3. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated

3.1. General Issues related to implementation

3.1.1. First Five-Year Review

In March 2000, the first five-year review of the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) was released. It concluded that, given the time available and resources invested, “better progress should have been achieved.” In response to the recommendations in the review, the Nunavut Implementation Panel (NIP) resolved to develop a joint action plan and a system for monitoring the progress of implementation. To date no action plan has been developed. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI) volunteered to develop the monitoring system, and this is now close to completion.

The NIP established a Support Group as a three-year pilot project to provide administrative support to the Panel. The three years have expired, and the project awaits the Panel’s evaluation.

3.2. Core Implementation Issues

3.2.1. Nunavut Implementation Panel

Problems associated with negotiations to update the Implementation Contract led to an hiatus in the meetings of the NIP. The last formal meeting of the Panel occurred in March 2003. One disputed issue was the matter of the seniority of the federal member of the Panel. The Government of Canada agreed in September 2003 that the federal member would be the Director General for Claims Implementation. However, the position remains vacant.

3.2.2. Working Group to Update the Implementation Contract

The NIP approved Terms of Reference establishing a Working Group mandated to update the Implementation Contract in 2001. Negotiations commenced on May 31, 2001, and over the following months the Working Group received funding proposals from the Institutions of Public Government (IPGs), the Nunavut Arbitration Board (NAB), the Regional Wildlife Organizations (RWOs), the Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTOs), and the Nunavut Sivuniksavut Program. The Government of Nunavut’s funding proposal was tabled in February 2002. This was the last submission.

Negotiations broke down on January 30, 2003 over the issue of federal responsibility for funding the implementation of Article 23. In order to demonstrate that there was a federal responsibility for Article 23, NTI and GN met with the Minister of INAC on February 21, 2003, and presented Annaumaniq, a three-volume compendium of studies and documentation calling for a significant new initiative to address the matter of Inuit employment.

A new federal negotiator was appointed in September 2003. Negotiations between the Parties resumed and continued through to January 30, 2004.

In December 2003 and February 2004, NTI and GN submitted written proposals to try to bring the discussions to a conclusion. No response from INAC had been received by the end of the period covered by this report.

1. General Provisions
   NTI and GN have tabled new versions of the NLCA’s general provisions, seeking to address problems that arose during implementation efforts to date; the Government of Canada tabled a slightly modified version of the existing provisions. All three versions were tabled by December 2002; there has been no substantive discussion of any of the three versions since then.
   
   
2. IPGs
   There was a large divergence of views between the parties in a number of key areas related to the IPGs. These included:
   
   
   • Funding levels for the IPGs and the NAB, and the method used to calculate their baseline costs;
   • Funding for NWMB and the RWO/HTOs;
   • The role of the Nunavut Marine Council.
     
     
   No agreement was achieved on the future of Nunavut Wildlife Harvest Study, despite support for its continuation from a wide range of federal agencies and other wildlife experts.
   
   
3. Escalator
   There has been no substantive discussion about the appropriateness of the Final Domestic Demand Implicit Price Index (FDDIPI) or about alternative federal adjustment formulae tabled by GN.
   
   
4. Article 23
   Article 23 of the NLCA commits the Crown (federal and territorial governments) to the objective of achieving a public sector workforce in Nunavut that is representative, at every level, of the population of Nunavut (approx. 85 percent Inuit). Today, Inuit in the public sector comprise only 42 percent of the GN’s workforce and 33 percent of the Nunavut-based federal public service. Most Inuit are concentrated in the lower levels of the workforce; the average Inuit wage is 78 percent the average non-Inuit wage. At NTI, on the other hand, Inuit Employment levels are at 76 percent of the 87 positions filled, including a majority of senior management positions.
   
   Studies undertaken in 2002 by Informetrica and PricewaterhouseCoopers confirm that the costs of this disparity, in economic terms alone, is significant. Conservatively estimated, Inuit of Nunavut are being deprived of $123 million dollars in salaries that would flow to Inuit if the 85 percent representative level was being met.
   
   While the Inuit suffer chronic unemployment and underemployment, large numbers of southern public servants are flown into Nunavut. Apart from the opportunity cost to Inuit, the federal and territorial governments together spend approximately $65 million per year on recruitment and relocation costs to support a fly-in bureaucracy and welfare costs to support unemployed Inuit. These direct costs could be drastically reduced if Inuit education and training levels were raised to national norms.
   
   The failure to implement Article 23 also involves secondary and tertiary costs, such as the impact on Inuit job creation in the non-government sector, the loss of additional personal income tax revenues arising from the non-government sector, impacts on health, crime, the quality of life, and the general health and sustainability of the Nunavut economy.
   
   As noted above, NTI and GN presented the Annuamaniq report to the Minister of INAC in February 2003.
   
   The Deputy Minister of INAC responded on May 28, 2003, committing the Department to a two-part process to implement Article 23. The first stage would be to agree on “…specific commitments (including a specified financial commitment) by Canada, with respect to labour force survey, employment plans, pre-employment training and support measures.” The second stage would establish “…a process and plan for Canada, GN and NTI to cooperatively address the broader issues of education attainment, language of work and social issues which are impacting on the availability and ability of Inuit to qualify for public sector employment.”
   
   INAC subsequently removed their senior negotiator and replaced him six months later with a more senior official. Negotiations resumed in November 2003.
   
   
5. Nunavut General Monitoring
   Article 12.7.6 requires that government and the Nunavut Planning Commission (NPC) together “…provide timely, accurate, and accessible environmental information, integrated with socioeconomic factors, to improve decision-making and support progress towards sustainability.”
   
   This obligation has not been addressed in a substantive way in the Working Group. Canada owns more than 80 percent of the surface and an even greater share of the sub-surface of the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA); it is critical that the federal government take the lead in implementing this important provision. To date, however, INAC has not tabled a monitoring plan for the NSA that would meet the requirements of Article 12.7.6.
   
   NTI feels that such a plan should include, among other elements;
   
   
   1. The establishment of a central clearing-house for environmental data and information located in and administered by the NPC. This data would be freely available to NTI and Regional Inuit Association (RIA) lands departments, NTI Social and Cultural Department, and any other DIO with a need for this information;
      
      
   2. An independent audit of the state of the environment, conducted every five years.
   
   
   
6. GN Funding
   There is a wide difference of views on the real cost to GN of implementing its NLCA-based obligations, and on Canada’s overall obligation to support the GN in its implementation activities.
   
   INAC has not acknowledged a federal obligation, founded on the NLCA, to underwrite the cost of implementing obligations that fall within the GN’s area of responsibility. INAC asserts that its responsibilities are defined in a 1992 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Government of the Northwest Territories. Inuit, however, were not a party to this MOU; neither was the Government of Nunavut, which did not exist at the time.
   
   
7. Article 32 The NLCA requires that government consult with Inuit on the development and design of all programs, policies and services that impact on the social or cultural life of Inuit in Nunavut. This obligation to consult in a meaningful way is unique among Canadian claims, and imposes a significant financial burden. GN has confirmed the extent of these costs through detailed monitoring of actual consultations.
   
   Although these expenditures are unquestionably significant, incremental and directly attributable to the NLCA, INAC has refused to acknowledge this financial burden.
   
   
8. Article 37.2.2(d)
   Negotiations have been further hampered by INAC’s refusal to disclose funding levels and implementation activities as required by Article 37.2.2(d). All other Parties have complied with this obligation. INAC’s refusal to comply has prevented the working group from evaluating the effectiveness and full costs of implementation. NTI is seeking this critical information through the Access to Information process.
   
   
9. Heritage Centre
   All Parties agreed to the long-term objective of establishing an Inuit Heritage Centre in Nunavut, and accepted the principle that both public and private funds should be sought to construct and operate the Centre.
   
   
10. Territorial Parks IIBA
    Article 8.4.4 of the NLCA and the Implementation Contract require that the parties agree on an IIBA for Territorial Parks. NTI and GN have negotiated and concluded an Agreement; to date, however, the Government of Canada has not engaged in substantive discussions on the funding of the IIBA.

3.2.3. Article 24

Article 24.3.1 requires that the Government of Canada develop procurement policies respecting Inuit firms for all federal contracts required in support of its activities in the NSA. Article 24.3.2 further requires the Government of Canada develop or maintain these policies in close consultation with the DIO (NTI); 24.3.3 specifies that 24.3.2 is binding on the Government of Canada and shall be given effect, in all cases, no later than one year following ratification of the NLCA.

In NTI’s view, Article 24.3.1 and 24.3.2 have not yet been adequately addressed. In a letter of September 17, 2001 the Deputy Minister of INAC informed NTI that the federal government had implemented Article 24 by issuing Treasury Board “Contract Policy Notices” in 1995 and 1997. These “Notices” to all departments simply attach some excerpts from the NLCA, leaving responsibility for implementation to each Department. The notices were issued without undertaking the consultation required pursuant to 24.3.2.

NTI is not aware of any further steps taken to implement federal obligations under Article 24, or to establish the measures required in 24.8.1 to monitor and periodically evaluate the implementation of the Article.

3.2.4. Panel Support Group

The Panel Support Group (PSG) was established in 2000 for a three-year trial period in response to the recommendations of the independent Avery Cooper report on the first five years of NLCA implementation. The Avery Cooper report had recommended that the three-party NIP be supported by an independent Chair and staff; the PSG was a more modest institutional reform agreed to by the Nunavut Senior Officials Working Group (NSOWG).

The terms of reference of the PSG anticipated that, prior to the conclusion of the three-year period, a comprehensive review of the PSG’s performance would be conducted under the supervision of the NIP and provided to the three Parties. It was stipulated that the review would be conducted “with the objective of agreeing on the renewal of the PSG’s mandate and term, and of making any improvements in its Terms of Reference they deem advisable.”

The review of the PSG’s future was not conducted by the NIP within the three-year trial period, as the NIP’s activities were suspended by the larger uncertainties surrounding the Implementation Contract negotiations. NTI had nevertheless made proposals with respect to the PSG in the context of an updated Implementation Contract.

With the appointment of a new federal Implementation Contract negotiator, and the INAC DM’s commitments as to the expanded scope of Contract negotiations in the correspondence exchanged in the spring, it is possible to foresee that the revival of both the Contract negotiations and Panel activities can allow the Parties to deal with the future of the PSG.

3.3. Other Implementation Issues

One objective of the NSOWG was to deal with those important issues related to the implementation of the NLCA. This included issues that the Nunavut Implementation Panel was unable to address. Some of these issues are described below.

3.3.1. Devolution

While devolution is primarily an intergovernmental issue, NTI, as part of its broader mandate, wishes to ensure that devolution meets specific Inuit requirements. Those include assurance that devolution initiatives:

• Are developed within the framework of the NLCA;
• Build on, and do not interfere with the development of new IPG legislation;
• Are preceded by adequate training to prepare Inuit for relevant public sector jobs; and
• Fit within the Economic Development Strategy.

As the largest private land and sub surface owners, NTI and the RIAs clearly have a major stake in any developments which affect land and resource management.

The federal government is taking a “go slow” approach to devolution negotiations; it appears that devolution for Nunavut is a lesser priority than devolution for the NWT.

3.3.2. Commercial Fisheries in Waters Adjacent to Nunavut

Given its small population size and high operating costs, Nunavut does not have as wide a range of economic prospects as most other areas of Canada. The territory’s commercial fisheries, however, do have rich potential. The recently adopted Nunavut Economic Development Strategy has forecast that the value of Nunavut commercial fisheries could increase dramatically from less than $10 million per year to approximately $100 million per year if Nunavut were given the same share of its adjacent fish resources as all other coastal jurisdictions in Canada.

Article 15.3.7 of the NLCA requires that special consideration be given to the principle of adjacency and the economic dependence of communities in Nunavut when allocating commercial fishing licences within Baffin Bay and Davis Strait. The principles must be applied in such a way as to promote a fair distribution of licences between the residents of Nunavut and the other residents of Canada.

The people of every other coastal jurisdiction in Canada are granted between 85 percent and 100 percent of the Total Allowable Catch (TAC) of fish in their coastal waters. In Nunavut the principle of adjacency, although specifically referenced in the NLCA, is ignored. In 1997 the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans determined that the Nunavut Inuit would receive only 24 percent of the TAC for turbot. In addition, in 2003 the Minister set the TAC for Nunavut for shrimp at 19 percent.

3.3.3. Manitoba Dene Claims to Kivalliq Region of Nunavut

The NLCA recognizes that, where neighbouring Aboriginal peoples have traditionally used lands in Nunavut for hunting and related purposes, and where they continue to do so, their access to lands in Nunavut is not impeded. At meetings in February 2004 in Ottawa, NTI and the Kivalliq Inuit Association (KIA) were finally informed that the federal government and Manitoba Dene have been bilaterally negotiating a proposed settlement area boundary for a Dene treaty within Nunavut.

In NTI’s view, INAC’s negotiators with the Manitoba Dene are attempting to conclude a Dene treaty within Nunavut that exceeds in geographic scope areas that Dene themselves claim to use. The proposed settlement area boundary, which is not based on any objective analysis of relevant land use data, would be contrary to Article 40 of the NLCA, in that the NLCA recognizes Dene hunting rights only in areas of traditional and continued Dene use. Further, the proposed settlement boundary is not the product of consultation with NTI/KIA and would be contrary to federal land claims policy.

INAC’s actions represent, in essence, an amendment to the NLCA, without prior discussion of such an amendment with Inuit.

3.3.4. Article 2 – Housing

Article 2 of the NLCA is intended to ensure that Inuit do not lose access to government programs as a consequence of signing the NLCA. Since 1993, the Government of Canada, which retains responsibility for social housing “north of 60”, has not built or renovated any new units in Nunavut. In that same period, INAC has built 9,100 houses for First Nations through the ‘on reserve’ housing program; in addition, a total of 85,000 houses have been built by tribal corporations (funded by INAC) on reserves across Canada. None of this money allocated to Aboriginal housing is provided to Inuit.

Adequate housing is the cornerstone of every healthy family. Today in Nunavut, Inuit are suffering from the most overcrowded conditions in Canada. The Government of Nunavut estimates that 3,500 units will be required to meet demand over the next five years, at a capital cost of $640 million. With the population growing by 50 percent to 70 percent across Nunavut (based solely on birth rates), the housing shortage and its accompanying social crises will deepen.

3.4. Report of the Office of the Auditor General

On February 10, 2003 the Auditor General of Canada (A-G) tabled her report. Chapter 8 of the report provided an audit of INAC’s management of the implementation of the Nunavut and Gwich’in land claims agreements.

The objective of the report was to “assess the extent to which: INAC has processes in place for managing the implementation of the NLCA and GCLCA and the extent to which INAC is accountable to Parliament.” The A-G reviewed three main aspects to the management of implementation, and found problems with all three.

1. Implementation Panel
   The requirement for consensus effectively incapacitates the ability of the Panel to make decisions.
   
   
2. Dispute resolution mechanism (Arbitration Board)
   The requirement that both Parties must agree to go to arbitration, and the position taken by INAC that they will never consent to any money issue going to arbitration, has ensured the ineffectiveness of the Board as a viable dispute resolution mechanism.
   
   
3. Reporting (Annual Report of the Panel)
   The insistence by INAC on consensus has effectively sanitized the reports of all substantive content, and paints a picture of implementation being free of dispute. This point is acknowledged by INAC.
   
   The Auditor General reported that the Annual Reports were “not helpful in holding the federal government accountable.” The A-G found that the parties to the NLCA were not applying the basic principles of good reporting to the Annual Reports, and that the weaknesses in the implementation process contributed to the weak state of reporting. The A-G recommended that the parties work together to “overhaul the annual reports … and make them more results-based.”
   
   INAC uses completion of the obligations as the measure of progress in implementation, rather than establishing benchmarks in order to measure progress towards achieving the objectives of the Agreements. The A-G confirmed that this does not work, pointing out that they are, thereby, merely recording “activities” rather than “results”. Further, INAC’s attempts to coordinate these activities do not work. In March 2004, NTI and the Gwich’in Tribal Council, at the invitation of the House of Commons Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, made a presentation stating their full support for the conclusions and recommendations of the Auditor General’s Report.C

3.5. Specific Implementation Initiatives of NTI

3.5.1. Article 32

Government is required to engage Inuit in the development, design and delivery of all policies that will affect the social and cultural lives of Inuit. NTI has actively lobbied government to enable Inuit participation, and assigned resources to ensure that participation will be constructive. Notable among these initiatives are:

3.5.2. Language and Education

NTI is developing a strategy that will address the need to access more funding for the development of an Inuktitut Curriculum for use in schools. There are plans to meet with the Department of Education to discuss the strategy and its implementation.

NTI has successfully lobbied to alleviate hardship incurred by Inuit students by changing the policy for the provision of financial assistance to students to ensure that student assistance will continue throughout the period of their absence from their home community, including school vacations.

NTI has also met with the Language Commissioner of Nunavut to discuss the proposed recommendations of the Language Act.

NTI is collaborating with the GN Department of Education to set up a partnership for the development of an Adult Learning Strategy for Nunavut.

3.5.3. Health

Health is one of NTI’s largest files, covering a wide range of issues of critical concern to Inuit.

Suicide Prevention
In May 2003, NTI co-sponsored the major national conference of the Canadian Association for Suicide Prevention (CASP). Since then, NTI collaborated with the GN and the RCMP on developing a proposal to provide assistance to organizations in Nunavut to address suicide prevention in a more coordinated and coherent way at the community level. The proposal was further enhanced by GN’s commitment to set up a “Suicide Prevention Council”. NTI participates on the Council executive.

Non-Insured Health Benefits
Due to concerns over privacy protection for Inuit and First Nations, NTI joined with other Aboriginal organizations to successfully lobby Health Canada to drop the requirement for consent forms under the Non-Insured Health Benefits Program.

Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre
In 2003 the NTI Board of Directors directed that a proposal be developed to establish a Nunavut-based, Inuit-owned Drug and Alcohol Treatment Centre. NTI’s Social / Cultural Development Department has been conducting research on this, and exploring with the GN a form of partnership for a Treatment Centre.

Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorder
NTI, the RIAs and GN collaborate on a steering committee to address this issue.

Disabilities
NTI has increased its focus on the issue of disabilities, an area the Board had identified as a high priority. The NTI Executive approved funding of $2,000 per community to support a modest local initiative to assist people with disabilities.

NTI has collaborated in establishing a joint Disabilities Task Force to carry out research on the issue.

NTI has also hired two full time staff to ensure that Inuit are fully informed on disabilities-related issues, and to enable Inuit to access programs and services for the disabled.

NTI is also collaborating with GN, RIAs and other agencies in the areas that include Community Wellness, Justice, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit (IQ).

3.5.4. Communication

Schedule 6 of the Implementation Contract directs NTI to “…play a lead role in ensuring that DIOs and Inuit are made aware of their rights and obligations under the Nunavut Final Agreement and the Implementation Plan.” NTI has taken a number of steps to address that responsibility, including:

• Design and publication of a Plain Language Version of the NLCA;
• Creation of a Joint Communications Committee with the RIAs to streamline and strengthen communications with beneficiaries;
• Development of a new website in Inuktitut, Inuinnaqtun and English;
• Allocation of $50,000 to compile an oral history of the NLCA, which will eventually be posted on the website.

3.5.5. Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society

NTI tabled its 2003-2004 Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society in the Nunavut Government Legislative Assembly in May 2004.

3.5.6. Article 20 – Designation of Obligations to DIOs

In May 2000 the NTI Board passed a resolution directing the organization to work toward designation of Article 20 NLCA obligations relating to Inuit water rights.

The first major step in this process was completed in May 2003, when the NTI Board approved a comprehensive Water Policy. A Water Management Framework was subsequently developed, and the designation process is now complete.

3.5.7. Article 24 – Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti (NNI)

Article 24 applies to both the territorial and the federal governments. The Government of the NWT adopted Contracting Procedures in the Nunavut Settlement Area in 1997, and, following the establishment of Nunavut, the Nunavummi Nangminiqaqtunik Ikajuuti (NNI) policy was agreed to between the Government of Nunavut and NTI (2000). Among other things, the NNI Policy provides a formula for bid-weighting to ensure fair access for local, regional and Inuit firms, a contracting appeals process, and annual and comprehensive reviews.

An annual Contract Data Report, prepared by the Government of Nunavut, provides information about the contracts issued and trends, and is an important component of the review process.

The first Annual Review and Annual Contract Data Report were completed in 2001. In 2002 disagreements arose between the Government of Nunavut and NTI:

1. A one-year transitional period granting certain non-Nunavut and non-Inuit firms recognition as Nunavut firms under the NNI (“grandfathered firms”) was extended by the Government of Nunavut for a year, without consulting NTI;
   
   
2. NTI and the Government of Nunavut were unable to reach agreement on the contracting appeals process required by the NNI; and
   
   
3. The second Annual Contract Data Report was not completed within the calendar year, and the second Annual Review did not proceed.

NTI undertook legal action to address item one. Minutes of settlement registered with the court: (1) provided that the transitional period for “grandfathered firms” would not be further extended; (2) clarified the meaning of the term “consultation” with regard to Article 24; and (3) provided for the appointment of an independent advisor to both parties with regard to the contracting appeals board. Brian Crane, Q.C., was subsequently appointed in the latter role. His recommendations were accepted by NTI and the Government of Nunavut and incorporated into a revised NNI Policy in 2003.

The 2003 comprehensive review was completed by a Review Committee, representing NTI and the Government of Nunavut. The Committee held public consultation sessions and developed 32 recommendations. These were accepted both by the GN Cabinet and by the NTI Board of Directors, and a revised NNI Policy was issued

3.5.8. Conservation Areas Umbrella IIBA Negotiations

Throughout 2003, NTI and the RIAs have been negotiating with the Canadian Wildlife Service to conclude an Umbrella IIBA for Conservation Areas. As of March 31, 2004, this IIBA was close to completion. One of the most important components of the IIBA covers Igaliqtuuq, which will become the world’s first Bowhead Whale Sanctuary.

3.5.9. Territorial Parks IIBA Implementation

NTI and GN negotiated the Umbrella Territorial Parks IIBA in accordance with Article 8 of the NLCA, and pursuant to the Implementation Contract. The IIBA is a key element in meeting two of the four principal objectives of the Preamble to the NLCA:

• To provide Inuit with financial compensation and means of participating in economic opportunities;
• To encourage self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit;

Both parties agree that the IIBA cannot be funded by merely updating the provisions of the Bilateral Agreement between INAC and GNWT. Those provisions did not consider the affect of Article 8.

Since the Territorial Parks IIBA was signed in May 2002, little has happened; overall funding for the IIBA is still dependent on the outcome of the Implementation Contract negotiations.

3.5.10. Heritage Rivers and Historic Sites IIBAs

NTI is currently preparing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) as the first step in the development of a Heritage Rivers IIBA. The MOU will guide the collaboration of Parks Canada, the GN, NTI and the KitIA in negotiating this IIBA.

The NLCA also calls for the development of an IIBA for Historic Sites in Nunavut. NTI has prepared a scoping document and submitted it to the RIAs and Parks Canada.

3.5.11. Legislation

Nunavut Wildlife Act
Bill 35 was passed December 2, 2003. Regulations for the implementation and enforcement of the Act are scheduled to be finalized by July 1, 2004.

Nunavut Impact Review Board and Nunavut Planning Commission
Since June 2002, officials from NTI, the federal government, the GN, NIRB, and NPC have been meeting to develop the legislation to govern the operations of NIRB and NPC.

Discussions have gone well, and the parties have reached agreement on the ground rules for the operation of a technical working group, and on some of the controversial issues.

The federal government has assured the Parties that it intends to move quickly on drafting the legislation.

3.5.12. Appointments Policy

To address its responsibilities under the NLCA, and to promote the efficient operation of the IPGs and the many Boards, NTI has developed an Appointments Policy to ensure that the highest standards of fairness apply to its nomination and appointments process.

3.5.13. Environment Policy

In keeping with its responsibilities under the NLCA, as a land and water manager, and to enable Inuit to publicly express their views on matters of regional, national and international concern to the environment, NTI, together with the RIAs, has developed an Inuit Environment Policy.

3.5.14. Firearms Act

NTI successfully asserted Inuit rights under the NLCA by obtaining a temporary injunction in the Nunavut Court of Justice to exempt Inuit from the application of the licensing and registration requirements under the Firearms Act as related to the exercise of Inuit hunting rights.

3.5.15. Inuit Organization (DIO) Process

NTI continued the DIO Designations Process in 2001, formally assigning powers, functions and authorities for specific Claim obligations to the RIAs. Round two of the DIO Process, completing the assignment of surface IOL-related NLCA obligations, was completed in May 2003. A comprehensive DIO List will be published in the near future.

3.5.16. Community Liaison Officer Program

In early 2001 the NTI Board of Directors established the Community Liaison Officer (CLO) Program, designed to strengthen implementation of the NLCA, improve the delivery of programs/services at the local level, and enhance communication between Inuit organizations. In 2002 NTI made provisions for 22 CLO positions, administered by the RIAs.

3.5.17. Implementation Monitoring System

NTI is now finalizing the second version of the Implementation Monitoring System (IMS), making it more versatile and functional. The system provides a tool for tracking the implementation of all Inuit and government obligations, planning and scheduling implementation activities, and identifying actual and potential problem areas. The IMS is linked to NTI’s internal protocols for creating and updating implementation plans, which emphasize the definition of clear monitoring objectives and milestones.

3.5.18. The “Redefining Relationships” Conference

In November 2003, as part of its effort to draw public attention to issues arising out of the implementation of the NLCA, NTI in collaboration with the Aboriginal Summit, the Nisga’a, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, Makivik Corporation, the Grand Council of the Crees, and the Labrador Inuit Association, organized a conference in Ottawa. “Redefining Relationships” examined the state of implementation of comprehensive land claims agreements 25 years after the first of these, the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, was signed. A number of common themes emerged, including a general frustration with the implementation process, and a clear consensus that INAC is not carrying out its mandate to fully implement existing agreements.

3.5.19. Lands Claims Coalition

Leaders attending “Redefining Relationships” signed a joint statement at the conclusion of the conference, expressing their determination to work together to ensure that the Government of Canada does carry out all of the promises made in the land claims agreements and to press for improvements in the management of implementation by INAC. Principal among these themes was the recognition that the lack of any coherent federal policy, worked out with the Aboriginal signatories to the land claims agreements to guide the process, was causing the implementation process to give rise to friction and frustration and the depletion of the original goodwill and hope associated with the signing of the agreements.

3.6. Conclusions

Under the NLCA, Inuit traded their Aboriginal Title in exchange for certain defined rights and benefits, which included promises respecting Inuit employment and economic development. At the same time, and with immediate effect, the NLCA reduced the uncertainty placed on Canada's title to one fifth of its land mass. The Agreement put in place public boards that have created a process for obtaining the consent of the local people to development where none existed before.

There is no question that the ability to legitimize encroachments on the land, and to harness the knowledge and commitment of the local people into the management of the North’s resources is an important gain for Canada. The Agreement, however, is contingent on the fulfillment by Canada of its objectives and obligations of the NLCA.

As this report shows, the Government of Canada has failed to provide many of the key benefits promised to Inuit as their part of the bargain. Notable among these are Inuit employment levels under Article 23, procurement policies under Article 24, and a General Monitoring Program under Article 12. The failure to deliver on these obligations undermines the foundation objectives of the NLCA – that the NLCA would provide Inuit with the means of participating in economic opportunities and encourage the self-reliance and the cultural and social well-being of Inuit. Instead, as the Auditor General of Canada noted, INAC has managed the NLCA “… by focussing solely on the letter of the obligations, appearing not to take into account [NLCA] objectives or the spirit and intent of the agreement.”

This has contributed to a deepening sense of frustration between Inuit and the Government of Canada – a sense that the NLCA has become a contract that only one party is honouring.