commitments to gender equality.

I am very pleased to have this opportunity to address the two themes of these consultations: how Canada can best assure greater levels of economic prosperity are widely shared by all Canadians; and how the government can best assure the highest quality of life for all. For Inuit, these things mean creating a level playing field based on the concept of substantive equality. By this, I mean providing the ways and means for Inuit to achieve the same outcomes as other Canadians in terms of access to and successful completion of post-secondary education, health care, and economic development opportunities.

À (1015)

For us to access post-secondary education, it generally means we must leave our communities to attend college or university. Accessing university education means that we must definitely leave the Arctic to attend educational institutions in southern Canada. Leaving a small community in the Arctic is cause for family culture shock. For even the brightest and well-adjusted Inuk youths, our terms of reference are entirely different from those of southern Canadian youths. This does not mean, however, that we cannot successfully complete post-secondary educational programs. It does mean we may require different supports and services, both in the north and south, in order to do so.

We know Inuit have lower life expectancies than other Canadians. We live in greater poverty and experience high rates of physical and sexual violence. Among our youth, we have the highest rates of suicide in the country. We hear, often on a daily basis, of another tragic suicide in one of the communities. The effects of suicide are very deep and shake communities and individuals to their very core. I will not describe the many perceived causes of this horrendous suicide rate for you now. We know there are a lack of opportunities in the communities, a lack of positive alternatives, a lack of role models, poverty, and a lack of access to basic programs and services. I would like to talk to you today about these issues in the context of cause, of not addressing these issues from a preventative approach.

Achieving substantive equality for Inuit women is another matter. Since 1984, violence prevention has been a major priority identified for Inuit women. Since the 1950s, we have experienced the effects of cultural dislocation, and those effects are still reverberating in our lives today. We experienced the forced relocation of our communities and the forced removal of our children to attend residential schools. For decades, we experienced these circumstances, but too often were rendered powerless in our efforts to overcome these major problems in our own Inuit-specific ways. We have awakened from those dark days, though, and we know what is needed. But it will take meaningful assistance from government to implement these solutions. All of us, Inuit and non-Inuit alike, have a vested interest in achieving and assuring the high quality of life for Inuit as aboriginal peoples and citizens of Canada.

Many women and children continue to bear the burdens of the effects of our recent history. From our discussions with Inuit women across the country, we know the incidence of physical and sexual violence against Inuit women and children is very high and is rising at an alarming rate. Statistical rates of the incidence of physical and sexual violence against Inuit women and children are very difficult statistics to gather, given the nature of these types of violent acts and the reluctance to talk about these things, particularly with strangers. However, while studies and statistics are necessary and desirable, Inuit women have not been provided with access to the financial or human resources required to undertake the studies or gather the statistics.

Several years ago, the Centre for Research on Violence Against Women and Children attempted to quantify the actual financial cost of violence against women. The authors and researchers examined policy areas related to the costs of emergency health care, intervention, long-term rehabilitation, the administration of justice, and impacts of employment. They discovered it was not possible to quantify all of the financial costs related to violence against women because of the pervasive impacts that such violence has. How can anyone quantify the long-term impacts on the mental health of the victims and their children or the financial costs of the intergenerational damage over time? What we do know is that there is a real and a very high cost to violence, and prevention must be a major part of the solution.

À (1020)

The researchers very conservatively estimated the cost of the current levels of violence against women at $4 billion a year. It is important to note, however, that the study did not assess the cost of violence against Inuit women—a cost that would inevitably be higher.

We know the violence has a deep influence on the lives of our youths. There are very few services in our communities for child sexual abuse victims, either in terms of crisis intervention or long-term therapy. Unresolved child sexual abuse destroys lives. It too often contributes to suicide among our children. How could we possibly put a price tag on this?

With respect to health care, we lack access to the basic diagnostic and prevention services taken for granted in southern Canada. For instance, in all of Nunavut, there is only one mammography machine available to women in 26 isolated communities. There are high rates of cancer among Inuit women, and treatment must be accessed in the south at an extraordinarily high financial cost. The human cost to the Inuit women living with cancer and to their families is even greater, and it would not be tolerated by the people in the south. Worst of all, many women are not diagnosed with many cancers specific to women until it is too late to save their lives.

The lack of accessible information for Inuit women about health issues that affect them and their families plays a major role in this late diagnoses. To that end, Pauktuutit is beginning to develop a series of plain-language booklets, in English and Inuktitut, to provide Inuit women with relevant and accessible information on early signs of some of these diseases and information on prevention of other diseases—such as heart disease and osteoporosis—within the context of our culture, diet, and lifestyles. It is our hope that these booklets, produced with a very modest budget, will help Inuit women to take greater ownership and control of their health.

We have played a leadership role with respect to the prevention of HIV/AIDS among Inuit; however, our efforts are hampered by the complexity of accessing ongoing sustainable funding without hard numbers. Gathering information about HIV/AIDS in the north is difficult at best, and although we have encouraged Health Canada to use cohort studies that examine risk indicators of risk behaviour, like the alarmingly high STD rates, they have yet to do so. With high teen pregnancy and STD rates that are much higher than those in the south, it is clearly only a matter of time before HIV and AIDS devastate the Inuit. Any Inuk living with HIV or AIDS in the Arctic must leave their communities for all specialist treatments. With a standard of quarterly assessments and treatments that costs upwards of $1,500 per month, the financial costs will be astronomical, at upwards of $100,000 per person per year. The human costs could devastate the future of Inuit.

Smoking rates among Inuit are amongst the highest in the country. Since 1984, we have been working with Health Canada to develop prevention and educational materials for and by Inuit, to explain the dangers of smoking and to provide tools for people to use in their communities. We do not have the quantified information on the reduction of smoking among Inuit, but we know anecdotally and from public opinion that our work is having an effect. One result is that the community of Iqaluit has been discussing non-smoking bylaws similar to those in cities like Toronto and Ottawa. Much of our work is aimed at preventing Inuit children from starting to smoke at all.

À (1025)

A major key to accessing these initiatives has been an emphasis on training and developing the skills, abilities, and capacity of Inuit in the Arctic to participate in or undertake health promotion and disease prevention work in the communities. Most materials were developed in the south for populations other than Inuit and have little if any relevance or utility for Inuit and their communities. But we have learned through extensive evaluations of our tobacco cessation and HIV/AIDS work that our approach to capacity-building does work. It is a model that we have developed and redefined over time. However, today, in partnership with the Canadian government, we have access to adequate sustainable human and financial resources.

The Chair: Could you give us your final thoughts?

Ms. Veronica Dewar: Okay. I'm just about done.

I also would like to address the amount and nature of funding available to Pauktuutit for our work. We receive core funding through the Department of Canadian Heritage, but this $226,000 per year does not cover the basic operating costs of our very small office. I will finally be meeting with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to discuss this further with him.

I'm running short on time with you. I'm always the last to finish, so I would like to at least be given the time to finish what I have to say with this last page.

The Chair: People do have your materials before them. We have an hour to get to our members, so they'll bring it out in questions.

Ms. Veronica Dewar: Yes, but in closing, on behalf of all Inuit in Canada, I would ask that adequate financial resources be allocated to ensure that we have, through our representative organizations, access to opportunities and resources that are essential to help us to meet your objectives.

I would like to thank you for this opportunity. I hope I will be put in a place at the beginning next time so that I have time to finish what I have to say.

The Chair: Everybody gets the same time here. Thank you very much.

Mr. Penson, go ahead.

À (1030)

Mr. Charlie Penson (Peace River, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the panel for being here today and for bringing forward unique ideas and unique problems that are identified in your area. I also share the geography of that part of the country. Although I'm not in the Arctic north, my riding is Peace River, which is north of 55°. The two main supply routes to the Yukon and the western Arctic pass through my riding at Grande Prairie and Peace River, so we get some gauge of the economic activity going on, just from the supply lines that are going through there.

Ms. Cadieux, I do know that diamond mining is an opportunity being developed in the north, in your jurisdiction of the Northwest Territories. I know that holds some opportunities for economic development. That's really the focus of what I would like to ask. I think the opportunity for economic growth has had a setback, and I think Mr. Everitt has pointed to that setback. I was in Chile a few years ago and found that a big part of our mining industry had moved out of our country and had moved into Chile. In fact, there was about $8 billion worth of Canadian mining investment in Chile. When I asked them questions about it, what they told me was that they were going to be making huge investments, but those investments were vulnerable because they didn't know what was going to be happening in terms of land use. There were land claims and environmental issues surrounding mining developments, and when you're going to be making millions and billions of dollars worth of investments, it seems to me that such uncertainty would hurt those kinds of opportunities. I think that ties in to the presentation this morning.

Ms. Dewar, you were talking about the need to have jobs and about some of the difficulties that your people face in terms of substance abuse problems and violence. It seems to me that if people are employed, they have some sense of self-worth. They are providers and they take those responsibilities very seriously. But if they don't have that opportunity, that's what leads to a lot of the breakdowns in our society, particularly in the north in terms of substance abuse and violence against women and children. So I think we need to focus as much as we can on what the roadblocks are to the economic development that would provide those kinds of jobs in your communities.

So, other than what you said in your presentations, I would invite the panel to explore what more can be done in terms of how we can avoid putting roadblocks in the way of facilitating economic development in the north.

The Chair: Mr. Peterson, first of all.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

In Nunavut, we have one land claim that offers stability. The Nunavut Tunngavik has said we're open for business, and all the regional Inuit associations say we're open for business. In the Kitikmeot region, which is one of the three regions, we actually work with the mining industry through the Kitikmeot Inuit Association’s Kitikmeot Corporation. We have partnerships with mining companies.

We are working together on a partnership right now. We've received $3 million from DIAND and $500,000 from the Government of Nunavut, and we've raised $1.5 million of our own money. We're doing two years of baseline studies in environmental engineering, and we're doing public consultations. So we are working.

We did some economic modeling a coupling of years ago and identified that development of one project—a road and port—would create a minimum of 17,000 person years of employment not only Nunavut, but also for Canada.

We're anticipating that our studies and reports will be done by 2003, and we're filing for the permits. Our next hurdle will be to raise $210 million to build an all-weather road and a port that will access the mineral resources in the Slave geological province. That project will also benefit the Northwest Territories, it will benefit the entire north, and it will benefit Canada.

We're working together, and we've come up with creative ideas. We're not saying we don't have our own ideas, but we are working with other people. We want the mining industry to invest in the north, and I think it will if we, as governments and municipalities, all work together to create that opportunity for them.

The Chair: Mr. Everitt, did you want to add to that?

Mr. Glen Everitt: Yes.

Land claims were a big issue in the Yukon in terms of investment. I spoke to many investors who were waiting because of the uncertainty. That issue is almost settled. They've negotiated most of the land claims.

I come from the region of the Yukon where there are large gas and oil deposits, but there's no way to get them out. That's one issue. The pipeline, either through the Mackenzie Delta, through Alaska, or both, will have no impact whatsoever on the actual reserves in the Yukon Territory that are in the north of the Yukon. There's still no way to get the stuff to the pipeline.

One of the problems that we face—and maybe this panel could recommend a review of it—is that we have a group of people, of individuals and professionals in Ottawa, who are hired to represent us. A lot of them have never been to the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, or Nunavut. They pass environmental legislation or other pieces of legislation and try to umbrella an entire country, but that legislation doesn't work in jurisdictions with no population or next to no population.

The environment department, along with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, creates the largest amount of uncertainty for investments. We have people who are walking around to small mining operations, and they're carrying pistols on their sides and are shutting down miners because they think there might be grayling swimming in a tailings pond. So the biggest setback for the industry is the enforcement.

For secondary sewage effluents or other effluent discharges, there is one test for all of Canada. It’s called an LC50. People are required to meet this standard, which is shutting down businesses and communities across the north because they don't meet that standard. They're putting discharges into some of the largest waterways and rivers in North America, but the test was designed for down here, for a little lake or a little pond.

A review of the federal legislation is needed, as is the realization that Canada is a huge country and that one centre of the country should not be dictating legislation across such a broad area without looking at the impacts of that legislation in each different region to see if it works. Hopefully devolution will start that process.

À (1035)

The Chair: Mayor Cadieux, you had some words.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: The point that I'd like to make is that the big industries in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or the Yukon are not necessarily what's stopping the communities from being successful, from achieving sustainability, or from meeting the problems that we have as communities. Somehow, there has to be a way in which money can get into the communities in order to help the small economic development that will employ the people in the communities who don't want to work in the mines, who don't want to leave their families for two weeks, for four weeks, or whatever. How do you do that? I don't know.

As small communities, we have that same problem in dealing with the levels of government that we do have. We know what our potential could be, and we know what our problems are. But a higher level of government sometimes makes decisions for us without ever consulting us or asking us what we need. Some of the solutions might be quite simple, like just increasing the infrastructure dollars going into our communities, or letting the communities make the decisions on how that money should be spent and on which priorities in our communities have a need, rather than setting a focus for the whole of the country and expecting the smaller communities to abide by it.

There’s a good example in the Northwest Territories. Some of the infrastructure money coming into the north carries a designation stating that it has to go to fire safety and to environmental things. In our community, we may need a school, but the infrastructure dollars are not there. A school is a priority for us. We already have a fire truck that takes care of some of our needs, and we don't have a lot of great problems. But our priorities aren't being met.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Charlie Penson: Ms. Cadieux, I wonder if you could comment on the proposed Mackenzie Valley Pipeline Project. We know there are significant reserves and resources for reserves in the Northwest Territories, new developments in the area just north and west of the Yukon and in the Nahanni Valley area. We know there's a need for that natural gas in the south in particular in order to upgrade a lot of the heavy oil in northeastern Alberta, in the Cold Lake–Fort McMurray area.

In terms of land use, do you see any impediments to that development proceeding in any way?

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: There probably are impediments because processes are going on right now that are being negotiated. But I don't think those impediments are meant to stop production, to stop development, or to stop progress. Processes need to be gone through, and once both sides meet and talk about it fairly and equally, the process will go ahead. But as long as commitments of the contracts and of the treaties are not being met...

À (1040)

Mr. Charlie Penson: I asked that question because I think it really ties into what you're talking about in regard to the need for sustainable development. If the reserves there can't reach the market, they're not being developed. Therefore, some method of shipping that product out needs to be developed, and the associated jobs will develop accordingly. So I guess I'm just asking if there's anything we can do to help that process along

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: I don't know. That process is going to take the time that it's going to take. I don't know what could be done to help it other than just continuing to meet and discuss what the needs of the processes and of the aboriginal people are. But I don't think that needs to stop community capacity-building. Communities themselves don't need to be stopped from progressing because talks are going on about the pipeline, the diamond mines, or anything else.

The Chair: Your time is up.

Mr. Charlie Penson: But my point—

The Chair: Your time is up.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —Ms. Cadieux, is—

The Chair: I'm going to start being strict again, Mr. Penson.

Mr. Charlie Penson: —that if it doesn't open up, it doesn't allow you the chance to develop those jobs.

The Chair: Please turn off his microphone. His time is up.

To those people who wish to contribute, please hold your thoughts. As other people question you, you will get opportunities to put those thoughts on the record.

Mr. Loubier, go ahead, for ten minutes.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for being here because it is a great learning experience for us. Regardless of what we might say while seated at this table, the fact is we know very little about the territories you occupy. In fact, our knowledge is so poor that we have trouble evaluating government policy in terms of your specific requirements. Mr. Peterson, your statement earlier is very indicative of the problems we face as legislators. The population of Nunavut numbers 28,000. While government policies make provision for per capita grants, you are deprived of the benefits arising from these policies. Therefore, I'm happy you're here because your testimony is most informative.

I intend to take you up on your invitation to visit your part of the country in the very near future. As a legislator, I'm embarrassed about how little I know about your region. It's difficult for us to do our job when we know so very little about this vast territory that you represent. Therefore, I accept your invitation gladly and will make the trip, even under the worst of conditions like the ones Mr. Everitt described to us earlier. I'll even go in the dead of winter. Northern Quebec is also a difficult region to tame, but it's still a land of opportunity and there's lots to do there.

Unlike my Alliance colleague, I don't feel that the economic development of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and the Yukon is compromised by land claim negotiations. Similar negotiations have been taking place in Quebec since the mid 1970s. Cree land claims, for example, have resulted in economic advances as well as in significant improvements in land management and economic spinoffs for the Cree nations. Often, the opposite has occurred. When land claim negotiations take place, first nations take charge of their land and resources, which translates into more economic growth.

I have a question for you. What kind of tax revenues do you generate? For instance, what kind of tax revenues are generated by the natural resources found on your land? What other independent sources of revenue do you have, in addition to government grants? I'm talking about all of the regions.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Peterson, you can go first.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you for your question.

I'd like to just step back a bit. Under that allocation formula, you discussed per capita. We recommended to the Government of Canada that if they gave a base amount of 1% of the $2 billion to every jurisdiction and then did a per capita allocation after that, it would be equitable. It would help us to develop.

In Nunavut, of the 100% of our funding that comes from the different levels of government, I think 92% comes from the federal government under the formula financing agreement, and I think the remaining 8% is raised by own-source revenues, meaning taxes imposed by the Government of Nunavut on the people who live in Nunavut.

We don't have a very large tax base. We need to develop our economy in order to put people to work. We need a business sector to tax. If we can get that going, then we can start taxing those people and we can reinvest in our territory and in our communities.

The City of Iqaluit is the only community in Nunavut that has taxing authority. The other communities in Nunavut do not have that authority yet.

À (1045)

The Chair: Mr. Everitt, you wanted to add something.

Mr. Glen Everitt: All three territories are actually different in terms of what their taxing authorities are. In the Yukon, municipalities have a lot of leeway. We can do a lot of things to raise revenues. For example, on this question about broadband, high-speed Internet, our municipality went the bank, borrowed the money, put fibre optics through our entire community, and hooked every house and building up to high-speed Internet, only to have the government's CRTC have ratepayers from the south subsidize Northwestel. Northwestel is the northern phone provider that has now launched into high-speed Internet, and it is competing against any community that has tried to move forward. So it's interesting.

But we have a lot of movement room for taxing authority or for the gaining of revenues. Where it becomes difficult, though, is with—and I'm going to use my community as an example—a thing as simple as water and sewer, which is a basic need—and I think it definitely needs to be a standard. People in my community are paying up to $1,700 a year just for that service—and we're still subsidizing it.

We don't have a lot of room to grab or to get revenues from other sources, because we can't pinch their pockets any further. What we need is exactly what was stated here: more opportunities, more people working, and more jobs available. We've tried everything else, and that's where we're sitting.

Thank you.

The Chair: Ms. Cadieux.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: In the Northwest Territories, there certainly isn't a tax base that could sustain any of the development going on or the needs that the development requires of us. The majority of the communities in the Northwest Territories are not tax-base communities.

The Government of Canada gives the money to the Government of the Northwest Territories, which is an arm of the federal government, but it doesn't really give them enough because of the vast expanse of what's happening up there in development and whatnot. That’s putting a crunch on us, and the GNWT therefore cannot give money to the communities because their interests are being diverted into these large economic ventures. The communities at the lower level or at the bottom of the scale are suffering. The higher communities like Inuvik and Yellowknife are probably gaining more from the prosperity because they're very much central to what's happening, either as a centre of government or as a centre of resources.

All of the other communities are suffering because they don't have the tax base and the GNWT does not have the tax base. We rely entirely on the federal government to pass money back to us from the money that is actually being taken out of the resources of our territory.

As has been mentioned by my colleagues here, changing how the infrastructure program is doled out to the provinces and the territories would be of some benefit. Putting programs like the EDA back in place would be of benefit. Some of the programs that we've taken advantage of in our own small community have been the CAP program, the community access program, the Canadian rural partnership program, and the federal programs of your government that have allowed us to put our own Internet access in because waiting for Northwestel to do it was very expensive and was just taking too long.

The Chair: Thank you.

For the first round on the government side, we have Mr. Wilfert, and then Mr. Murphy.

I understand that you're splitting you're time, Mr. Wilfert. You have a short question, and then—

Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Yes, I'm going to have to run.

The Chair: You still only have ten minutes though.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: First of all, I'd like to welcome everyone.

As a former president of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, it was under my watch that the Northern Forum was established. I got to know many people, including my good friend Larry Bagnell, of course, who is a former executive director with the Association of Yukon Communities. And I also got to know Yvette Bungay, Kathy Watson, and others.

I want to make two comments. One is to Mr. Fraser, in that I will follow up on that issue with the minister in terms of a reply. I don't know why that has happened, but we'll certainly endeavour to deal with it.

On the issue of the $160 million over four years for infrastructure, could you elaborate very briefly? I may have misunderstood you, but I thought you said a report might be coming that would quantify how you would reach this dollar figure and explain the nature of the agreement that you would be looking for.

À (1050)

Mr. Glen Everitt: When Minister Martin announced that a new infrastructure project was coming, we took a huge interest in it. We came down from the Yukon and met with Minister Manley's department and Minister Martin's department, only to find out that it wasn't going to be a per capita formula this time. We were therefore pretty excited. But we then heard that it's for big projects, which means every single project in the north will be excluded, because we don't have $50-million and $60-million projects. We asked if we could group all the communities together and do one application so that we could meet this target of “big project”.

The Government of Yukon is providing the municipalities with an employee who is doing a research document, with all communities, on what the basic infrastructure needs are, and the finance department is putting a cost analysis to each one. That report is to be completed by June 30, and I made the commitment to Minister Manley and to Minister Martin's staff that we would give them that report.

Our association wants it out of our politicians' hands at the territorial level. We've already met with our premier, who is 100% supportive. I know some don't like the federal government bypassing the provincial governments. Well, part of the problem in the communities is the provincial governments, who like to get the money and then divert it to some of their own causes in order to guarantee re-election to their own seats—no offence to anyone in this room. We want to bypass that whole middle ground and go just with the territorial, because municipalities are legislated without deficit budgeting. We've proven across the country that they're the best managers of money, as you would know from your capacity as a mayor in Winnipeg, I believe—or were you a councillor?

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I was a councillor for Richmond Hill at the time.

Mr. Glen Everitt: Richmond Hill? Sorry.

Anyway, that's what the proposal is, and it's supposed to be completed by the end of June.

Mr. Bryon Wilfert: I'm going to have to leave, but I do want to say that, having visited many large and small communities across all three territories, it's certainly worth going. I heard a lot of very positive things about the board meeting in Dawson in December.

Mr. Glen Everitt: Good.

The Chair: Mr. Murphy.

Mr. Shawn Murphy (Hillsborough, Lib.): Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I just want to follow up on the last issue that was talked about.

There's no indication that you're going to be excluded from the $2-billion strategic infrastructure program. Is that your indication? I understood that there would be some special mechanism for the northern communities.

The Chair: Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

We met with the Minister of Finance the other day, and he said that the criteria are still being developed.

Unlike that of my colleague Glen Everitt, our community has put together a $250-million list of projects. They're not $50-million projects, they're $300,000, $1-million, and maybe $4-million ones. Cumulatively, they total $250 million, and could be more. We went to the Deputy Prime Minister's office and were basically told that there are going to be mega-projects in every province and territory, and that the minimum level will be $50 million. So we're getting conflicting information.

Coming to Ottawa has been an eye opener for us, because what it's about is going around to people and lobbying. But different people are telling us that criteria are still being developed.

We wrote a letter to the Deputy Prime Minister immediately after that meeting, because he's in charge of Industry Canada, the department responsible for that Strategic Infrastructure Foundation. We asked them to take another look at this before it’s finalized. So we're not sure where things sit.

Mr. Glen Everitt: We are being given information that it is going to be for big projects only. We had a representative from the Treasury Board at the last Federation of Canadian Municipalities board meeting—which was in March—and the same statement was made there. I was upset at hearing about this big convention centre in Vancouver, when we have communities all across the north that don't even have running water yet. But that statement was made there, which was why the resolution that has been talked about was unanimously passed by mayors and councillors across Canada: that these infrastructure programs need to be designed in way that reflects the north.

We have a population of roughly 29,000 in the Yukon. We're getting $2 million. That's more than we would get under the normal per capita funding. But what they do is put in a minimum of $2 million, and that's all we get. But it really doesn't even pave a road. It really doesn't do anything. There are little communities with little economic opportunities. They might be on a service highway somewhere and could get a business going that the community would own and operate and that could put some young people to work. But they can't apply. They don't have the other one-third contribution, or the territorial government says it doesn't have the money to match your one-third.

À (1055)

Mr. Shawn Murphy: I understand, and I hope we all pursue this case that there was going to be an exception made for smaller provinces and smaller territories in regard to the strategic infrastructure program. I represent a smaller province, and I'm pushing for the same thing. We don't have a $50-million project on Prince Edward Island, so we want an exception made on that.

My second question is on one theme that's common in most of your submissions, and that’s the pressing need for a specific northern development agency that is similar to the other four development agencies that we see in Canada. I see no compelling reason that this shouldn't be brought forward. But is there a commonality of interest? When you take the Yukon, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories together, you're talking about one major area of Canada with a lot of different, diverse interests and distances. Do you have that commonality of interest for one agency, or would it just confuse things?

Mr. Glen Everitt: I think it might confuse things a little bit. I know my colleague Keith Peterson has done a lot of work on this one agency, but I do see potential problems.

Your good friend Larry Bagnell, our member of Parliament in the Yukon, had the job of implementing the EDAs. Until the government got rid of them, the previous economic development agreements fell under the purview of Larry's department. Now they don't have them. There's a wealth of information sitting in his noggin that could help to shed some light on the benefits of those previous agreements or on any problems that were in them. He could tell you about any problems that he identified and that needed to be changed.

I know we have some commonalities within the territories, but our jurisdictions are completely different. The Government of Canada has to realize that. They've put in the Smart Communities program, but I don't know if you're familiar with that one. In any event, every province got one application, but all three territories were grouped together. That's wrong. We have three different governments and three different borders, but they tend to always group us together as one. That pits the Yukon against the NWT, and the NWT against Nunavut. We believe we should each get one, just like any province would get one. So it's a problem. But I don't know if that would cross the lines into one regional EDA office or something like that.

The Chair: We'll get comments from Mr. Peterson and Ms. Cadieux, and then we're moving on to Ms. Minna for ten minutes.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have talked to people in the Yukon and have met with the Association of Yukon Communities, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce, and the Yukon territorial government, as well as with folks on our side in Nunavut, and I've met with folks in the Northwest Territories. There is significant interest in a regional development agency for the north. It's a concept now, but it can be worked out. There are examples in the Maritimes and in western Canada. They have commonalities, and they manage to work together to get things done. That's what the RDAs are for: to help to stimulate employment, training, and investment.

I know there are problems with RDAs. There are problems with anything funded by government, but I think we can learn from the examples in the south and work together in the north. By ourselves, we're just too small a jurisdiction to justify a regional development agency or an EDA in Nunavut, but if it's across the north, I think we can do it.

The Chair: Ms. Cadieux.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: Thank you.

Because of the diverse cultures and resources in each one, I'm not exactly sure what a regional development agency would do if it lumped all of the northern territories together. But when this group mulls over everything that you hear and look at, I think the one thing that has to happen is that dollars have to get down to the base level of communities. If the communities aren't getting the dollars, they're not going to be sustainable. Our people are going to be moving out to the larger centres and whatnot, and that's not what we want to have happen.

Things float down. The federal government is telling the territorial governments that they have to spend this money on mega-projects or on large projects, and then the territorial governments are telling our communities that they can't fund anything in the communities for less than $100,000. Well, a community of eighty people with no tax base cannot fund a project of $100,000. We can barely fund a project of $30,000. Our needs aren't being met because the money is being hamstrung at higher levels and is being spent in too many different ways.

Á (1100)

The Chair: Ms. Minna, you have ten minutes for both questions and answers.

Ms. Maria Minna (Beaches--East York, Lib.): Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I want to thank you for being here, because this has been extremely informative for me. I've only visited Yukon and Yellowknife, and I need to go back to do a more extensive visit in the north.

It's obvious to me that the most important aspect of the Government of Canada working with the northern region is ensuring local ownership and that the programs and development are locally driven in the northern lands, each from your different perspective. Without that, it’s obviously not going to happen. It's not going to work to any degree. But if we did do that, we might resolve the problem that was mentioned earlier with respect to businesses leaving because of the use of environmental standards that don't apply and are not helpful in your region. And that’s without mentioning the climate change issue, which is affecting and changing the climate in the north considerably and is thus affecting the lifestyle there.

I want to delve into how you would suggest we get into that, because I think you're talking more about community economic development than you are about the mega-projects, interprovincial projects, or what have you, that are happening in some parts of the country, as Madam Cadieux just mentioned. She was talking about smaller programs. Sometimes they are bigger, but they need to be driven by the different regions.

I just want to get your sense of what the regional development agency should be like. Are you all in agreement that it would be a regional development agency, or would it be a different, broken-up one? If so, would that go a long way toward addressing some of the issues that we're talking about in terms of community development that is driven by the local communities as opposed to being driven down south?

The Chair: Mr. Peterson.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I said earlier, even though it's a big place, it's a small place. Nunavut is 2 million square kilometres, with 28,000 people. I'm not sure what the latest StatsCan numbers are, but I think Yukon has 27,000 people, and the Northwest Territories has 30,000. The Government of Canada has told us that one regional development agency per territory just won't happen because we're too small as individual territories. If we collectively work together, though, one agency is a possibility, it's an option. The other day, the Minister of Finance said to let him think about it.

In the past, we did have EDAs in the north. When we were still part of the Northwest Territories, we had one for five years. It seemed to work effectively, but it got bogged down in bureaucratic stuff and in administration. Half of the dollars that went into the EDA were chewed up in administration. I've been talking to Minister Nault about the EDA since last summer, and our member was present at the meeting in Cambridge Bay, at which the minister said it's not a question of if we get an EDA, it's a question of when we get an EDA. I asked him what that meant, and he said we have to convince his cabinet colleagues. In the great big scheme of things in Canada, the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation of $2 billion is a drop in the bucket, but it's a large amount of money to those of us up north. When we hear something is in the line or in the pipeline—like an EDA—to the cabinet, to the people who make decisions, to them it might be 200th on the list but to us it’s first or second. So I think you could help us up north.

Á (1105)

The Chair: Mr. Everitt wanted to respond.

Mr. Fraser, did you want to come in on that too?

Mr. Glen Everitt: I'll go after Mr. Everitt. That will be fine.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Glen Everitt: You asked if we're all in favour of that type of an approach. To me, an EDA regional office would be more of a negotiation that took place between the territorial government and the federal government. I would be 100% in favour of some type of regional organization that addresses all three territories together, and maybe the northern jurisdictions of Quebec and Labrador—and because I've mentioned the Northern Form a few times, one of the things I have to point out is that the forum is for everything north of 55°, so it includes all of Labrador, northern Quebec, and then the provinces going across.

But I'm 100% in favour of an EDA. We did table a proposal to the Minister of Finance on an example of an economic development agreement that could be driven at the municipal level. Our example would ensure that the communities actually were involved and were part of it, and that decisions weren't being made without us.

Mr. Peterson is exactly correct. When it gets to a senior level above us—actually below us; I say it's the mayors on top, going down to the Prime Minister, and that the grassroots are at the top—a lot of administration dollars get eaten up, and that takes away a majority of the opportunity. We have proven cases in which our municipal associations administer training trust funds and other dollars with next to no administration and away from the interference of political direction, and those examples were also brought forward. But, yes, I would be in favour of a completely regional one for the whole north.

The Chair: Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Whit Fraser: I've said this for a long time, while wearing many different hats: There is no national strategy for what Canada wants to do in the north. There hasn't been one for a very long time, if there has ever been one. There has never been one in my thirty or more years of association with the north. We spend an awful lot of money through twenty or more government departments, with no national strategy on what we want to get out of that money. In the development of a national strategy on what we want to do in the north, I can tell you that the Inuit would be there to say that, on the social, economic, and environmental questions that concern aboriginal people and Inuit, they would have proposals that would clearly state the north would have to be part of that national strategy.

So I don't think it's regional, I think it's national. The whole country is involved in it, but we haven't done it.

The Chair: You have the last comment, Ms. Cadieux. Did you wish to get in on that?

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: I would have to say that the various territories would have to look at it together in terms of whether or not a regional one covering everything would be sufficient. As both Glen and Keith have said, administration eats up so many of the dollars that when a community is eyeing a program that might help it with literacy or health or economic development, the dollars have run out by the time they actually get to that community. The fewer layers that the money has to go to before it can get to the people—who are actually why we're all here—the better. If ways can be found to have it administered locally, in the communities, rather than having it go through too many layers of government, that would stop the money from running out at the airport.

The Chair: You have a one-minute comment time.

Ms. Maria Minna: My last comment is very brief. It basically has to do with the fact that it's obvious that education and health are major issues for the whole region, especially for the women and the children.

I just have one comment—and perhaps we can talk about it individually after this meeting—with respect to your mention of resources development, royalties, and the kinds of benefits you receive from the development of the area. Again, if that were locally driven, chances are that there would be more benefits locally and for the people. Of course, education is fundamental to that, because if they don't have the skills, they can't take advantage of those opportunities.

I'm just making that comment because I agree. Maybe we can discuss it after this is over, as my time is probably up.

The Chair: We are going to go twenty minutes more. I just want to check that the only two people left on my list are Mr. Loubier and Mr. Cullen, unless there's somebody else. I recognize that we have two of our members from the north here, but they're not signed in. However, we're very happy that they have taken the time to be here with their witnesses.

Seeing no more indications, I'm going to allow ten minutes for Mr. Loubier and ten minutes for Mr. Cullen.

Á (1110)

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Madam Chair—

[English]

Mr. Roy Cullen (Etobicoke North, Lib.): I thought Mr. Loubier had already gone.

The Chair: Well, we're doing the second round, and you're going to get ten minutes instead of five. I'm adding five extra minutes.

Go ahead, Mr. Loubier.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: Please don't be upset, Mr. Cullen. Your turn will come, don't you worry.

I won't be much longer, Madam Chair.

[English]

The Chair: That took twenty seconds. Let's go.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I'd like Mr. Fraser and Ms. Dewar to clarify something for me.

If I understood correctly, you stated earlier that in the last budget, additional funding was allocated to first nation communities for education, drug and fetal alcohol prevention programs and so forth, but that you weren't affected by this decision because you live off reserve. That's what I understood you to say earlier, namely that additional funding levels were inadequate and that what's more, the Inuit community could not benefit from this initiative.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Fraser.

Mr. Whit Fraser: The budget statement was very clear. In three or four areas, it identified packages of money and said they were for aboriginal people on reserves. Veronica could pick up on the specific programs and on how they affect the work that she does; however, we believe the budget sent a clear message, throughout the federal government and to others, that the priority with aboriginal people is on-reserve Indians. It did not talk about aboriginals in Canada in general. It was very specific.

As I said, Mr. Kusugak wrote to ask what Inuit are to take from this. Are they in or are they out? Unfortunately, there has been no response, but one of the members just told me he's going to look into that. Now, that was in February, but our main concern is the message that it sends. There is a need for Inuit-specific programs.

The Chair: Madam Dewar.

Ms. Veronica Dewar: Thank you.

I'm going to use an example that I think Whit Fraser already mentioned. For instance, for the FAS/FAE moneys, the Inuit side did not receive any of that this year. Everything was lumped into the first nations pot and was geared toward first nations. We also sometimes have a very difficult time in trying to get funds allotted for HIV/AIDS, because nothing is really defined for the Inuit.

On the Inuit side, we sometimes have to fight with our claws in order to get the funds for various important health issues. Due to the fact that everything is lumped into and geared toward first nations, though, we get left out. This is a true, honest statement that I'm making. ITK, Pauktuutit, and other organizations have been fighting this for a long time. We want to see funds that are geared toward Inuit specifically so that we get our share of the pot from those moneys and can use them for the Inuit side.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: What is the size of the Inuit community in Canada?

[English]

Mr. Whit Fraser: In the whole Inuit community, there are about 50,000 in Labrador, Arctic Quebec, Nunavut, and the Northwest Territories.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvan Loubier: I have one final comment concerning your statement. It might also be in your best interests to keep the opposition parties informed. In a democracy, it's good for the opposition as well as for the government to be informed of developments. Had this information been available to us in December, as I indicated to you, we could have assessed the budget based on this new information and pleaded on your behalf for the federal government to assist the Inuit community. However, when we don't have the facts, it's hard to put pressure on the government. In a democracy, it's normal to share your demands with us and to challenge the government. The end result is better decision-making. Therefore, in future I urge you to share your concerns with us.

Thank you.

Á (1115)

[English]

The Chair: Before we leave this, Mr. Loubier, Mr. Everitt wanted to respond to your earlier point.

Mr. Glen Everitt: I just wanted to clarify something. There has been a discussion happening about the Inuit population throughout the regions of the Arctic. The Yukon is a first nation population, but the people there don't live on reserves either. It's not just the Inuit who don't have reserves. Yukon land claims negotiations are off-reserve negotiations. The people there are all excluded from the funding as well.

Just before I came here, the Minister of Health and Social Services stopped me in the Yukon and asked me to bring that issue up at the table, because they're getting land claim agreements with Ottawa and are getting land transferred to their ownership. It's not reserve land, though, so no funding is available for infrastructure on it because they're disqualified since the people don't live on reserves.

So Yukon is another area of Canada that's an off-reserve area.

The Chair: I might just point out that the Assembly of First Nations was invited today because of that point, but there must have been some reason why they couldn't make it. We'll have them in at another time.

Ms. Cadieux.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: It’s the same thing for the Northwest Territories. We only have two reserves, and they take up only a very small portion of our aboriginal people. The rest are off-reserve residents.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Cullen, go ahead please.

Mr. Roy Cullen: Thank you, Madam Chair, I'd like to thank the presenters for being here.

In my previous life, I had the good fortune to do business in the north. I haven't been in Nunavut, but that would be my next project sometime. I did take some time off to do some char fishing and grayling fishing, though, and I highly recommend it, Madam Chair. September is a good month, especially for the char run.

I would like to make one comment on the infrastructure, and then move to a question with respect to the development of natural resources, and gas resources in particular.

Mr. Everitt, I think you were quite right when you said your eyes lit up when you heard that the Strategic Infrastructure Foundation would not be per capita based. I believe we heard from representatives from Nunavut when we were in Winnipeg, and they were talking about the per capita allocation of infrastructure funds, something that really doesn't do it for you people.

I think you would be wise—and this is some unsolicited advice—to pursue a package that deals with the north in terms of it being a strategic asset that needs investment, and a package that deals with where there are gaps. If you are able to pull that together, I certainly would appreciate a copy of that package. I will then personally take it up with the Deputy Prime Minister, because I know time is of the essence.

I think this is a different infrastructure program from the previous one. It will not include small projects, so I think you need to wrap it up in some kind of northern package, and I'd then be happy to support that. I think those discussions will develop more quickly than the report of this committee if there is a will within the committee to support something like that later on. That's my comment on infrastructure.

With respect to development in the north, the natural gas pipeline has gotten a lot of attention recently. I had the opportunity to work with Diavik Diamond Mines last year, when they were trying to get some supplies in on time in order that they could cross the ice. When we worked on that, I got the impression that in the different agencies, the right hand sometimes doesn't know what the left hand is doing. In the end, I think they were able to secure the approvals and get the supplies in on time, though. But it seems to me that there's always this delicate balance in the north—indeed, everywhere, but particularly in the north—in terms of economic development trade-offs against environmental issues and aboriginal issues.

Let's say the northern gas pipeline comes through the Mackenzie Valley. I'm wondering if there is a consensus in the north on how that should proceed? Ms. Cadieux, you said the approval processes have to go their own way, and that's the way it is. Have there been any notions of setting up, for example, one single agency that would fast-track things? And I use the term “fast-track” with great caution, because I know we have to deal with environmental issues and with aboriginal issues.

The reality as I understand it is that a lot of the work has been done for the route through Alaska and the Yukon, and that this is one of the advantages of looking at that particular route. On that front, then, while recognizing the sensitivity of the environmental issues and the aboriginal issues, is there a way to demonstrate that the project would be dealt with in a way that could move it forward expeditiously and within that context?

A second part to that question—and anyone can jump in on this when I get finished—has to do with…I know the Minister of Finance, and indeed the government, is interested in providing opportunities for aboriginal people to participate in this economic development. There's always a timing issue in terms of providing the training—and Ms. Minna talked about the need for that as well. How can the government best respond in order to ensure that if those projects proceed, aboriginal Canadians, including Inuit women—maybe Ms. Dewar would like to comment on this—can fully participate in this development? What can we do as a federal government to ensure that those things happen?

Á (1120)

The Chair: We'll start with Ms. Dewar.

Ms. Veronica Dewar: Thank you.

Pauktuutit Inuit Women's Association is not recognized like the other six national organizations. We don't have direct contact like ITK does. We have been fighting to sit with the other nationals at the round tables and to be included in any of the decision- and policy-making. This is the difficulty that we have.

We have a very important role on the health issues and in advocating on behalf of Inuit women. That’s important because the women in the northern communities have a very strong role at the community level. A lot of the time, though, we are excluded from training funds as well. These are the things we've been crying out about to the federal government. Pauktuutit has to have a national seat alongside the other six nationals. We want to sit as the seventh and be included at all levels of negotiation or whatever, and we want to take part in decision-making and in the allotting of funds for training for Inuit women. When you talk to the leaders, when you talk to the community women, there are two completely different stories about how women are being excluded specifically.

The Chair: Mayor Cadieux.

Ms. Winnie Cadieux: I have a problem with always looking at training for the big developments. People don't always want to be trained for the big developments. People in a community may want to receive dollars for a biomass energy thing because it will create jobs in their community and they will be able to stay there, sustain their families, and be there on a daily basis, rather than having to go away into these larger developments.

Big businesses can take care of themselves. Why aren't they putting dollars into training and that kind of thing? Why aren't we putting more of our money into nurturing the schools and the health system? Why aren't we allowing the dollars to get down to the communities or even to a region, so that they can create training programs that will really make a difference? Maybe the women want to be trained in the health services industry, learn how to be cooks, or just be better parents or something.

If all the focus is on big business and the gas pipeline, it's going to come down somewhere. How much benefit is that going to give to the individual small communities along the way? Is it just going to train a few people who are going to have work for two years, and then there are not going to be any residual benefits in the communities?

As community leaders at a local level, it’s our job to ensure that we have the capacity to maintain a certain quality of life and to give our residents the best that we can. However, we're always fighting this higher level that looks at the great big picture of big business, of getting our workers into these development areas. Well, there may be businesses that you can train for and develop in a community and can add an element to these larger projects, but that doesn't necessarily mean you're being trained for those big projects.

The Chair: Mr. Peterson, followed by Mr. Everitt.

Mr. Fraser, did you want to come in on this too? No? Okay.

Mr. Keith Peterson: Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'd just like to point out to Mr. Cullen that the road you're talking about is built and maintained by an Inuit joint venture company, Nuna Logistics, so we're well aware of it. One of our products, again as I mentioned earlier, is the Bathurst all-weather road and port.

You asked about the pipeline. In our particular case, we have the Inuit driving and leading that project. Under the Nunavut Final Agreement, they have responsibility for the environment and for habitat, and for social and cultural issues affecting the Inuit.

We're designing that project by working with the mining companies and working with the communities, so that the project does not impact on the Bathurst herd during their migration. We're building an all-weather road so that when the Contwoyto Lake has frozen over in the winter, we'll shut down the road and the caribou can migrate. When the lake ice is melting In the spring, we'll shut down the road and the caribou can migrate to their calving grounds.

If we can work together—industry, the communities, and the government—in looking at those kinds of mega-projects in order to make them happen, I think they can happen in a positive manner.

With respect to Ms. Cadieux's comments, we view a mega-project in the context of Canada as maybe the Athabasca Tar Sands. In the north, $300 million or $400 million is a mega-project that creates 200 or 300 jobs. With that, you can send people out and train people. I was a negotiator for the KIA. We negotiated a benefit agreement with BHP Diamonds Diavik Diamond Mines, and a couple of other companies. In those benefit agreements, we factored in training, employment, social things like scholarships, employment, and subcontracting opportunities for local businesses and communities.

Not everybody wants to work in a mine or on a mega-project, but if they do go out to work, they're going to bring money back to their communities, and that's going to stimulate economic development in those communities. What we have to do is get people bringing in new money from somewhere. I'm not an economist, but everybody knows that if you bring one dollar into a community, it's probably circulated around a community three or four or five times to support other businesses.

So we can train people. We have people in our region who are doing it. We have people in Nunavut training people for jobs in Nunavut.

Á (1125)

The Chair: Mr. Everitt.

Mr. Glen Everitt: I believe the question was how the federal government can assist. I can't really answer that. I can tell what we do right now, though.

The best thing that ever happened to the Yukon, in my opinion, was the settling of the outstanding land claims issues. That settlement has been an economic driving force, and it is moving us forward toward being that way. But there is legislation both at the municipal level and at the territorial level, and at the level of first nations, and that legislation requires economic development and social accords when it comes to projects such as a pipeline, whether it’s the Alaska Highway, something in the Mackenzie Delta, or both. The Dempster spur is what our region's hoping for to get our gas out and to hook into somebody else's line. But there are social and economic accords required so that there are training opportunities for those who want them. There are also royalty opportunities with the first nations when the lines are crossing through their traditional territory. Those things are legislated to ensure things at that level.

The federal government is doing a project that ensures that a company from southern British Columbia—I'm not slighting them…. There's a $10 million project in the Yukon, but a million-dollar project in the Yukon is seen as big. I know that's nothing down south, but it is a big project. The impact from a million-dollar project is huge. But that company can't just be planted up there, bring its own employees in, do whatever it’s going to do, and then leave and take all the benefits down south with nothing happening in the community. I don't have a problem when requirements are put in to ensure that there is local benefit on projects. It's actually very important.

The Chair: Mr. Fraser, you changed your mind.

Mr. Whit Fraser: Just quickly, Glen mentioned the settlement of land claims and the positive impact in the Yukon. That has been the experience all across the country, when the comprehensive claims have been settled, whether they've been settled in Labrador, Arctic Quebec, Nunavut, or the western Arctic, which are some of the biggest investors in the pipeline that Mr. Cullen was talking about. They have a positive economic impact.

The point I want to make, though, is that the settlement of land claims is not the end of it all. It just sets out a whole new regime that's very workable and that gets everybody up front and working for the betterment of the communities. But the implementation of the claims and dealing with issues that are not in the claims—the socio-economic issues that are in the community and are government responsibilities—can't be handed off on land claims just because land claims are settled. They're different instruments that need different attention, but they certainly set everybody off in a new and more positive direction.

Á (1130)

The Chair: Thank you very much. On behalf of all the members of the finance committee, we appreciate the knowledge that you've brought to the table for us today. We appreciate the fact that everybody was on time, and we hope you will join us again at a future time.

We are adjourned.