Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Aboriginal Peoples
Issue 34 - Evidence - March 19, 2013
OTTAWA, Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples met this day at 9:30 a.m. to examine and report on the federal government's constitutional, treaty, political and legal responsibilities to First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples, and on other matters generally relating to the Aboriginal Peoples of Canada.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good morning. I would like to welcome all honourable senators and members of the public who are watching this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples on CPAC or on the Web. My name is Senator Vern White. I am from Ontario and I am chair of the committee.
The mandate of this committee is to examine legislation and matters relating to the Aboriginal peoples of Canada in general. From time to time, we consider topics for new studies. We hold briefings in order to get an overview of a particular subject, and that is what we will do today.
This morning we have invited representatives from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada to speak to us about co-management boards in the Inuit settlement areas specifically. Before hearing from our witnesses, I would like to ask the members of the committee to introduce themselves, starting with the deputy chair.
Senator Dyck: Good morning. I am Senator Lillian Dyck from Saskatchewan.
Senator Beyak: I am Senator Beyak from Dryden, Ontario.
Senator Raine: I am Senator Nancy Greene Raine from B.C.
The Chair: I am sure we will have more join us as they work their way through the snowy roads.
Colleagues, please help me in welcoming our witnesses from Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada. We have Natalie Neville, Director, Quebec-Atlantic Team, Implementation Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; Kimberly Thompson, Director, Nunavut-Northwest Territories Team, Implementation Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government; and Janice Traynor, Senior Environmental Policy Analyst.
We look forward to your presentations, which I am sure will be followed by questions from the senators. Please proceed in the order you have decided.
Kimberly Thompson, Director, Nunavut-Northwest Territories Team, Implementation Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: Hello. I am Director of Treaty Management West, which means I am responsible for B.C., Yukon and the N.W.T. With me is my colleague Natalie Neville.
First, I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to speak about land and resource co-management in the Inuit regions. This is my first appearance as a witness anywhere, so I may get a little nervous, but hopefully we will manage.
[Translation]
We have made significant progress in concluding land claim agreements throughout Canada, and we continually work with the provincial and territorial governments, aboriginal governments, and aboriginal organizations to implement the various agreements currently signed.
An important part of the implementation of land claim agreements is working with Canada's treaty partners to jointly establish institutions of public government or co-management boards that are mandated by the agreements and related legislation. In turn, Canada works with these public organizations to support the mandated work.
[English]
Land claim agreements recognize the traditional, economic and spiritual relationship between Aboriginal people and the land. They provide measures through which the parties to the agreements achieve certainty with respect to the ownership and use of lands and resources. The agreements also define processes to ensure Aboriginal peoples participate in decision-making processes concerning the use, management and conservation of land, water and resources throughout their traditional territories.
[Translation]
Land claim agreements and their supporting legislation establish integrated co-management systems to manage public and private lands and waters. Although our focus this morning is on Canada's four Inuit regions, co- management boards are established in most modern treaties across the country. They are mandated either through legislation or through the various land claim agreements, and provide a unique regulatory framework where aboriginal partners share in the decision-making process for land and resource management. Co-management boards are responsible for developing land use plans and reviewing development proposals. Some of them also have the responsibility to issue certain land, water and wildlife authorizations.
[English]
Combined, the co-management systems were designed to promote responsible environmental, wildlife and water management and address the need for clarity and certainty around investment, while reflecting a strong Aboriginal voice in the management of lands and resources in their respective territories.
[Translation]
This morning, I would like to turn your attention to the co-management boards of the four Inuit regions — Nunavut, Nunatsiavut, Nunavik and the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. I will give a brief overview of each of those boards. Although these regions and agreements are unique — politically, culturally and geographically — there are some common co-management features I would like to share with you.
I will start with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
[English]
The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement came into effect in 1993. The land claims agreement represents the largest comprehensive claim in Canada, covering about 2 million square kilometres of land and water and including 26 Inuit communities.
Four territorial boards received their mandate under the NLCA; namely, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Water Board, and the Nunavut Planning Commission. There is also the Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal, which has its genesis in both the claim and the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act.
[Translation]
The Nunavut Impact Review Board is responsible for the environmental and socio-economic assessment of development projects in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The Nunavut Impact Review Board determines whether project authorizations have the potential for significant environmental or socio-economic impacts, and recommends to the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada whether a proposed project should be able to proceed.
Past projects that have been reviewed and approved by the Nunavut Impact Review Board include various resource development projects, such as mining projects.
[English]
The Nunavut Impact Review Board consists of nine members, including a chair who is appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada in consultation with the Government of Nunavut. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. nominates four members. The Government of Nunavut and the Minister of AANDC each independently nominate two. All nominations by the parties are appointed by the Minister of AANDC.
[Translation]
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board is the main instrument of wildlife management in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board works to conserve wildlife and wildlife habitat for the long-term benefit of Nunavut residents, while fully respecting Inuit harvesting rights and priorities.
Like the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board consists of nine members, including a chair appointed by the board. There are three federal representatives appointed through order in council and five members appointed by the Government of Nunavut. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is one of the three regional Inuit associations.
[English]
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board also consists of two alternative members who are appointed by the Makivik Corporation, as they have joint use of lands under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
Except in national parks, the Nunavut Water Board regulates the use and management of inland water in the Nunavut settlement region. Its objectives are to provide for the conservation and utilization of water in Nunavut. The Nunavut Water Board is composed of nine members. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. nominates four members. Designated ministers of the Government of Nunavut nominate two members. The Minister of AANDC selects two members and appoints all the other members to the board. The Chair of the Nunavut Water Board is also appointed by AANDC's minister, following consultation with board members.
The Nunavut Planning Commission is responsible for establishing broad planning policies, objectives and goals for the Nunavut Settlement Area in conjunction with the Government of Nunavut.
[Translation]
The Nunavut Planning Commission has at least five members, including a chair. The chair is nominated by board members and appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs, following consultation with the Government of Nunavut. Canada and the Government of Nunavut each nominate at least two members. The number of candidates nominated by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated is equal to the total of nominations by the Government of Nunavut and Canada.
[English]
The Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal is responsible for settling disputes over access to lands, compensation payable to surface title holders for land access, wildlife compensation claims, and rights to carving stone or specified substances in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The establishing acts provide for three to eleven members including a chair appointed by the minister of aboriginal affairs; and at least two of those members must be resident in Nunavut. I will now move on to the Inuvialuit Settlement Region.
The Western Arctic Claim — The Inuvialuit Final Agreement, as it is more commonly known, was signed in 1984. The agreement created the Inuvialuit Settlement Region in Canada's Western Arctic, spanning about 900,000 square kilometres.
[Translation]
The goals of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement are to preserve Inuvialuit cultural identity and values, while enabling the Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national society and economy. Co- management of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region aims to protect and preserve Arctic wildlife, while enhancing its environmental and biological productivity. The Inuvialuit Final Agreement establishes four co-management boards or authorities.
[English]
The Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT) focuses on the conservation of terrestrial wildlife species, polar bears and birds. The Wildlife Management Advisory Council consists of three members appointed by the Inuvialuit, two members appointed by the Government of the Northwest Territories, one member appointed by the Government of Canada, and a chair appointed by the Government of the Northwest Territories with the consent of the Inuvialuit and Canada.
There is also the Fisheries Joint Management Committee, which assists Canada and the Inuvialuit in administering the rights and obligations related to fisheries under the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. The committee is comprised of two members appointed by Canada and two members appointed by the Inuvialuit. The chair is appointed by committee members prior to being approved by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs.
[Translation]
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement also establishes the Environmental Impact Screening Committee. This committee carries out environmental screening of all development proposals in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. The committee is made up of seven permanent members. Canada and the Inuvialuit each appoint three members. Of the three members appointed by Canada, one is designated by the Government of the Northwest Territories and another one by the Government of the Yukon.
[English]
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement also establishes the Environmental Impact Review Board. The EIRB administers the public review of development projects and makes recommendations to the body responsible to authorize development. The Environmental Impact Review Board has a chair and six members. Three of the members are appointed by the Inuvialuit Game Council, and the Governments of Canada, Yukon and the Northwest Territories each nominates one member. The Minister of Aboriginal Affairs then has the authority to appoint the nomination. The chair is appointed by the Minister of Aboriginal Affairs with the consent of the Inuvialuit Game Council.
[Translation]
Within the Nunavik region, three co-management advisory boards have been established through the Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreement — the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board, the Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board and the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission.
[English]
The Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board is the main instrument of wildlife management in the Nunavik Marine Region. The board is comprised of seven members, with three members appointed by the Makivik Corporation, two members appointed by Canada, one member appointed by the Government of Nunavut, and a chairperson nominated by the board members and approved by Canada, in that case, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
[Translation]
The agreement has also established the Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board, whose mandate is to assess the ecological and socio-economic impacts of proposed projects and determine which project should proceed. The Nunavik Marine Region Impact Review Board consists of four board members. Two are appointed by the Makivik Corporation, one by the Government of Canada and one by the Government of Nunavut.
[English]
The Nunavik Inuit Land Claims Agreementalso mandated the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission, which develops planning policies and priorities for the Nunavik Marine Region. The primary purpose of the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission is to protect and promote the existing and future well-being of Nunavik communities and the residences within the Nunavik Marine Region while taking into account the interests of all Canadians.
Within the Nunatsiavut region, the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement has mandated three co-management boards: the Regional Planning Authority, the Torngat Wildlife Plants and Co-management Board and the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board.
The Regional Planning Authority established a land-use plan for the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area to add greater certainty and clarity for all stakeholders and parties to the agreement. It consisted of four members jointly appointed by the province and the Nunatsiavut government.
[Translation]
The Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement has also established the Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board. The Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management Board is an advisory organization that participates in environmental assessments and makes recommendations to the provincial minister and the Nunatsiavut government on how to proceed with proposed projects in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.
The Torngat Wildlife and Plants Co-Management is composed of three members appointed by the Nunatsiavut government, two members appointed by the provincial minister and one member appointed by the federal minister.
In addition, the Labrador Inuit Land Claim Agreement has mandated the Torngat Joint Fisheries Board, which is also an advisory organization that is responsible for making recommendations to the federal minister on the stock level and conservation of fish species in the Labrador Inuit Settlement Area.
[English]
The Torngat Joint Fisheries Board is composed of three members appointed by the Nunatsiavut government, two members appointed by Canada and one member appointed by the provincial government, which actually totals up to four, so I apologize for that. I will have to clarify that.
In our preparations for this we sadly omitted one of the boards from the speech that you have in front of you. It is not in the French translation, but we will ensure the committee has that.
The Torngat Mountain National Park Co-management Board is a seven-member cooperative management board established to advise the federal Minister of the Environment on all matters related to park management. Parks Canada, Makivik Corporation and the Nunatsiavut government each appoint two members, and an independent chair is appointed jointly by all three parties.
Also operating in the Nunavik region and mandated through the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement is the Kativik Environmental Advisory Committee. KEAC is a consultative body that advises governments in matters related to environmental and social protection in Nunavik. It is composed of three members appointed by the Kativik Regional Government, three members appointed by the Government of Quebec, and three members appointed by Canada.
Boards in each of the four Inuit regions are working to fulfill their multiple roles and implement their various mandates. Whether regulatory or advisory, the Government of Canada works closely with provincial, territorial and Aboriginal partners to ensure the successful operation of the co-management boards in all regions across the country.
As exploration investments increase in these Inuit and northern regions, co-management boards will play an increasingly important role in ensuring responsible resource development in the North.
I thank you very much for the time to present this overview. My colleagues Ms. Neville or Ms. Traynor are here to answer any questions you have.
Senator Patterson: I have several questions about wildlife management.
I am more familiar with Nunavut, but I would like to ask about the other claim areas. Is it true that the co- management board set up under the land claims you described this morning are displacing the Canadian environmental assessment review process? I know that this is the case in Nunavut. The Nunavut Impact Review Board, with approval of the minister, takes the role that would otherwise be taken by the Canadian environmental assessment review process in dealing with environmental reviews in Nunavut. The minister still has the authority to allow a CEAA process where there is a big inter-jurisdictional issue, but that has not happened with respect to most reviews to date, or perhaps all reviews to date. Is it the case in the other land claim regions that the Nunavik, the Labrador and the Inuvialuit boards are available to provide a local, regionally-based environmental review process to displace the Canadian process? Is that generally the case?
Ms. Thompson: I will answer for Inuvialuit. Inuvialuit does have the Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Review Board. They do environmental impact reviews, the most recent of which is the Tuktoyaktuk to Inuvik highway. However, CEAA still applies in that region. We can get you more detailed information on how those two interact, if you like.
Senator Patterson: I hope that does not mean there are two reviews on one project.
Ms. Thompson: I would have to get back to you with more detailed information on how one fits with the other.
Senator Patterson: I have specific questions related to caribou, which do not respect territorial or provincial boundaries. Looking at Nunatsiavut and Quebec Nunavik, and looking at the N.W.T. and Nunavut specifically where there is concern about caribou populations and caribou management, you have presented the scheme here very nicely. What is in place to allow cooperation and interface between wildlife management boards in those regions and provincial/territorial governments to deal with species like caribou that are located in both jurisdictions?
My impression is that there is a problem. I think if Senator Watt were here he would say there is a problem. There is not a clear method of cooperating or jointly dealing with wildlife management issues that cross land claims and provincial/territorial boundaries. Can you comment on that? I am specifically looking at Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, and the N.W.T. and Nunavut, where herds there are joint.
Natalie Neville, Director, Quebec-Atlantic Team, Implementation Branch, Treaties and Aboriginal Government, Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada: It is my understanding that between the two boards, say in Nunavik or Nunatsiavut, there would be ongoing dialogue on those matters through the provincial, federal or the Inuit body to discuss, for instance, the caribou in Nunatsiavut straying over to Quebec.
Senator Patterson: You are saying that a mechanism is built into the land resource management regimes to allow boards to interface and discuss joint management issues. It is built into the claims structures?
Ms. Neville: It is not necessarily a mechanism or built into the regimes. In some cases it might be brought to the implementation committee. Each of the agreements has an implementation committee, a tripartite committee. That issue might be brought to the implementation committee. In turn, the implementation committee would discuss it with the other treaty area. There is not necessarily a formal mechanism, but it does happen through various means.
Senator Patterson: To wrap up, I would appreciate if the committee could be provided with specific information about how that is working in those regions.
The Chair: Thank you for the responses.
I would also like to welcome Senator Patterson from Nunavut and Senator Meredith from Ontario, who have arrived.
Senator Dyck: I was trying to map out the four different regions and the different boards to see what the similarities were between the different regions. I wish I had the map in front of me to see where they are. Clearly, the different boards are related to the territory. Whether you have wildlife, plant life or marine life, there are different types of boards.
To follow up on Senator Patterson's question, of course you have migratory birds and migratory animals like the caribou. Clearly the boards have to somehow interconnect with each other because if the caribou are calving in one area but are going to another area to fatten up for the summer, they may be in two different areas of the region. There is a relationship between the boards. If you had a structural diagram indicating communication or the relationship between the boards, that would be helpful.
You talked about implementation committees that were an informal mechanism. There may be something that kicks into effect when there is a problem with the caribou, for example. Some people are saying caribou herds are going down and other people are saying no, they are not. How would these different boards address that kind of issue?
Ms. Thompson: As my colleague mentioned, there is no formal mechanism embedded in the mandates of the boards, but like other institutions of public governance, where matters cross borders, those organizations talk to each other because there is that recognition.
There is a caribou management board that has representation from N.W.T., Saskatchewan, Nunavut and Manitoba for the Beverly herd. These are organizations getting together because they know that their business affects one another. There are no hard and fast rules. These are public institutions, so we have a certain arm's length from them, but they do make decisions in consultation with one another. We know this happens because they tell us.
Ms. Neville can speak more to the provincial governments, but the territorial governments are extremely interested in such things as species at risk. These boards live in their backyard, so they know and they are talking to one another. It varies as to whether that has been formalized in a mechanism or whether that happens as a result of good governance, but we will get you more information on that.
Senator Dyck: You went through the composition of the boards in detail, how many members, who appoints whom and that kind of thing. Is there an informal rule on the different boards with regard to wildlife? Is there a deliberate effort to include scientific expertise or expertise from regional elders who would be your local experts on the ground?
Ms. Thompson: The board members themselves, in all of the instances, are supported by scientific and technical staff. That is their organization. The board members rely on those people to provide them with the scientific and technical knowledge. In many cases I know they will do community visits and talk to elders if they are looking at something like the historic routes of caribou, such as where they pass and where their calving grounds are located. The boards get out there and ensure they are talking to the communities and drawing on that traditional knowledge to make informed decisions.
The Chair: From a conflict resolution perspective, I know the agreements have a dispute resolution process. How are they working overall?
Ms. Thompson: Dispute resolution mechanisms are put into these agreements to allow the parties to have an escalating scale of how to deal with one another. Recently, we have had success in the implementation committees. These are formal bodies set up under each of the land claims. We have been working to ensure that those implementation committees are the first line of informal discussion so that issues do not make it up to more formal processes such as mediation or litigation.
We have made a lot of efforts on that in the past while and we are resolving a lot of issues before they hit the formal dispute resolution mechanisms. However, those mechanisms are there for a reason, and we have used them from time to time in various land claims agreements.
Ms. Neville: I was going to echo that. The implementation committee is really the first stop in the resolution of that. It is made up of members from each of the signatory parties, so it is the first instance where these issues are discussed, decided and resolved.
We have had some successful instances of mediation, for instance. At the end of the day, the important part in these dispute resolution mechanisms is to keep the communication open and the dialogue going.
The Chair: Do you have any statistics in relation to the number of times it has been used?
Ms. Neville: We would have to get back to you with statistics.
The Chair: If you do not mind, yes.
Ms. Neville: Yes, we could.
Senator Meredith: Thank you, Ms. Thompson, for your presentation. This is a follow-up to Senator Dyck's and Senator Patterson's questions with respect to the number of boards and advisory boards. Can you give us that number? I will give you about three questions.
Going back to your presentation and to the mapping of these 26 communities, is there a need for all these boards?
Again, to the chair's question with respect to conflicts, how do we resolve conflicts between these boards? When you look at implementing economic plans in terms of the well-being of the people of Nunavut and the economic opportunities that exist, if these boards are clearly in conflict with each other in terms of recommendations, how are those things resolved? Again, it goes back to the impacts that they will have on the people on the ground when you have all this bureaucracy. How do we eliminate or reduce that to ensure that recommendations are brought forward quickly and then implemented quickly?
Ms. Thompson: I would answer by saying the dispute resolution mechanisms that are embedded in the land claims agreements are for use by the parties, so the boards would not have access to those dispute resolution mechanisms.
I have not really heard of conflict among boards. They each have their specific mandate when it is cross- jurisdictional. The Inuvialuit Environmental Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Impact Review Board talk all the time. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think there has been any instance of conflict there.
In terms of the number of boards, I had quite a lengthy list. I want to ensure you that I covered the four Inuit regions. There are four boards in Nunavut. If we are talking just about Nunavut, there are four what we call institutions of public governance in Nunavut, but they are co-management entities, which are the mechanisms by which the Aboriginal voice is reflected by decisions made on those issues.
Senator Meredith: Ms. Neville, you are nodding.
Ms. Neville: I have nothing to add.
Ms. Thompson: She is being supportive.
Senator Meredith: Thank you.
Senator Raine: Someone once said there are no stupid questions, but I am very confused. I have just been talking to my colleague about Nunavut. With regard to Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. and Makivik Corporation, could you explain how their roles relate? Could you clarify the roles and responsibilities of those two organizations on these committees in comparison with the rules of the people appointed by the territorial governments on the committees?
Ms. Neville: Sure. Makivik and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. are representatives of the signatories to those agreements. In a sense, they are the political representatives of signatories and, as such, act as the governing presence that appoints, for instance, to the boards.
Senator Raine: That makes it less clear. For instance, there are seven members on the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board, three of which are appointed by Makivik Corporation representing the Inuit signatories to the agreement.
Ms. Neville: Yes.
Senator Raine: Two members are appointed by Canada, one by the Government of Nunavut and a chairperson. Is Makivik Corporation a political organization?
Ms. Neville: It is a representative organization.
Senator Raine: Are people in the Makivik Corporation elected by the constituents of that organization?
Ms. Neville: That is my understanding.
Ms. Thompson: If I could interject, the idea of co-management is expressed in public boards. These boards are arm's length. However, the voice of co-management for the Aboriginal signatories is in their ability to nominate candidates to sit on those boards. Canada nominates and appoints members to those boards as do the territorial or provincial governments. In this case, that is how Makivik is expressing that it wants to put this candidate forward for nomination to the board because it believes that person will represent its interests. Once that person is on the board, the board is then mandated to act in the public interest because it is a public board, so it balances various interests.
Does that make a bit more sense?
Senator Raine: Yes, it does make sense, but how do you get the expertise in marine wildlife onto the board?
Ms. Thompson: As I mentioned earlier, the board is the group of people who come together to make decisions. Boards may only meet two or three times a year; it depends on how many decisions are before them. They are supported by a technical staff that, depending on the board's mandate, may include scientists and may draw in traditional knowledge from elders. They are supported by an organization that would draw in that scientific and technical expertise. Those people then provide them with a report or recommendations, and it is ultimately the board that makes the executive decisions.
Senator Raine: I understand that now. Each of these different boards has a specific area of interest and expertise, such as wildlife or migratory caribou or marine. There are so many boards because each has a different focus.
Ms. Thompson: Yes. Generally, you have your environmental impact review boards, and those are set up in most of the regions; then you have your wildlife management boards. Obviously their mandates intersect, but the boards are set up and have a mandate that is clearly and precisely set out both in the claim and in legislation. In order to do that, they draw on a team of technical experts.
Senator Raine: Ms. Thompson, do you also have experience in the Yukon?
Ms. Thompson: I do.
Senator Raine: The Yukon is set up quite differently from the rest of the northern territories.
Ms. Thompson: Yes. There are a few differences in the Yukon, although the main difference is that a lot of the direct responsibility for boards, these co-management entities, was devolved to the Yukon government in 2003. The only boards that we remain responsible for are the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Board and the Yukon Dispute Resolution Tribunal. Those are the only ones we still have that kind of relationship to. There are co- management boards in the Yukon, but the Yukon government is responsible for them right now.
Ms. Neville: If I may just clarify for Senator Raine, in all of the four Inuit settlement regions, generally you have boards grouped under a few basic mandate areas: wildlife management, impact review of some kind, and either fisheries or wildlife. Those are the main groupings. They come under different names and may have slightly different mandates, but those are the general groupings of boards that you will find under each of the agreement areas.
Ms. Thompson: If I could clarify, the term ``corporation'' might be a little confusing. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. is the treaty rights holder. It is not a for-profit corporation, as you would normally expect. In the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, it is the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, but it acts as the rights holder for part of the rights in the claim. Makivik Corporation is that rights holder for its constituency for the claim. It is not exactly like a corporation like IBM. It does not act like that. It is quasi-political. It is an odd structure.
Nunatsiavut is simpler because Nunatsiavut was able to negotiate self-government at the same time as their land claim, so when we refer to Nunatsiavut, we say the Nunatsiavut government.
The Chair: I welcome Senator Ataullahjan, from Ontario.
Senator Patterson: May I get an outline of your establishment? You have a big job. You are managing comprehensive claims in all regions of the country. What kind of resources do you have in terms of staff and budget?
Ms. Neville: Within Aboriginal Affairs?
Senator Patterson: In your shop.
Ms. Neville: My shop has 22 employees in all.
Ms. Thompson: I think I have about 28. I could look up the numbers. Some of them are in B.C., so I do not see them all the time. We are supported by strong teams.
It is important to remember that while Ms. Neville and I are both Canada's representatives to our respective treaties, the treaties are with Canada. Therefore, other government departments have many roles and responsibilities under the treaties that they fulfill, particularly in the areas of environment, fisheries, et cetera. I think the branch in total is about 90 people, but for us it would total about 50. We could get you the actual numbers.
Senator Patterson: Do I understand that regional offices of AAND also provide support to institutions of public government set up under the land claims? In addition to your shop, as I call it, you do have colleagues in the regional offices across the country that work on claims implementation?
Ms. Thompson: That is correct. As I noted, claims implementation is the responsibility of many government departments. Our regional offices have contacts with the boards that we are referring to now on a day-to-day basis because they have the mandates and interconnect with those boards. There are many people out in the regions who implement land claims as part of their ongoing business. We are the people with that broader overview of the claims, but there are people on the ground every day who are implementing land claims.
Senator Patterson: If a board says they are facing significant mining activity in their region and they need more resources to cope with the demands for regulatory reviews, whether it be in wildlife or the environment, where do they go and who makes the decision about allocating resources to support the boards? Is that done at the headquarters level under your responsibility? What is the role of the regions in those kinds of issues?
Ms. Thompson: It is our responsibility. We fund these organizations to give effect to their mandate. We have different types of funding. We have funding for their core operation, and that is more or less stable over time. As you mentioned, there can be large reviews or hearings, and the organizations will submit a budget to us. We will look at that budget, consider it and, if we think it is reasonable, we will fund those extra hearings or reviews. We have also provided additional supplemental funding for core operations when we had areas that got hit with higher fuel costs temporarily, for example.
Senator Patterson: I think it would be useful if we could ask the witnesses to provide us with further background information on that.
Ms. Thompson: Absolutely.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Raine: You referred to the fact that the Nunatsiavut government negotiated self-government at the same time. Could you explain what the impact of that has been on the governance and management of these different agencies?
Ms. Neville: As Ms. Thompson was explaining, they have jurisdiction under self-government over a number of areas of their culture, education, law-making abilities and so on. Are you asking about the impact on the boards?
Senator Raine: Yes.
Ms. Neville: They would be in direct contact in terms of being the institution of public government on the ground. The interaction with the boards would be in having elders, for instance, involved from the communities in feeding into some of those board studies or decisions or recommendations.
Senator Raine: I am confused because I thought Nunavut had self-government as well.
Ms. Thompson: No, it does not.
Senator Patterson: It is territorial.
Ms. Thompson: The government of Nunavut is a territorial government.
The Chair: If Nunatsiavut had followed the same model, they would have their own territory in northern Labrador. Instead, they have self-government that, as a result, gives them direct access to the co-management boards rather than the territorial government, which has corporations that are representing interests, like Makivik.
Ms. Neville: Yes.
Senator Raine: I need a map.
The Chair: We are going to send you a map.
Senator Raine: It would be handy to have a map that has the demographics on it, as well as the major issues.
The Chair: That is a good point.
Senator Seth: I am sorry to be late. The weather is quite interesting and getting worse.
From what you have written here, the purpose of the Nunavik Marine Region Planning Commission is to protect and promote the existing and future well-being to Nunavik communities and residents within the Nunavik marine regions while taking into account the interests of all Canadians. Could you explain what that last sentence means, ``taking into account the interests of all Canadians?''
Ms. Neville: My understanding is that it assumes that it is in the interests of all Canadians, so it balances all interests. It is not specifically for the Inuit of Nunavik, for instance, against the interests of anyone else. It takes into account interests of all Canadians.
Senator Seth: Thank you.
The Chair: Seeing no further questions, I will ask senators to stay for a 10-minute in camera session.
I thank the witnesses for their presentation and responses to the questions, and I thank your staff in the back for assisting as well.
(The committee continued in camera.)