Archived - Annual Report on the Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) 2006-2008

Published under the authority of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians
Ottawa, 2011

1-800-567-9604
TTY only 1-866-553-0554

© Minister of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, 2011

Table of Contents

• Kananginak Pootoogook
• Foreword
• Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations
• 1. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
• 2. Government of Nunavut
  • 2.1 Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs
  • 2.2 Department of Community and Government Services (CGS)
  • 2.3 Department of Justice
  • 2.4 Department of Environment
• 3. Government of Canada
  • 3.1 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada
  • 3.2 Department of National Defence
  • 3.3 Environment Canada
  • 3.4 Department of Canadian Heritage
  • 3.5 Parks Canada
  • 3.6 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
  • 3.7 Human Resources and Social Development Canada
  • 3.8 Natural Resources Canada
  • 3.9 Public Works and Government Services Canada
• 4. Implementation Bodies
  • 4.1 Nunavut Wildlife Management Board
  • 4.2 Nunavut Water Board
  • 4.3 Nunavut Impact Review Board
  • 4.4 Nunavut Planning Commission
  • 4.5 Nunavut Implementation Training Committee
• 5. Appendix

Kananginak Pootoogook

Kananginak Pootoogook (1 January 1935 - 23 November 2010), was an Inuk sculptor and printmaker who lived in Cape Dorset, Nunavut. He died as a result of complications related to surgery for lung cancer.

Pootoogook was born at a traditional Inuit camp called Ikerrasak or Ikirasak, near Cape Dorset, Nunavut (then in the Northwest Territories) to Josephie Pootoogook, leader of the camp, and Sarah Ninegeokuluk. The family lived a traditional lifestyle hunting and trapping while living in an iglu in the winter and a sod house in the summer and did not move into their first southern style house until 1942. In 1957 Pootoogook married Shooyoo, moved to Cape Dorset and began work for James Houston.

Originally, Pootoogook did some carving, made prints and lithographs for other artists. At the same time he was a leader in setting up the West Baffin Eskimo Co-operative, the first Inuit owned co-op, now part of the Arctic Co-operatives Limited and served from 1959 until 1964 as the president. Although Kananginak had worked with his father, Josephie, in 1959, it was not until the 1970s that Kananginak began work as a full time artist producing drawings, carvings and prints. According to Terry Ryan, former Co-op manager, Pootoogook was both influenced by and an admirer of the works of his uncle, photographer and historian Peter Pitseolak.

The World Wildlife Commission released a limited edition set in 1977 that included four of Pootoogook's images and in 1980 he was elected to the Royal Canadian Academy of Arts. In 1997 Pootoogook built a 6 ft (1.8 m) inukshuk in Cape Dorset for former Governor General of Canada, Roméo LeBlanc. The inukshuk was dismantled and shipped to Ottawa and with the assistance of his son, Johnny, it was rebuilt at Rideau Hall and unveiled on 21 June, National Aboriginal Day.

While working on his final, and unfinished, drawing of a Peterhead owned by his father, he was struck by coughing spells, which he declared was cancer. Along with his wife, Shooyoo, he flew to Ottawa, staying at the Larga Baffin home, and was diagnosed with lung cancer. In October 2010, he underwent surgery and did not recover. He died 23 November 2010 in Ottawa. He is survived by his wife, seven children and several grandchildren and great-grandchildren, and is buried in Cape Dorset.

Foreword

The Nunavut Implementation Panel (NIP) presents its Annual Report on the Implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA) pursuant to Sub-Section 37.3.3(h) of the Agreement. This Annual Report covers the period April 1, 2006 to March 31, 2008.

On December 5, 2006, NTI filed a lawsuit against the Crown in right of Canada in the Nunavut Court of Justice alleging breach of contract and related fiduciary duties with regard to the implementation of the NLCA, and seeking, among other things, $1-billion in damages. The Attorney General of Canada, representing the Crown, filed a defence to that lawsuit and, as of March 31, 2008, the case was still before the Court.

In submissions received for the preparation of this Annual Report, the Government of Nunavut and all four reporting Institutions of Public Government expressed concern that earlier recommendations from Conciliator Thomas Berger have not been implemented, that the NTI lawsuit is unresolved, and that the renewal of the Implementation Contract for 2003-2013 has yet to be completed. The NIP reached a consensus on further funding to IPGs following the "Report on the State of Consensus in the Nunavut Implementation Panel on some aspects of structural reform and IPG funding levels". The Government of Canada implemented some portions of that report by augmenting funding levels to IPGs by $2.5 million annually in September 2007. Despite this, many submissions from these bodies indicated that their NLCA implementation activities are being hampered by funding considerations.

As evidenced by the NTI lawsuit, the parties represented in the Panel have fundamentally different views as to whether the NLCA is being implemented in a manner that conforms to the Agreement. Each member organization of the NIP has contributed to one or more sections of this report, outlining their perspectives on implementation challenges and progress. Reports from other principal bodies, including the Nunavut Implementation Training Committee, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission, are also provided in this document. Accordingly, the statements and viewpoints put forward in the various sections of this report are not warranted as representing the shared statements and viewpoints of all members of the Panel or of the parties appointing them.

This period marked the 14th and final payment to the Nunavut Trust, completing the $1.148-billion total capital transfer paid out pursuant to the NLCA.

Glossary of Acronyms and Abbreviations

1. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated

At the end of March, 2006, Conciliator Thomas Berger submitted his final conciliation report on the inability of the federal government, Government of Nunavut and NTI to come to agreement on a renewed implementation plan for the second planning period of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.

In his report, Mr. Berger concluded that the Nunavut Project is in a state of "crisis", giving particular attention and weight to the very high secondary school drop out rate experienced by young Inuit, the enormous problems faced by the Nunavut education system in trying to deliver quality education in both the Inuit language and in English or French, and the subsequent problems of economic and social marginalization faced by Inuit youth. Mr. Berger persuasively tied fulfilment of the Inuit employment provisions of Article 23 of the NLCA, and the broader objectives of the entire Agreement, to dramatically expanded near term training initiatives and a fundamentally reformed educational system capable of producing fully bilingual graduates. In keeping with the origins of Nunavut - the land claims agreement and the territory - as a political project motivating a generation of Inuit from the 1970s to the 1990s, and with the scope and depth of new implementation commitments now needed, Mr. Berger addressed his report to the federal Minister of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, the Premier of Nunavut, and the President of NTI.

Mindful of the urgency of Conciliator Berger's report, NTI accepted, without reservation, all of his recommendations within weeks of the report's release. Regrettably, the federal government reserved making public commitment to the package of Mr. Berger's recommendations. It continued to refrain from making such public commitment for the entire period of time covered by this NIP 2006 to 2008 Report.

NTI's disappointment with respect to the federal government's unwillingness to provide a definitive response to the Conciliation report on updated implementation of the NLCA was compounded by the parallel unwillingness of the federal government to agree to other dispute resolution mechanisms. In 2004, the federal government withdrew its negotiator from negotiations aimed at updating the NLCA Implementation Contract, and rejected all subsequent invitations by NTI to appoint a new negotiator, and return to the negotiating table. Similarly, the federal government chose not to accept any of the offers made by NTI, on various and repeated occasions, to take one, several or all of 17 implementation disputes to binding arbitration. By the fall of 2006, these realities, in combination with an unsatisfactory set of meetings and exchange of correspondence at the political and bureaucratic levels, convinced NTI that the only hope for full and fair implementation of the NLCA was through the courts.

Following a thorough review of the situation at the 2006 NTI Annual General Meeting, NTI commenced a comprehensive lawsuit against the Crown in right of Canada in the Nunavut Court of Justice on December 5, 2006. NTI's Statement of Claim commencing that law suit asserts that the Crown has breached the NLCA in a wide variety of ways involving its contractual and associated fiduciary duties under the NLCA. The lawsuit seeks a number of remedies on behalf of the Inuit of Nunavut, including the payment of $1-billion in damages. Prior to the commencement of the lawsuit, NTI had carried out research over a number of years as to the economic losses to Inuit flowing from non-implementation of the NLCA, including failure to bring about a public sector workforce representative of the Nunavut population (85% Inuit), as foreseen by Article 23 of the NLCA. NTI's research found that these economic losses are large and quantifiable.

The Statement of Claim commencing NTI's lawsuit against the Crown in right of Canada is reproduced as Appendix 'A' to this section of the NIP Annual Report.

The Government of Canada had made clear to NTI that giving full effect to Conciliator Berger's report, or some similarly far-ranging updating of implementation efforts, could only be effected through fresh federal Cabinet decision making and instructions. Unfortunately, in the period covered by this NIP Report, that political investment in the implementation of the NLCA did not take place. Notwithstanding its disappointment in that respect, and the reality that fundamental implementation responsibilities are now before the courts, NTI indicated that it is prepared to pursue progress on implementation, to the extent progress can be made, at the NIP and in any other stand-alone or special purpose forum or process that is available. As a result, in the period covered by this NIP Report, NTI did see modest progress being made in a number of specific implementation areas, including:

• agreement on an Umbrella Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for Migratory Bird Sanctuaries and National Wildlife Areas;
• the development of further implementation legislation, notably with respect to territorial wildlife legislation and new federal legislation in relation to land use planning and environmental assessment processes (Articles 11 and 12 of the NLCA); and
• a degree of renewed funding for the Institutions of Public Government, although not to the level currently required.

NTI continued to protest the perpetuation of a discriminatory fisheries allocation regime in waters adjacent to Nunavut that results in Nunavut fishing communities being the only ones in Canada that cannot rely on secure use of 85% to 100% of commercial total allowable catches in adjacent waters. NTI believes that this situation violates equality guarantees under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well as terms of the NLCA, and is examining options for redress.

A notable development in this period was a growing and deepening awareness that the implementation problems being experienced under the NLCA are not unique. NTI continued to be an active member of the Land Claims Coalition, an organization that brings together other Inuit regions and First Nations that are also signatories to modern land claims agreements. The Coalition has been a most important vehicle in raising awareness of problems attending the implementation of all modern land claims agreements, and in pursuing needed federal policy reform before interested Parliamentarians, the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, and in the wider public arena.

And so, we look to the future. It is NTI's sincere hope that, in the next NIP Annual Report, it will be in a position to report that implementation problems are being fully assessed, candidly acknowledged, and effectively and creatively tackled.

2. Government of Nunavut

2.1 Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs

During the reporting period, the Department provided support to all GN departments implementing elements of the NLCA, and it is part of the GN team participating in the Article 23 Working Group with INAC.

The GN has continued to work in partnership with the Government of Canada, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and IPGs to produce federal legislation for the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission.

The Nunavut Senior Officials Working Group dealt with a number of claims-related issues, and proved to be a constructive forum for the examination of broad policy issues related to implementation of the land claim.

The Department met, and filed annual reports with, the Nunavut Implementation Panel, and was involved with proposals and funding decisions relating to the Institutions of Public Government.

The Department advised the Government of Canada on transboundary issues on claims tables with respect to other jurisdictions adjacent to Nunavut, including the James Bay Cree and Makivik Corporation.

Finally, the Department coordinated all GN claims and related activities with respect to the NGMP and the federal proposal on the Berger recommendations.

2.2 Department of Community and Government Services (CGS)

The CGS has responsibilities relating to NLCA Article 11 (Land Use Planning), Article 14 (Municipal Lands), Article 23 (Inuit Employment and Training) and Article 24 (Government Contracts). Implementation of these obligations continued in 2006-2008, despite a lack of NLCA- specific funding.

The number of titled lands within municipalities continued to grow throughout the reporting period as an increasing number of lots were surveyed each year. The transfer of lands is an ongoing function of the Department. As new lots are surveyed, the Department assists the municipalities in the preparation of land acquisition bylaws and other appropriate documents. CGS also worked with the Land Titles Office to transfer title of municipal land within built-up areas to the municipalities.

The incremental costs imposed on the Department of meeting the requirements of Article 14 were not anticipated in the funding provided for the initial planning period under the Implementation Contract. This resulted in land transfer delays, as CGS did not have adequate funding to cover registration fees at the Land Titles Office. Over the last year, the Land Titles Office managed to waive 90 percent of the fees; only 10 percent remained to be paid from the Assurance Fund. However, with approximately 3,000 documents yet to be registered (at a cost of $60 - $150 each), alternatives to remove or to finance the registration fee costs are being reviewed.

Through INAC's Strategic Investment Northern Development program, CGS will be creating an inventory of 1,000 lots over the coming year, in 11 communities that expect unusual growth due to mining activities. This will ensure that future development in those communities will be on titled municipal land.

CGS continues to administer and control the 100-foot reserve on behalf of the Commissioner, as well as untitled lands within municipal boundaries (for the benefit of the municipalities, and in accordance with Parts 4 and 5 of Article 14).

CGS assists all municipalities in developing and creating community plans that embrace the principles outlined in Parts 2 and 3 of Article 11. As of the end of this reporting period only one community in Nunavut has yet to adopt a municipal plan, and this is expected to be complete by the end of the year. Over the past year alone, CGS assisted six communities with the adoption or revision of their municipal plan.

CGS is participating in IPG talks to ensure that Part 7 of Article 11 of the NLCA is respected, and that there is cooperation between the NPC and municipal planning authorities.

The original Bilateral Funding Agreement provided financial support to the communities to assist them with their land administration programs. During the period of negotiations between the Government of Nunavut, NTI and the federal government, CGS has continued to provide funding to the communities to assist with this program. Funding levels have not changed since the first agreement was negotiated and signed.

In order to increase the communities' capacity to administer their own lands, and in support of Article 23 (Inuit Employment and Training), the Department created the Municipal Training Organization (MTO) in partnership with the Nunavut Association of Municipal Administrators. The MTO is a non-profit organization that provides a wide range of planning and lands courses. The Municipal Government Program gives community employees a broad spectrum of knowledge and resources related to the administration of a municipal government and specific tools to administer their own lands programs. CGS continues to provide daily assistance and training to all community planning and lands administrators.

2.3 Department of Justice

During the reporting period, the Department of Justice provided all GN departments with legal services required with respect to operations and processes mandated by the NLCA.

Advice and education were provided with respect to departmental NLCA obligations. This included seminars and materials on Articles 23, 32 and 24 of the NLCA, including the NNI Policy under which Article 24 is being implemented.

The Department provided assistance with NLCA- mandated legal procedures, such as expropriation and board hearings, as well as with arbitration and litigation relating to the NLCA, such as the matter of Kadlak v. Nunavut (Minister of Sustainable Development), which related to Articles 2 and 5.

Implementation-related negotiation support was provided in matters such as NNI Policy and IIBAs.

Legal Services assisted with NLCA-mandated land transfers, including the correction of past transfers (Articles 14 and 19). Legal support was provided for the collaborative development, with the IHT and INAC, of federal Archaeological and Paleontological Sites Regulations.

The Department worked on the establishment of the GN as the Designated Authority for the administration of permits, and on the revision of the permitting process in light of the regulations (Article 33).

During the reporting period, the Department of Justice consulted with DIOs and the federal government regarding implementation legislation required by the NLCA, including the federal Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act, the Territorial Nunavut Wildlife Act, the pending federal Environmental Assessment Act (NIRB and NPC), and IIBA implementation.

The Legislation Division provided support to government departments and agencies in drafting changes to Nunavut legislation for greater consistency with the NLCA, and providing Inuktitut translations of legislation.

Finally, the Department continued to provide assistance with NLCA-mandated legal procedures such as expropriation, board and tribunal hearings, and arbitration and litigation relating to the NLCA.

2.4 Department of Environment

NTI and the Government of Canada requested that the GN be made a party to the umbrella IIBA for Heritage Rivers under section 8.4.3 of the NLCA. The GN agreed to be a Party to the IIBA on the condition that Canada would fund any additional obligations. Formal negotiations began in November 2004 with the exchange of a framework and an outline for the IIBA. The negotiation sessions held in April 2005 were the first that included the GN as part of the Canada caucus. Negotiations continued throughout the 2006-2008 reporting period.

Since the formal approval of the Territorial Parks IIBA on May 13, 2002 the then Department of Sustainable Development (now Department of Environment), along with NTI and the three RIAs, has been working towards implementing the agreement. Implementation efforts have been hampered due to a lack of funding. Nevertheless, the parties to the IIBA moved the process forward during the 2006-2008 reporting period.

• Draft Park Specific Appendices were developed and discussions about them are ongoing in the Kivalliq region.
• A Park-Specific Contracting Procedures Policy was approved by the GN Cabinet and is now included in the GN's NNI policy.
• A Parks Contract Working Group has been meeting regularly regarding parks contracts. The group continues to monitor the contracting process for Territorial Parks each fiscal year.
• Parks Contracts have been written in keeping with Article 5 of the IIBA.
• The GN invites NTI participation in the screening and interviewing of potential new hires of GN Park full-time employees.
• GN Parks summer and casual employment policies give preferential treatment to beneficiaries.
• Interpretative and signage programs are consistent with language requirements in the IIBA.
• Completed and submitted to the Parties a Draft Implementation Plan.
• Completed and submitted to the Parties a Draft Work Plan.
• Prepared and submitted numerous proposals for funding from other sources to implement IIBA obligations.

Co-management is a cornerstone of both the NLCA and IIBAs as they relate to Territorial Parks. The Territorial Parks IIBA provides for Territory-wide and local involvement in the development and management of Territorial parks. Under the terms of the IIBA, the GN, along with NTI and the three RIAs, appoints representatives to co-management committees. Appointments to the Territory-wide committee have been completed. However, these appointments presume federal support by way of implementation contract funding.

Implementation of the IIBA, and the co-management of Territorial parks itself, are now at a critical juncture. If adequate funding is not received through implementation contracts it will not be possible for DOE to implement components of the IIBA.

The federal government has an underlying and ongoing responsibility to provide adequate incremental funding to the GN to meet its obligations under the NLCA, yet, to date, the federal government response in negotiations for the second contract has been less than adequate. In the last response from INAC to the GN funding proposal for the new planning period forwarded to the DOE, Canada stated that the GN and NTI have indicated that IIBA implementation funding must be based on identified amounts and appropriate to the developmental nature of the Territorial Park System. Taking this into consideration and in further review of the information provided previously, Canada is prepared to provide a contribution of $230,000 annually to the GN to help provide opportunities for Inuit to see real benefits from Nunavut's park system now and over the coming years. The funding amount identified by INAC is insufficient and falls far short of those identified in the GN proposal; this will leave the parties to the IIBA unable to successfully fully implement the IIBA.

The NLCA requires the federal government to make certain that adequate funding is available to enable all government obligations under the NLCA to be properly carried out and not just to "help" or "contribute to" as stated in the INAC May 4th response.

The Department completed the coordination of the Thelon Wildlife Sanctuary Management Plan with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the NWMB, INAC, NTI and the affected communities of Baker Lake and Lutsel'Ke. In June 2003, the GN presented the Management Plan to the NWMB, by whom it was conditionally approved in July 2004. The Minister of DOE accepted the NWMB's approval in August 2004, and, following two letters written to try to secure his approval for the Plan, the Minister of DIAND provided final Plan approval in August, 2005. In keeping with Article 9 of the NLCA, KIA is now seeking an IIBA for the Sanctuary. Because the Thelon is a Federal Conservation Area, it is Canada's responsibility to provide all resources and legislative changes (if any) to implement the Management Plan, including negotiation and implementation of an IIBA. The Deputy Minister of DOE has written several letters to the Regional Director General (RDG) of INAC to try to begin discussions to secure funding from INAC to begin Plan Implementation. The RDG committed to completing a review and evaluation, but to date DOE has not received the results to this commitment.

The Department continues to ensure that all publications, signs, kiosks and interpretation material related to parks are produced in Inuktitut and one or more of Canada's official languages. DOE worked closely with Parks Canada, the CWS, and other federal and Territorial partners to promote and communicate the roles for Parks and Conservation Areas in Nunavut.

From 2002 to 2003 the GN and NTI participated in a working group that successfully completed a draft Wildlife Act, which was subsequently passed by the Legislative Assembly. The working group then produced draft regulations and orders necessary to implement the Wildlife Act. These draft regulations and orders have been completed and were submitted to the NWMB for their review and for approval of the parts that are within their jurisdiction. The NWMB reviewed this material at a series of public hearings in September, October, and December 2006. The GN and NTI participated in the NWMB hearings to provide input and expert advice into the NWMB's decision making process. The NWMB is expected to complete its decisions on the regulations and orders in early 2007, and forward these decisions to the Minister for implementation. NTI has been asked to provide its final comments on the entire package of regulations and orders so that full implementation can proceed on receipt of the decisions of the NWMB.

The Department continued to work closely with the NWMB, RWOs, HTOs and NTI on wildlife research and management activities. Departmental staff regularly attended NWMB meetings and provided written reports and recommendations on specific topics. Staff also regularly attended RWO and HTO meetings to exchange information and collaborate on research and management projects. The Department continues to work for the establishment of inter- jurisdictional agreements to cover the shared management of trans-boundary wildlife populations. In accordance with the NLCA, the Department works to ensure the involvement of NWMB, NTI and the RWOs in the development of these agreements.

DFO and CWS receive implementation funding for conservation research and management of terrestrial species in Nunavut but DOE does not (except for consultations). This includes departmental responsibilities under Article 12 for project and general monitoring of species under the GN mandate. The implementation costs for research and management are very apparent to those that strive to address the responsibilities for research and management of terrestrial species that are identified for the DOE Minister in the NLCA.

DOE continued dialogue with the NPC regarding the products coming from the current land use planning model and the appropriateness of the land use planning model in relation to the NLCA. DOE and EIA have coordinated input from other GN departments into the development of broad land use policies, goals and objectives required under 11.4.1(a) of the NLCA. It is hoped that these will better inform the land use planning process in Nunavut, providing consistent direction to the NPC on government aspirations and requirements for land use planning. These policies are now near completion and will need formal approval from the GN, the federal government, the NPC and NTI. DOE has undertaken reviews of the NPC's 10-year Strategic plan and worked with other GN departments to develop concepts for the NGMP. This latter activity has included reviews of general/regional monitoring initiatives in other jurisdictions. DOE is now a participant in the federal/NPC/GN working group for the NGMP.

DOE also continued to select and nominate GN representatives to the respective IPGs.

Throughout the reporting period, DOE continued to be actively engaged in all screening and Part 5 reviews conducted by NIRB. In 2006/07, DOE reviewed 82 screenings, providing written interventions on wildlife and environment protection on 48 of these. Notable projects reviewed include the High Lake project proposal (draft environmental impact statement ) and the Mary River bulk sampling project.

DOE continues to participate in the water licensing process conducted by the NWB. In 2006/07, DOE undertook technical reviews of 75 water licence applications.

Water regulations under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act are now being developed by an inter-agency group consisting of GN, NTI, NWB and INAC. DOE is representing the GN on this group, working closely with ED&T, CGS and H&SS.

DOE is a member of the GN working group developing legislation for Articles 11 and 12 of the NLCA. Closely involved with both land use planning and environmental assessment on a daily basis, DOE brings a great deal of knowledge and experience to the group. Led by EIA, the group also consists of representatives from ED&T and CGS. Drafting of the legislation has begun but it was held up when federal drafters were re-assigned. It is hoped that draft legislation will be completed within the year. Working group meetings occur every four to six months.

During the past year, all divisions of DOE prepared material to reflect the impact of the implementation of the NLCA on the department over the next ten-year funding period. DOE continues to assist EIA in negotiations for the second contract period. The federal government response to these proposals has been less than adequate, and DOE has serious outstanding and unresolved implementation issues. These include additional responsibilities under the new Nunavut Wildlife Act that are tied to Article 5 of the NLCA, as well as responsibilities arising out of the umbrella Territorial Parks IIBA signed by the Premier and the presidents of NTI and the RIAs on May 13th, 2002. Receiving adequate funding in future implementation contracts and other agreements will help ensure that DOE can meet its responsibilities under the NLCA, and that the Inuit of Nunavut receive the full level of benefits stemming from the NLCA.

3. Government of Canada

A detailed description of the accomplishments of the many federal government departments and agencies active in the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement follows. This introductory section presents an overview of some of their achievements during the 2006-2008 reporting period.

In 2007 the Nunavut Regional Office of Indian and Northern Affairs established an inter-agency working group (comprising the GN, the NPC, NTI and INAC) for the purpose of designing and implementing a plan for general monitoring within the NSA. To date the working group has signed off on Terms of Reference, reached consensus on general monitoring principles, purposes, goals, and objectives, and has initiated a business-case-based process for the development of NGMP funding options.

Under the Northern Contaminated Sites Program, five cleanup contracts (combined value: $35.6 million) included aboriginal benefits plans that created 90-95 employment opportunities for Inuit during the 2006-2007 construction season. These positions represented more than 70 percent of the total number of employees working at these sites. The five contracts will create approximately $27-million in spin-off benefits for Inuit suppliers and local communities who provide goods and services in support of the clean-up work.

NTI, the Treasury Board Secretariat, PWGSC and INAC worked together to strengthen and clarify the Treasury Board's contracting policy. This policy clarification has been approved by Treasury Board Ministers and will become effective in April 2009.

Canada, GN, and NTI have collaborated to establish new wording for Article 19.2.5 of the NLCA to ensure that Inuit receive the land quantum promised to them under the NLCA. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement will be amended via an order in council to reflect the agreed upon wording.

The Government of Canada, NTI, three Regional Inuit Associations and the Nangmautaq Hunters and Trappers organization worked on an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) for National Wildlife Areas and Migratory Bird Sanctuaries in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The agreement (supported by a federal commitment of $ 8.3-million) will create three new National Wildlife Areas on and around Baffin Island to protect local species and habitat.

Canadian Heritage provided support to the three Regional Inuit Associations for various youth-directed programming in their regions. Funding to these organizations supported community and culturally-based projects for Inuit youth in Nunavut, such as culture camps, a children's theatre, a hockey school, a winter survival camp for young men, an art camp, and youth workshops.

Parks Canada has begun to develop monitoring programs for national parks in Nunavut, which will contribute significantly to its NLCA ecological monitoring obligations.

From the 2006-2007 through the 2008-2009 fiscal years, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) has contributed a total of $1,158,075 to 41 projects for stock assessment research within the Nunavut Settlement Area.

The emerging fishery in Pangnirtung will also be a significant priority for DFO with the recent announcement of development of a small craft harbour there. Over the next two years, the federal government will provide $8-million to construct the harbour and to fund the stock assessment research needed for development of the emerging fishery in Pangnirtung.

The Nunavut Water Board, INAC, GN and NTI have developed a Nunavut Water Regulations Development Group (NWRDG) regarding water regulations under Section 82 of the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The NWRDG intends to have draft regulations for consultation completed by late spring 2009.

In May 2007, the fourteenth and final capital transfer payment was made to the Nunavut Trust under Article 29 of the NLCA. Capital Transfers to the Inuit of Nunavut under the NLCA have amounted to $1.148-billion.

3.1 Indian and Northern Affairs Canada

3.1.1 Land Administration Division

Pursuant to Article 5, Part 8 of the NLCA, Land Administration provided DIOs with the right of first refusal before processing land applications for new sports or naturalist lodges in the NSA.

As required under Article 7, Crown lands were made available to clients without an application fee for outpost camps approved by the local HTO and screened by NIRB.

During 2006-2008, and in accordance with Article 12, Land Administration forwarded applications to NIRB for review and screening for 11 Crown land dispositions, 64 land use permits and 155 quarry permits. Land Administration also participated in one Part 5 review by NIRB, for Zinifex Canada Inc. Land Administration also continued to work jointly with the NWB in reviewing and approving the closure and reclamation plan for the Polaris and Nanisivik mines.

In accordance with Article 19, Land Administration received, reviewed and signed off approximately 600 legal survey plans of selected parcels of IOL. (All such surveys must be approved on behalf of the Minister.) A number of plans have yet to be received and will require review and approval in the upcoming reporting period.

Pursuant to Sections 19.8.17 and 19.8.18, the Mining Recorder is responsible for resolving any dispute described according to the provisions of the Canada Mining Regulations that were in existence on the date of ratification of the NLCA. To date, no disputes have been registered with the Mining Recorder.

Under Section 21.7.2, the Mining Recorder's Office pays quarterly lease payments to NTI on grandfathered subsurface rights and administers third-party rights that were acquired prior to the date of ratification of the NLCA. In the 2006 - 2008 reporting period, approximately 60 such leases were administered by the Mining Recorder's Office.

3.1.2 Environment Division

The Division continues to participate in the Legislative Working Group, drafting legislation for Articles 11 and 12 of the NLCA. INAC has assumed the lead on behalf of Canada to work with the NPC to promote the effective drafting and implementation of legislation relating to Article 11 of the NLCA.

After extensive meetings with NTI, the GN, the NPC and other federal government departments, the NPC has developed wording for the broad planning policies, objectives and goals referenced in Subsection 11.4.1(a) of the NLCA. This document will guide the development of a Nunavut Land Use Plan with regional components. INAC has received support for the 11.4.1(a) document from all relevant federal departments.

The Environment Division coordinated INAC's intervention and participation in four Part V environmental reviews under the NLCA (1. Meadowbank gold project, 2. Doris North gold project, 3. High Lake base metals project, and 4. Bathurst Inlet port and road project). This work entailed technical meetings, pre-hearing conferences, and final environmental hearings. Two other major projects have subsequently entered the environmental assessment process: the Hackett River base metal project and the Mary River iron ore project.

In 2007 the NRO initiated an inter-agency working group (comprising the GN, the NPC, NTI and INAC) for the purpose of designing and implementing a plan for general monitoring within the NSA (the NGMP). This initiative benefited greatly from clarity offered by Thomas Berger's Interim Conciliator's Report. The working group hosted a workshop from March 18th through the 20th, 2008 in Iqaluit to develop an understanding of potential models for monitoring programs, as well as to assess the general monitoring needs and activities of Nunavut organizations. This highly successful workshop was attended by more than 70 representatives from stakeholder groups from across the Territory. It marked a crucial step in developing next steps for general monitoring in the Territory, and for refining a vision for gathering and compiling data on the state and health of Nunavut's land, economy and people. Since the workshop, terms of reference for the NGMP working group have been signed off by the working group, consensus on NGMP principles, purposes, goals, and objectives has been reached, and a business-case-based process for the development of NGMP funding options has been initiated. The business case is expected to be completed in the 2008-09 fiscal year.

3.1.3 Minerals Division

With respect to Section 19.9.1 of the NLCA, the Minerals Division is responsible for notifying DIOs of the discovery of any deposits of carving stone on Crown lands. No carving stone was discovered on Crown land during the reporting period.

3.1.4 Water Resources Division

The Water Resources Division continued to provide support to the NWB by doing reviews and providing interventions to licensing and implementation processes for municipal, mineral exploration, and mining activities. These activities included the review of closure plans for Nanisivik, Cullaton Lake and Polaris mines, the operations of the Jericho diamond mine, and the water licensing of the Doris North and Meadowbank mines. As part of the interventions to the water licensing process, INAC provided estimates of abandonment and reclamation costs so the NWB could establish the amount of water-related financial security to be held by Canada. A strong working relationship was maintained with the NWB throughout the reporting period.

The Water Resources Division also collected baseline and non-regulatory water quality samples at four DEW Line sites, at sites around the city of Iqaluit and, through a cooperative agreement with the Kivalliq Inuit Association, in the Chesterfield Inlet area. Through the INAC-NWT Shared Services Agreement, baseline water quality samples and meteorological data were also collected at transboundary sites and near areas of existing and potential mineral development. INAC-NWT, with support from the NRO Division, funds Environment Canada to monitor water quantity in Nunavut.

The NWB, INAC, GN and NTI have developed a Nunavut Water Regulations Development Group (NWRDG) regarding water regulations under Section 82 of the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The NWRDG had public consultations through an online survey established in January 2008. Furthermore, the NWRDG held information sessions at the Cordilleran roundup in Vancouver, and the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada in March 2008. The NWRDG intends to have draft regulations for consultation completed by late spring 2009. Once the consultations are completed, the regulations will be published in the Gazette as a final document tentatively by fall 2009.

INAC continued to work with NTI to develop an agreement for the remediation of DEW Line sites that are under INAC's control.

3.1.5 Contaminated Sites

For the purpose of maximizing opportunities for Inuit and Northern firms in Nunavut the Contaminated Sites Program undertook the following project specific activities.

FOX-C

1. Inuit-owned Qikiqtaaluk Corporation (QC) continued remediation works which were awarded in June 2005. QC mobilized to the site in September 2005.
2. A guaranteed Inuit employment rate of 88 percent was established.
3. Community consultations were held in Qikiqtarjuaq and Clyde River in 2006 and 2007.
4. In 2008, an Inuit capacity building training program was held in Qikiqtarjuaq and Clyde River. Subjects included hazardous waste operations and emergency response, transportation of dangerous goods, heavy equipment operation and maintenance, and first aid.

CAM-F

1. Biogenie continued remediation works and hired Mikim Consultations Ltd (an Inuit-owned company) to provide camp services.
2. Biogenie established a guaranteed Inuit employment rate of 63 percent.
3. Community consultations were held in Igloolik and Hall Beach in 2006 and 2007.
4. In 2007, a training program was run for employees from Igloolik and Hall Beach. Subjects included hazardous waste operations and emergency response, introduction to PCB waste, marine transportation of dangerous goods, and introduction to supervision for Inuit workers.

CAM-D

1. INAC strove to keep residents informed about cleanup plans for the site and sought their input and concerns.
2. Community consultation meetings were held in Gjoa Haven, Kugaaruk and Taloyoak in the spring of 2006.
3. INAC will continue to provide employment opportunities for Nunavummiut through the contractor's selection process, with a contract expected to be awarded for the cleanup of this site sometime in 2008.

PIN-B

1. INAC strove to keep residents informed about cleanup plans for the site and sought their input and concerns.
2. Community consultation meetings were held in Kugluktuk in the spring of 2008.
3. INAC will continue to provide employment opportunities for Nunavummiut through the contractor's selection process.

Radio Island

1. A remediation contract was awarded to Hazco Environmental on May 31, 2006.
2. Clean up was completed in two seasons: 2006 and 2007.
3. A guaranteed Inuit employment rate of 64 percent was maintained.
4. Over $4-million were expended procuring goods and services from Inuit companies.
5. Community consultations were held in Iqaluit and Kimmirut in 2005, 2006, and 2007.

Resolution Island

1. INAC, in cooperation with Qikiqtaaluk Corporation, has been able to maximize employment opportunities for residents of Iqaluit, Kimmirut and Pangnirtung.
2. More than 85 percent of the workers on this project are Inuit, with 65 percent coming from Iqaluit and the remaining 35 percent from Kimmirut, Pangnirtung, Resolute Bay and other communities.
3. Approximately 20 percent of the total time spent on-site (more than 55,000 hours) was dedicated to completing various training courses.
4. The Resolution Island project generated more than $16-million worth of business opportunities in Nunavut, benefitting more than 30 companies across the Territory.

Robert's Bay Mine Site

1. A bidders site visit was held in 2006 to introduce potential bidders to the site.
2. A community meeting was held in Cambridge Bay in 2006 to present the cleanup plan to the community and to obtain feedback. The meeting was attended by community members, KIA, NTI, HTO and Elders' representatives.
3. In 2007, two bidders conferences were held, in Cambridge Bay and Yellowknife, to explain the contract to the bidders and to answer their questions.
4. A remediation contract was awarded to Quantum Murray LP on September 10, 2007 with guaranteed Inuit employment content of 81 percent and guaranteed Inuit sub-contractor content of 68 percent.
5. Quantum Murray LP will commence construction during the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
6. A training program for employees, including Inuit employees who will be involved in the project, is being developed and will be delivered at Cambridge Bay.

Cape Christian

1. A bidders site visit was held in 2006 to introduce potential bidders to the site.
2. A community meeting was held in Clyde River in 2006 to present the cleanup plan to the community and to obtain feedback. The meeting was attended by community members, QIA, NTI, HTO and Elders' representatives.
3. A bidders conference was held in Iqaluit in 2007 to explain the contract to the bidders and to answer their questions.
4. A remediation contract was awarded to Inuit- owned Qikiqtaaluk Logistics with guaranteed Inuit employment content of 85 percent, and guaranteed Inuit sub-contractor content of 75 percent.
5. Qikiqtaaluk Logistics will commence construction during the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
6. The contractor is working with the hamlet of Clyde River to build the road linking Clyde River to Cape Christian as part of capacity building for the community.
7. A training program for employees, including Inuit employees that will be involved in the project, is being developed and will be delivered at Clyde River.

CAM-B (Hat Island)

1. A site assessment and site cleanup plan will be completed during the 2008-2009 fiscal year.
2. Community meetings will be held at Gjoa Haven and Cambridge Bay in February, 2009 following the completion of the draft cleanup plan. The meetings will bring together community members, KIA, NTI, HTO and Elders' representatives. The cleanup plan will be presented and the attendees will have an opportunity to ask questions, obtain clarifications and provide comments.

Bear Island

1. A Phase III environmental site assessment was conducted in 2007 with operations based in Chisasibi, Quebec.
2. A community consultation was held in Chisasibi, Quebec on February 20, 2008.

3.1.6 Corporate Services Division

The Inuit Employment Plan was updated in May 2007 and there are several working groups in place to assist in its implementation, in which INAC participates. Two ongoing successful initiatives are underway to increase the Inuit representation rate within INAC: (1) encouraging managers to give hiring preference to NLCA beneficiaries based on operational requirements under the new Public Service Employment Act, (a federal-government- wide initiative), and (2) continued hiring of Inuit summer students each year so they can learn more about the department and possibly consider full-time opportunities with INAC in the future. Overall, the NRO showed progress in increasing the representation rate of Inuit under the Inuit Employment Plan (Sections 23.4.1 and 23.4.2). While unable to reach the rate targeted in the 2002 Inuit Employment Plan, the representation rate increased to 28 percent (seven percent higher than in May 2004).

3.1.7 Northern Program

INAC continued its work on legislation relating to the NPC and NIRB to set out the operating regimes for land use planning and environmental assessment. Departmental representatives continued to work on the legislation primarily through the auspices of the multi-party Nunavut Legislative Working Group. During the last two years the group moved from multilateral discussions on the policy framework for the legislation to the actual commencement of drafting. In addition to drafts of the bill, numerous discussion papers on various policy and drafting issues were distributed to the Group for their comments and input. The working environment continues to be excellent, despite wrestling with some challenging policy issues. The next phase of drafting - a clause by clause review - will commence before the end of calendar 2008. Based on past experience, it is anticipated that this review will require at least two or three sessions spread over a few months. In previous years INAC provided funding to NTI and the boards to participate in the Nunavut Legislative Working Group; the Department has a continued commitment to do so.

3.1.8 Implementation Branch

The Implementation Branch of INAC is responsible for monitoring federal government activities in order to ensure that the Government of Canada is meeting its responsibilities under the NLCA. The Branch consults regularly on implementation matters with government officials in INAC and other departments, and exchanges information with representatives of the GN and NTI on policy, legal issues, and administrative matters pertaining to implementation.

For the preparation of this report, all parties to the NLCA submitted progress reports for the period April 1, 2006 through March 31, 2008. Although a common view does not exist on every issue addressed in this report, Canada respects the fact that each body has its own approach to best addressing NLCA implementation challenges.

On March 30, 2007, Canada filed its Statement of Defence in the NTI litigation. Canada's position is that, despite the litigation filed by NTI, implementation of the NLCA is ongoing and will continue as effectively and efficiently as possible. While Canada looks forward to any clarity and guidance the court may offer in this complicated matter, the government remains committed to the successful implementation of the NLCA for the benefit of all Inuit in Nunavut and Canada. As such, the federal government will continue to pursue implementation of the NLCA and other initiatives in good faith, despite the litigation.

Following the filing of their Statement of Defence, in the Fall of 2007, Canada filed a motion to add the Government of Nunavut as a co-defendant to the litigation. Canada believes that the successful implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement is a joint responsibility shared by the Government of Nunavut and the Government of Canada. The Government of Nunavut is inextricably tied to the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement and this is why the Government of Canada has sought to name them as a co-defendant. On January 25th, 2008, Canada's motion was heard and a decision to deny Canada's motion, and provide leave to consider an application to add the Government of Nunavut as a Third Party instead was rendered.

The Implementation Branch is responsible for funding arrangements with the implementing bodies established by the NLCA, as well as for capital transfer payments to the Nunavut Trust. Detailed funding updates are provided in appendices to this report.

Article 24 states that the Government of Canada and the GN are to provide reasonable support and assistance to Inuit firms to enable them to compete for government contracts without imposing additional financial obligations on government. Specifically, Article 24 requires that the Government of Canada:

• Develop, implement or maintain procurement policies respecting Inuit firms for all contracts required in support of activities in the NSA;
• Develop or maintain its procurement policies in close consultation with NTI;
• Implement the above policies through legislative, regulatory or administrative measures.

Article 24 further provides rules and guidelines for bid invitation, bid solicitation and bid criteria. In an effort to strengthen and clarify existing Government of Canada contracting policy requirements for federal departments contracting in Nunavut and other Comprehensive Land Claims Agreement (CLCA) areas, NTI, the Treasury Board Secretariat, PWGSC and INAC have worked together to clarify the Treasury Board's contracting policy.

In 2005, NTI passed a director's resolution proposing an amendment to Section 24.1.1, arguing that the wording in the Agreement does not address issues of control or management of Inuit firms. NTI wants the language in the Agreement to be strengthened to provide Inuit more control and management over Inuit firms. Canada continues to discuss this issue with NTI and both parties need to explore particular options further before a decision or amendment can be made.

Canada has continued to put effort into exploring opportunities to implement Article 23. The Nunavut Federal Council's support of the Inuit Employment Plan is a step in addressing the Inuit employment realities faced by INAC and other federal departments. In recognition of the need for continued federal collaboration with respect to the NLCA, INAC worked with the Nunavut Federal Council, to encourage implementation of Inuit employment plans within each federal department in Nunavut.

The Implementation Management Branch collects employment data from all relevant departments with offices in the NSA and shares this information with the Nunavut Implementation Panel. This information is then analysed to address the requirements of Subsection 23.4.2(a) by identifying areas of under- representation of occupational groupings and levels, as well as regular full-time and regular part-time employment status.

Inuit Owned Lands, as established by the NLCA, provide Inuit with rights to land so as to promote the economic self-sufficiency of Inuit in the Territory. A number of surveys prepared by the Surveyor General of Canada have shown that straight-line IOL parcel boundaries divide a large number of small lakes that were not depicted on original maps. These surveys also indicate that a number of lakes that were thought to be wholly inside or wholly outside IOL parcels are actually crossed by boundary lines. If a lake or other body of water is cut by an IOL parcel boundary, the whole lake is considered to be outside of the parcel. This results in a significant decrease in the amount of land granted to Inuit, and could potentially prevent Inuit from reaping the benefits of diamond discoveries in kimberlite pipes found beneath small lakes. To address this issue, consultations were held between INAC, NTI, NRCan, Transport Canada and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. These have resulted in new formal wording for Section 19.2.5 that follows the model of Section 18.1.8 of the Tlicho Agreement. The GN was briefed on this matter and is in favour of the new wording. INAC is preparing an Order in Council to approve a proposed amendment to Section 19.2.5.

The Nunavut Senior Officials Working Group was created as a forum for senior officials from INAC, the GN and NTI to discuss priorities and issues of mutual concern such as devolution, implementation, and shared management. The Group is regarded by its participants as an important and successful forum for the advancement of work on key issues. In 2006, the Group met to discuss implementation updates, as well as how to best utilize the implementation tools that the parties have at their disposal. The Deputy Minister of INAC urged the parties to use the Implementation Panel to its full potential to address outstanding implementation issues.

3.2 Department of National Defence

DND has a strong working relationship with representatives of the federal, Territorial and land claims organizations, as well as with the citizens of the Territory. DND's NLCA-implementation-related activities during the 2006-2008 reporting period were similar to those of the past several years, including:

• Ranger training/operational activities (at least one for each community);
• a high arctic extended patrol (the last two years have been north of Resolute and have included the Alert and Eureka areas. This year's patrol involved support to scientists on the west coast of Ellesmere Island);
• a summer sovereignty patrol (summer 2006 - Lancaster Sound, summer 2007 - Frobisher Bay and Hudson Strait);
• community-based Cadet and Junior Ranger activities;
• support to activities such as the Hudson Bay Quest and the Kimmirut / Iqaluit dogsled race.

DND's activities take place throughout the calendar year. Most community-based events happen between October and May. Operation Nanook is scheduled for August and Operation Nunalivut takes place in March/April.

DND contracting is conducted according to PWGSC guidelines. Aviation contracts are conducted primarily from the Master Standing Offer list and the vast majority of chartered flights originate with a company based in one of the three Territories. Local purchasing is done for most Ranger patrols, where economical and where it will not have a negative impact on the local community.

3.3 Environment Canada

Environment Canada opened its Nunavut office in Iqaluit in 1999, and currently maintains a staff of eight employees dealing with wildlife, environmental assessment, pollution enforcement and weather stations. The Department has five occupied indeterminate positions in Iqaluit, one with the Meteorological Service of Canada and the remaining four with the CWS. Two of the CWS positions are occupied by NLCA beneficiaries, one in a scientific/ technical position and one in an administrative capacity. Two scientific / technical positions with CWS are vacant and both positions in the Environmental Protection Division are vacant.

The objectives of Article 5 are to create a system of harvesting rights, priorities and privileges, and wildlife management, including establishment of the NWMB. In November 2007, CWS participated in a meeting in Cambridge Bay and presented briefing requests for decisions under the Species at Risk Act relating to a harlequin duck management plan, the proposed listing of grizzly bear and wolverine as "Special Concern", and the proposed "uplisting" of ivory gull from "Special Concern" to "Endangered".

CWS provided input into the development of an MOU between the federal government (EC, DFO and Parks Canada) and the NWMB which harmonizes processes and timelines under the Species at Risk Act with those of the NLCA.

The CWS appointment to the Sirmilik Joint Park Management Committee has been vacant since February 2007. However, a candidate has been identified and is under consideration by the federal Minister of Environment. The CWS appointment has not been made to the Sirmilik Park Planning Team; however, an interim CWS participant took part in the initial team meeting in January, 2008.

Article 9 outlines obligations relating to conservation areas in Nunavut, including the management of existing and new conservation areas, and IIBAs. In 2001, negotiations were initiated between Inuit DIOs (NTI, the three RIAs, and the Clyde River HTO) and CWS to develop an Umbrella IIBA that would cover all CWS conservation areas in Nunavut. The previously-initiated Igaliqtuuq IIBA will be negotiated as part of the umbrella IIBA. Negotiations have resulted in an agreement-in-principle, and the IIBA will be signed and come into effect in 2008-09. With completion of the IIBA, three new conservation areas will be created, at Igaliqtuuq, Qaqulluit and Akpait. Environment Canada provided comments and advice concerning NPC policies and objectives as required under NLCA 11.4.1(a).

Contaminated site issues in Nunavut are currently being managed from the Department's Yellowknife office. Environmental Protection and Operations Division staff participated in the clean-up of contaminated sites in Nunavut throughout the reporting period. They reviewed remediation plans and technical documents related to the clean-up of abandoned DEW Line and military sites, navigational aids, mine sites, and fuel caches. Staff also participated in site investigations, site visits and in the administration of the Federal Contaminated Sites Action Plan.

Environment Canada continued to review project proposals and provide advice to NIRB on proposed development activities in Nunavut, including both Part 4 and Part 5 reviews. Staff continued to participate in the implementation of project certificates issued by NIRB.

The Department provided comments and advice in response to draft legislation for the draft Nunavut Land Use Planning and Impact Assessment Act.

CWS issued permits under the Migratory Bird Convention Act for access to migratory bird sanctuaries and for research on migratory birds. Under the Canada Wildlife Act, CWS reviewed (in coordination with NPC conformity determinations and NIRB screenings) access requests to national wildlife areas.

Environment Canada continued to participate in the water licensing process in Nunavut through the provision of advice to the NWB on applications, and by participating in public hearings on water licence applications.

3.4 Department of Canadian Heritage

During the reporting period, support was provided to Nunavut organizations, through a number of Canadian Heritage funding mechanisms, for a wide range of activities, including broadcasting, heritage preservation, Canada Day celebrations, and Aboriginal culture and language programming, to name a few.

In the spring of 2006, departmental representatives from Arts Policy and the regional office held meetings in Iqaluit and Pangnirtung with CLEY, DOE, ED&T, and the City of Iqaluit. Meetings also took place with a number of key arts and heritage organizations, providing Canadian Heritage with an opportunity to hear first-hand about recent activities and challenges in the cultural and heritage sectors. Consultations were also undertaken in August 2007 with the same GN departments to discuss Territorial priorities and objectives as well as current issues and trends.

As an example of arts investments during the reporting period, the Canadian Heritage Arts Presentation Canada program supported the Alianait Arts Festival in 2006 and 2007, helping it develop and grow its activities and organizational capacity. Alianait is an annual event in Iqaluit which showcases traditional arts and new artists from across the Territory, Canada and the circumpolar world. A new Arts Coalition was formed to produce the Alianait 2006 Arts Festival, representing the complete range of art forms being practiced in Nunavut. Coalition members included: Iqaluit Music Society, Ajjiit Nunavut Media Association, Artcirq, Isuma Productions, Qaggiq Theatre Company, the Association Francophone de Nunavut, Nunavut Arts and Crafts Association, the City of Iqaluit, the Office of the Languages Commissioner of Nunavut, and Nunatta Sunakkutaangit Museum.

Two cultural trade missions were undertaken to promote Nunavut filmmakers, first to Copenhagen, Denmark, in September 2007 and then to Tromsø, Norway, in January 2008. These missions were an unprecedented attempt to stimulate Inuit-to-Inuit market matching for audio-visual productions. The mission to the Tromsø International Film Festival was organized collaboratively by the Cultural Trade Commissioner for Nunavut and Ajiitt, the Nunavut Film Industry Trade Association, to coordinate a multi-faceted strategy to expand international business between Nunavut's filmmakers and those in other circumpolar countries. Nunavut productions and producers were showcased at a Nunavut Film Industry Panel and the Canadian Embassy hosted a business matchmaking event. A longer term goal is to place Nunavut on a Circumpolar Film Commission. The missions greatly expanded knowledge of Nunavut and its filmmaking capabilities and provided new opportunities for collaboration. The trade missions were supported by Canadian Heritage through its Trade Routes program.

Also in the reporting period, the Policy Directorate of Canadian Heritage's Aboriginal Affairs Branch organized two consultative Aboriginal cultural industries roundtables to engage expertise and generate dialogue on emerging issues for the purpose of informing policy direction within government. The roundtables examined questions related to new media and to the appropriate use of Aboriginal culture, respectively. The Aboriginal Advisory Council struck to provide direction for these two events included representation from the Nunavut cultural sector. In addition, there were a number of Nunavut delegates and presenters at both events, including representation from ITK, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, and NTI.

Throughout the reporting period, Canadian Heritage also continued to support the Inuit Broadcasting Corporation through the Northern Aboriginal Broadcasting program (NAB). NAB supports the production and distribution of culturally-relevant radio and television programming for Aboriginal people living in Canada's north. In so doing, it contributes to the revitalization of Aboriginal languages and provides for the articulation of issues of relevance to Aboriginal audiences and communities.

A new two-year Territorial Language Accord was entered into with the GN in 2007-2008. The agreement included some new funding for the French language in Nunavut, to do such things as increase the number of court sessions or trials in French and the number of job postings translated, posted and published in French. While funding to Inuit languages remained level, the agreement included such new priorities as increasing opportunity for language research and development, increasing curriculum development, and increasing learning, proficiency and linguistic vitality. The funding under the accord supports efforts to maintain and promote the Aboriginal languages of Nunavut, contributing to community-based language programming and supporting government initiatives for the preservation, use and promotion of Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun.

Community projects have included activities to provide children with opportunities to speak Inuktitut with their parents and Elders (such as after-school literacy programs), traditional language cultural teaching camps, activities to document languages (such as a dictionary and a terminology database), and the production of Inuktitut-language television programming.

In addition to the language accord, the Department's Aboriginal Languages Initiative supports the preservation and promotion of Aboriginal languages by facilitating their use in community and family settings. The three RIAs serve as the regional delivery agents for this initiative in Nunavut. In the reporting period, their supported activities included the development of an Inuktitut myths and legends website, the digitization of traditional knowledge, the production and distribution of an audio CD of Inuit fables, legends and stories, the production of an Inuktitut rap and hip-hop CD, and the running of language and culture camps.

Canadian Heritage has been actively engaged throughout the reporting period in the Northern Community Partnership Initiative, which involves numerous federal departments, the three Territories, and various youth-serving organizations. The initiative provides improved access to programs through a coordinated horizontal approach with a focus on high needs communities. Pangnirtung was chosen as the pilot community to test the initiative due to its high proportion of "youth at risk". Canadian Heritage was involved through its Aboriginal Peoples Program, specifically the Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres. The Centres support community-based, culturally relevant and supportive activities that engage youth and improve their economic, social, and personal prospects. In the Baffin Region, the program is delivered by QIA. (Funding was provided to QIA to cost-share the salary for a community coordinator for the pilot in Pangnirtung. Canadian Heritage remains involved through its Aboriginal Peoples Program by maintaining a role, along with QIA, on the Partnership Board for the initiative.)

Over the course of the reporting period, support was also provided to the three RIAs for various youth- directed programming in their regions. Funding to these organizations supported community and culturally-based projects for Inuit youth in Nunavut, such as culture camps, a children's theatre, a hockey school, a winter survival camp for young men, an art camp, and youth workshops. Representatives of the three RIAs also participated in a first-ever Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres administrators meeting in November 2007. This meeting brought together people from across Canada to work collaboratively on issues related to the effective delivery and management of the program.

In addition to its direct activities, Canadian Heritage also has five agencies and nine Crown corporations in its portfolio, many of which were actively engaged in Nunavut during the reporting period. Among these, the Canada Council for the Arts provided 20 grants to Nunavut artists and arts organizations in 2006-2007 for a total of $421,600, a marked increase from the $376,400 provided in 2005-2006. Canada Council Funding to Nunavut has increased by more than 30 percent over the past five years. Media arts and visual arts received the most significant contributions in 2006-2007. The largest portion of funding was provided to artists in Igloolik, Iqaluit and Rankin Inlet. Per capita, the Council's spending in Nunavut ranked third among all provinces and Territories in 2006-2007.

3.5 Parks Canada

The Nunavut Field Unit of Parks Canada manages four National Parks in Nunavut: Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik and Ukkusiksalik. The Field Unit office is located in Iqaluit. The parks themselves are operated from smaller offices (Auyuittuq from Pangnirtung and Qikiqtarjuaq, Quttinirpaaq from Ellesmere Island and Iqaluit, Sirmilik from Pond Inlet, and Ukkusiksalik from Repulse Bay).

The Joint Park Management Committees held a face- to-face meeting with all members in January, 2008. Research permits for 2008 for all Baffin parks were reviewed, and recommendations were provided by teleconference in the spring of 2008.

Parks Canada and QIA reappointments are in progress for members for Quttinirpaaq, Auyuittuq and Sirmilik, with terms to expire in three years. Discussions with QIA have been ongoing for the Secretariat For Joint Park Management Committee (Baffin IIBA) position.

In 2003, the Kivalliq Inuit Association, GN and Parks Canada reached agreement on an IIBA for Ukkusiksalik National Park. INAC and the Kivalliq Inuit Association started but did not complete the IOL land exchange within the park. As per the IIBA for Ukkusiksalik, a temporary office is to be established in Repulse Bay. Meetings with the Hamlet Council have been successful and three office spaces were acquired by October 2006. The construction of the park office took place once material arrived off the ship in September 2007. The office building should be completed by September 2008. The Inuit knowledge project for the park has been started and a transcriber and interviewer have been hired. Parks Canada has initiated discussions with Sila Lodge, an Inuit-owned company that provides naturalist tours in Ukkusiksalik National Park. The discussions relate to the rules and regulations that will be in place once the park is gazetted. Sila Lodge's current lease agreement with INAC is also being compared to Parks Canada's lease agreement.

A process is in the works under which the Kivalliq Inuit Association, the GN and Parks Canada will sign an MOU to address the issue of the emergency kill of polar bears in Wager Bay. This type of agreement has not been entered into elsewhere in Nunavut or Canada. This has been completed and payment has been made to the Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Secretariat (the financial group for HTOs) on behalf of the affected HTOs outlined in the IIBA.

The Ukkusiksalik Park Management Committee met in Coral Harbour in January 2008. They discussed the polar bear research permit request for the park and asked to meet again in April 2008 to discuss the issue in further detail with a research student present to answer questions about polar bear collaring.

Parks Canada is considering the possibility of establishing a new national park at Bathurst Island. A feasibility study has been undertaken, and the next step will be consultations with QIA to prepare for negotiations of an IIBA.

Discussions continued between NTI and Parks Canada towards negotiating an IIBA for National Historic Sites. A number of meetings were held to provide additional information about the national historic sites program in Nunavut and several draft articles were exchanged as the basis for discussion and negotiation. The parties are also working to clarify the scope of the IIBA and funding for implementation.

Discussions have begun between QIA and Parks Canada towards negotiation of an IIBA for the Quttinirpaaq World Heritage Site nomination. Initial background information has been exchanged.

Parks Canada has published, reprinted or designed park information brochures, orientation packages, web site information, posters and displays in French, English and Inuktitut. A vacation planning brochure was reprinted in 2007. The brochure has been printed in English, French and Inuktitut. The Polar Bear Safety brochure was reprinted to include information related to Ukkusiksalik National Park. This brochure is available in English, French and Inuktitut.

The Nunavut section of the Parks Canada web site has been expanded to include more information in Inuktitut. The Parks Canada website is not technically able to support syllabic characters, and so can only support Inuktitut text in downloadable pdf format. Therefore the Department is adding more downloaded pdfs to the site. The vacation planning brochure, the polar bear safety brochure, the Auyuittuq Management Planning newsletter and two teacher resources are now available in Inuktitut.

Trip planning packages for Auyuittuq, Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq were refined and a draft package for Ukkusiksalik was created. These packages are sent electronically or in the mail to potential visitors who inquired about park visits. The package includes information on safety precautions, equipment selection, activity recommendations, and trip planning. These packages, about 30 pages in length, and are available online in English, French and Inuktitut.

The Sirmilik National Park visitor information map brochure was designed and printed in 2006 as three separate brochures, one each for Inuktitut, French and English.

The Quttinirpaaq National Park visitor information map brochure was designed and printed in 2007-08. English, French and Inuktitut versions are available. Uqsiq Communications, an Inuit owned firm, was responsible for the illustration and design of the brochure.

The Arctic Bay Heritage Centre display was installed in 2007. The exhibit was designed and fabricated by Uqsiq Communications. The project is a joint initiative with the hamlet of Arctic Bay and includes a diorama of an early 1900s camp scene. Parks Canada provided the backdrop photo, mannequins and interpretive panels. The hamlet is providing locally made clothing for the mannequins, tools and camp items. Parks Canada will also design a photocopiable handout to accompany the diorama once tools and props have been acquired by the Heritage Centre. All components of the display are in English, French and Inuktitut. The Joint Park Management Committee and local Elders were consulted for the display.

The Resolute Bay Airport display has been in progress for the past few years. The design of the display was refined in 2007 with input from the Joint Park Management Committee for Quttinirpaaq National Park. The licence to occupy the space in the airport was also acquired in 2007. A tender for the fabrication of the display is currently out and the display will be installed in 2008. The exhibit will be trilingual.

In March 2007, a poster series of all four national parks in Nunavut was created. The posters show photos of animals and landscapes for each national park and are accompanied by park and Territorial maps with descriptions of the parks themselves and of the role of Parks Canada. All text is in English, French and Inuktitut. The free poster series was a popular item, requiring reprinting in October 2007.

Parks Canada has been working closely with joint Inuit / government park planning teams and joint park management committees on the development of management plans for Quttinirpaaq, Auyuittuq and Sirmilik parks. The final draft of the Quttinirpaaq Management Plan for Quttinirpaaq is in its last approval stages. Development of the Auyuittuq management plan continued in 2006 and significant progress has now been made towards its development. Community stakeholders were consulted on management planning issues in the spring of 2008 and public consultations are expected to take place in the fall of 2008 or winter of 2009. The Sirmilik Management Plan is in progress. A community visit to Pond Inlet took place in January 2008 and a community visit to Arctic Bay was made in March 2008. All planning meetings are conducted in Inuktitut and English, and all materials for the meetings are produced in both languages.

Throughout the reporting period, the Nunavut Field Unit continued its work towards achieving a representative level of Inuit employment via initiatives identified in its Inuit Employment Plan. In the past year, all competitions were advertised with preference given to NLCA beneficiaries (or, in some cases, were open only to NLCA beneficiaries). Posters and statements of qualification were made available in Inuktitut. When appropriate, training and experience have been accepted as alternatives when candidates did not have the normally expected formal education requirements. Whenever possible, a beneficiary of the NLCA has been on interview panels. Through the use of these and other initiatives, NLCA beneficiaries have been hired to fill the following positions with the Nunavut Field Unit:

• term patrol person for Auyuittuq National Park (Pangnirtung);
• indeterminate executive assistant (Iqaluit);
• accounting assistant (Iqaluit);
• communications officer (Iqaluit);
• part-time term patrol person for Sirmilik National Park (Arctic Bay);
• term administrative assistant for Ukkusiksalik National Park (Repulse Bay);
• four summer students (two for Sirmilik National Park, one for Auyuittuq National Park and one for Ukkusiksalik National Park).

Internally, four NLCA beneficiary staff members have been promoted from term to seasonal employee status. In the 2007 operating season, beneficiaries of the NLCA made up 46 percent of Nunavut Field Unit staff.

Inuit understanding of national park ecosystems and surrounding areas have not received adequate recognition. The Inuit Knowledge Project is aimed at building a sustainable framework for the inclusion of Inuit knowledge into Nunavut national park management and operations. This four-year project is funded for 2005-2009. The results will contribute directly to park management, park resource descriptions, state of the park reports, and park management plans. Parks Canada initiated this project because Aboriginal human use of natural resources in the arctic is an essential component of the ecological integrity of National Parks in Nunavut, but it has received little attention by Parks Canada.

Inuit Knowledge Working Groups have been established and meet regularly. They have played a major role in defining and guiding the proposed work and how it will be applied. A key aspect of the Inuit Knowledge Working Groups has been their makeup. They consist of two Elders, a member of the local HTO and one member of the local Youth Committee.

A major workshop on sea ice terminology was held in Iqaluit in October 2006, bringing together Elders and community researchers from Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq and Pangnirtung, as well as park and other government staff, and university researchers.

The objectives of the overall Sea Ice Project are to gain an appreciation of Inuit cultural sites, assess the hazards involved in travel in the area of the national parks, define locally important indicators, contribute to long term monitoring programs, promote Inuit youth education projects about sea ice hazards, establish sea ice travel hazard information for park visitors, and provide ecological integrity recommendations to park managers, scientists and community members.

Article 33 addresses the importance of ensuring the integrity of Nunavut's historic and archaeological resources and the need to manage them cooperatively with Inuit. Parks Canada has undertaken site evaluation, inventory, mapping and monitoring projects at a number of critical sites in National Parks in Nunavut.

Parks Canada has begun to develop monitoring programs for national parks in Nunavut, which will contribute significantly to its NLCA ecological monitoring obligations.

3.6 Fisheries and Oceans Canada

Since the signing of the NLCA in 1993, DFO has incorporated its obligations and responsibilities under the NLCA into its mandate. DFO is committed to meeting its NLCA responsibilities and to fulfilling its mandate through various cooperative initiatives and projects such as monitoring, enforcement, research, management, planning, and fisheries development.

DFO provides the most reliable, accurate and current data and advice possible to the NWMB in order for it to make informed management decisions with respect to wildlife issues in the NSA.

The primary roles of the DFO Conservation and Protection Branch are enforcement and monitoring.

DFO's Eastern Arctic office is responsible for issuing offshore Greenland Halibut and Shrimp fisheries licenses for Nunavut quotas, within and outside the NSA, which is an imperative component of its NLCA obligations.

Throughout the reporting period, DFO continued to monitor narwhal and beluga harvests in communities under Community Based Management. As well, Fisheries and Oceans monitored walrus sport hunts and the commercial, domestic, and sport fishing of arctic char. DFO's frequent patrols to monitor harvesting activities were supplemented in communities without stationed officers through a longstanding collaboration with GN wildlife officers.

DFO staff conducted a narwhal harvest monitoring plan pilot project in Arctic Bay in 2007, the purpose of which was to investigate the number of narwhal that were landed, wounded, struck, lost, or that escaped during harvest. In 2008, DFO will conduct a similar project in Repulse Bay to collect more information on narwhal harvest techniques and reporting methods. This information will be used to develop standard guidelines for collecting harvest information and will help reduce the number of narwhals struck and lost during hunts. The narwhal harvest monitoring planhas been funded by the NWMB through its Nunavut Wildlife Research Trust Fund and by DFO through its Nunavut Implementation Fund.

DFO staff worked with communities and local organizations to provide conservation education in schools and at public meetings to promote the sustainable and practical harvest and use of marine mammals and fish.

DFO staff continued to work closely with the NWMB, the RWOs, and the local HTOs in preparations for the bowhead whale hunt. DFO was involved in the review of the community bowhead whale hunt plans that were submitted for consideration. Two bowhead hunts were requested by the NWMB and approved by the DFO Minister for 2008. Kugaaruk and Hall Beach were chosen as the communities to harvest one bowhead whale each during the summer-fall hunt.

Recently, DFO conducted the most comprehensive surveys of summering aggregations of bowhead whales in Nunavut to date. The study used traditional knowledge to design the surveys and used the most recent advances in scientific knowledge on bowhead whales and survey techniques. The result of the study provided evidence that the recovery of the population of bowhead whales is underway. The population estimate is between 4,800 and 43,000. The range of the estimate is particularly large because it corrected the counts for submerged animals and animals that were missed by the observers. Being able to account for these "biases" in the surveys, which was not previously possible, allowed the researchers to obtain a higher estimate, but it also magnified the range of the estimate. DFO is continuing its efforts to estimate the historic population size, which will help to assess the extent to which the population has recovered.

DFO staff met approximately every two to three months with representatives from NTI, NWMB, GN and Makivik to work on the drafting of Nunavut fishery regulations. This process will continue until the regulations are completed.

DFO has obligations under the NLCA to provide for the sustainable management and conservation of fisheries stocks within the NSA.

In 2001, the previously piloted Community-Based Management initiative was approved for five years in seven Nunavut communities (Arctic Bay, Pond Inlet, Qikiqtarjuaq, Resolute Bay, Kugaaruk, Taloyoak, and Gjoa Haven). Under this initiative, DFO Fisheries Management staff worked with the communities (through local HTOs) and with co-management staff to assist in the sustainable management of marine mammals and inshore fisheries. As of 2007, a working group comprising NTI, NWMB, and DFO has been reviewing the success of the program.

DFO is committed to ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks through the development of management plans with co-management partners. Work is under- way on management plans for turbot, Greenland halibut and Cumberland Sound char stocks.

Marine mammal working groups have been established for the management of Foxe Basin walrus, North Hudson Bay narwhal, and Gulf of Boothia narwhal. These working groups are developing management plans in consultation with co- management partners and local HTOs.

DFO is supportive of the exploration of new and emerging fisheries in Nunavut, such as ongoing assessment of the economic viability of char and turbot fisheries. Further, DFO is supportive of local fishers and of new fishing alliances, such as the High Arctic Alliance, which was formed in early 2008.

The DFO Nunavut Implementation Fund has provided the DFO Science Branch with significant funding for fisheries stock assessment research projects within the NSA. Projects are frequently co-funded by other funding bodies and contributors such as the NWMB, the GN Department of Environment, and Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC). As well, a portion of the funded projects are multi-year initiatives, which require more than one field season to complete.

These projects are considered annually along with other proposed projects for funding but are typically considered to be a priority in order to complete the project and analyze the information in a useful manner. The data collection of the approved research projects is carried out by DFO staff in cooperation with local hunters and HTOs. Whenever possible, DFO strives to involve community members and resources in the project development and during field work. At the end of the study and during ongoing research projects, DFO staff frequently visit communities to provide results and summaries of the projects relevant to their community.

From the 2006-2007 through the 2008-2009 fiscal years, DFO has contributed a total of $1,158,075 to 41 projects for stock assessment research within the NSA. As a breakdown of the total values, DFO awarded $353,925 to 15 projects in 2006-2007, $400,300 for 14 projects in 2007-2008, and $403,850 for 12 projects for the 2008-2009 fiscal year.

The emerging fishery in Pangnirtung will also be a significant priority for DFO with the recent announcement of development of a small craft harbour there. Over the next two years, the federal government will provide $8 million to construct the harbour and to fund the stock assessment research needed for development of the emerging fishery in Pangnirtung. DFO Small Craft Harbour Branch will oversee the engineering and develop- ment of the harbour and has spearheaded an implementation committee.

A bilateral agreement has been reached between Canada and Greenland for discussions on the management of the offshore fishery and marine mammal harvest. These discussions are typically attended by DFO Eastern Arctic, Headquarters, and Winnipeg staff, as well as by representatives of the NWMB and NTI. The relationship between Canada and Greenland with respect to fisheries management has, overall, been progressive, although there have been challenges. The next meeting is scheduled for the fall of 2008.

DFO is committed to fulfilling its habitat protection obligations under the NLCA. Throughout the reporting period, the Department continued to work with co- management partners such as the GN, NWMB, and other federal departments on habitat protection issues.

DFO continued to provide comments and advice to NIRB and the NWB on the monitoring of potential development impacts on fish and fish habitat. DFO's Habitat Section continued to work on the environmental assessments of resource development within the NSA by adhering to the NLCA and the Fisheries Act. Proponents must provide baseline information on fish and fish habitat within their project area when applying for an authorization for works or undertakings affecting fish habitat. Conditions in Fisheries Act subsection 35(2) include compliance and effectiveness monitoring and reporting requirements by proponents. The monitoring programs described in the authorization must be implemented to ensure that compensation and mitigation measures are installed, maintained and function as intended. To ensure that these conditions are met, DFO conducts compliance monitoring site visits.

DFO has continued its commitment to representative Inuit employment within the DFO Eastern Arctic office. Currently 15 percent of DFO Eastern Arctic employees are beneficiaries. DFO worked cooperatively with other federal departments through the Nunavut Federal Council to create the Umbrella Inuit Employment Plan, under which the Eastern Arctic office is optimistic that more beneficiaries will be hired to fill positions in the near future. In the interim, DFO continues to work towards filling positions that adhere to its NLCA obligation to give priority to Inuit beneficiaries whenever possible.

3.7 Human Resources and Social Development Canada

Service Canada has three offices in Nunavut, the main office located in Iqaluit, a three person office in Rankin Inlet and an office in Cambridge Bay which will also have three staff, but currently has two.

Service Canada is updating the information contained in the departmental annex to the Federal Inuit Employment Plan to reflect changes that have occurred over the past five years. Most of the information in the annex is still relevant, although the department anticipates some growth over the next several years (dependent on office space). Data collected in 2002 set the baseline of Inuit employment at 52 percent. In August 2006 the department's Inuit employment rate was 60 percent. By March 31, 2008 it had declined to 50 percent.

A process was completed in 2007 in Rankin Inlet which resulted in a beneficiary taking over a management role for that office. An additional process occurred in 2008 to fill four vacancies, two in Iqaluit and one each in the Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay offices. All new employees hired under this process will be beneficiaries. These processes were carried out using practices described in the approved annex which reviews pre-employment, recruitment and retention practices. Flexibilities established under the new Public Service Employment Act were also utilized.

Hiring practices have been modified to better accommodate northern realities. Every effort is now being made to ensure that position advertisements appear in appropriate languages in all Nunavut communities. Orientation sessions are set up prior to interviews so candidates are as comfortable as possible with the process. All boards include community members fluent in the appropriate dialect, so candidates may respond to questions in Inuktitut if they wish.

The Department is working hard to retain staff. All staff who do not own their own homes and who request housing are eligible for subsidized federal housing units. Alternate work arrangements are encouraged so staff may take part in traditional activities on the land, should they desire. Inuit staff are encouraged to organize IQ days and participate when possible in activities facilitated through other departments.

The local offices of HRSDC / Service Canada are not responsible for contracting. Purchases are limited to small amounts of office supplies and those related to travel. In both cases every attempt is made to deal with local service providers.

The department's mandate in the Territory has changed considerably over the past year, putting staff, both Inuit and non-Inuit, under considerable pressure to travel for training and to facilitate the added outreach activities which are now a part of service delivery in Nunavut. This is now a condition of employment with the department and has led to the departure of two employees who were not prepared to travel. All future hires will be aware that this is now a requirement.

The need for an updated Inuit labour force analysis continues to be a challenge. Discussions were started with the Department of Education to provide support to the Nunavut Community Skills Inventory System. The inclusion in the system of Government of Canada jobs, as well as positions from other levels of government (along with their requirements), would enable the skills inventory system to effectively act as a real-time labour force analysis tool. In support of this, the Nunavut Federal Council has hired consultants to map all federal jobs in the Territory.

3.8 Natural Resources Canada

The Surveyor General is responsible for conducting legal surveys to determine the boundaries of all parcels described in the NLCA. Further, NRCan's Canada Centre for Cadastral Management, in Yellowknife, is responsible for the management of legal surveys respecting the lands identified in Section 19.8.8 of the NLCA.

Section 19.8.1 states that Government shall prepare, and, within two years of the date of ratification of the Agreement, complete at no cost to the DIO, descriptive map plans for all Inuit Owned Lands vesting pursuant to Section 19.3.1 or Subsection 19.4.1(a) that have not been surveyed and that are not required to be surveyed pursuant to Subsection 19.8.8(d). During the reporting period, 12 new descriptive map plans were prepared on behalf of INAC (Iqaluit) under Sections 8.2.5 and 8.3.11 of the NLCA. This work is being conducted under an Interdepartmental Agreement signed between NRCAN and INAC in 2007-2008 to deal with proposed land exchanges.

Section 19.8.8 states that the boundaries of IOL parcels as described in the descriptive map plans may be surveyed. This involved the survey and demarcation of approximately 1,155 IOL parcels and 12 Jointly Owned Lands parcels, plus all Crown land areas excluded from these parcels. It also involved the preparation of plans and their delivery to the Registrar of Land Titles. All NLCA parcels have had their boundaries established to isolated boundary standards. Plans are being prepared and, as they are ratified by the parties, are being recorded with the Canada Lands Surveys Records and delivered to the Registrar of Land Titles. Some plans remain at the final review stage for ratification and registration, but all parcels are completed in the field. It is important to note that the excessive volume of plans to process through the different ratification stages and final recording with the Land Titles Office is creating a major challenge for the regional entities involved.

All of NRCan's obligations are complete with respect to parcels listed in Schedule 19-8. Two descriptive map plans are pending registration with the Nunavut Land Titles Office (a process over which NRCAN has no control).

Under Section 19.8.8, the majority of IOL parcels will not require surveys to determine their boundaries. However:

1. The boundaries or part of the boundaries of Inuit Owned Lands shall be surveyed by Government when the DIO and Government agree that surveys are required to avoid or resolve conflicts with another title or interest holder. No activity was required of NRCAN in 2007-2008 with respect to this.
2. The boundaries or part of the boundaries of Inuit Owned Lands may for any purpose be surveyed at Government's discretion. No activity was required of NRCAN in 2007-2008 with respect to this.
3. The boundaries of the parcels excluded from Inuit Owned Lands described in Schedule 19-12 shall be surveyed by Government within one year of the date of ratification of the Agreement. NRCAN's obligation is complete with respect to this.
4. The boundaries of Inuit Owned Lands within municipal boundaries that are described in Schedule 19-13 shall be surveyed by Government within three years of the date of ratification of the Agreement. This is the responsibility of another Government department.
5. Under Section 19.8.9, the Government of Canada shall be responsible for the cost of each legal survey which is conducted pursuant to Section 19.8.8, provided that this provision shall not prevent that Government from levying charges in respect of such surveys on any person whose lands abut Inuit Owned Lands. No activity was required of NRCAN in 2007-2008 with respect to this provision.

Section 23.4.1 states that within three years of the date of ratification of the Agreement, each government organization shall prepare an Inuit employment plan to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level. NRCan's Canada Centre for Cadastral Management office in Nunavut has maintained a 50 percent Inuit workforce. Every effort has been made to recruit and maintain the employment of Inuit employees. Through its survey contracts, Legal Surveys Division required mandatory Inuit involvement. This normally resulted in the provision of services, employment and training for individuals and businesses from the community where the project was located, and registered Inuit businesses across Nunavut.

Section 27.1.1 states that, prior to opening any lands in the NSA for petroleum exploration, Government shall notify the DIO and provide an opportunity for it to present and to discuss its views with Government regarding the terms and conditions to be attached to such rights. No activity was required of NRCAN with respect to this Section of the Agreement in 2007-2008. Section 27.1.2 states that, prior to the initial exercise of rights in respect of exploration, development or production of petroleum on Crown lands in the NSA, and in order to prepare a benefits plan for the approval of the appropriate regulatory authority, the proponent shall consult the DIO, and Government shall consult the DIO, in respect to those matters listed in Schedule 27-1. No NRCan activity was required in 2007-2008.

3.9 Public Works and Government Services Canada

Throughout the reporting period, PWGSC continued to notify NTI and eight other Inuit organizations of procurements that it handles on behalf of federal departments and agencies involving the delivery of goods and / or services within the NSA. PWGSC notified these same groups of opportunities to bid on government contracts for goods, services and construction destined for the NSA.

Whenever practical and consistent with sound procurement management, PWGSC included evaluation criteria in its bid documents to maximize socio-economic opportunities for Inuit firms in the NSA. PWGSC also continued to provide information on government contracts awarded in the NSA.

On February 21, 2005, PWGSC Western Region, under the Northern Contaminated Sites Program, signed an MOU with INAC to provide site investigation, project planning, specification development, procurement, project management, and administration services for various restoration and clean-up projects in Northern Canada. The agreement expires on March 31, 2010. There are approximately 20 former intermediate DEW Line sites across the arctic that will form part of this program. A number of abandoned gold, copper and silver mines in Nunavut and the NWT are also included.

As a result of the "de-bundling" of project requirements, small local firms were better able to compete. Five cleanup contracts, representing a combined value of $35.6-million, included an Aboriginal Benefits Plan to create approximately 90-95 employment opportunities for Inuit during the 2006-2007 construction season. These positions represented more than 70 percent of the total number of employees working at these sites. The five contracts will create approximately $27-million in spin-off benefits for Inuit suppliers and local communities who provide goods and services in support of the clean-up work.

In support of the objectives of NLCA Article 24 (Government Contracts), PWGSC offered seminars to familiarize Inuit firms with bidding and contracting procedures. The Western Region's Northern Contaminated Sites Program established a good working relationship with the Economic Development Director at NTI, and participated in numerous meetings with NTI and other claimants' economic development officers from local communities.

Western Region's Environmental Services and Acquisitions staff, working in conjunction with INAC, sponsored procurement training workshops. These included a presentation about MERX, town hall meetings, local community information sessions, and bidders conferences in the NSA. PWGSC provided assistance and set-up information seminars on the procurement process for Inuit firms in Nunavut. In response to one such request, PWGSC and Consulting and Audit Canada are developing a two-day training session that will be delivered in Iqaluit on the government's contract audit requirements. A one-day general session will be open to the Inuit and small business community interested in future clean-up work. The second day will be a one-on-one session specifically for those Inuit-owned businesses that win the contracts.

PWGSC assisted INAC with the development of Contaminated Site Procurement Strategy Procedures, generic and land claim-specific Aboriginal Benefits Plans, Aboriginal on-the-job apprenticeship training programs, and other initiatives under the Northern Contaminated Sites Program. These strategies will be applied to clean-up work in the NSA.

The Western Regional Office is preparing specifications and bid documents for three projects in the NSA that will be advertised on MERX. These are the clean-up of the abandoned Robert's Bay mine (estimated at $4-million), the Cape Christian refuelling site (estimated at $7-million) and the construction of a new $15-20 million RCMP detachment in Iqaluit.

4. Implementation Bodies

4.1 Nunavut Wildlife Management Board

The focus of the NWMB's mandate is on the ongoing regulation of wildlife harvesting, the provision of relevant wildlife advice, recommendations and information, and the funding, commissioning and conducting of wildlife research. Experience has demonstrated that this mandate does not lend itself to a concentration on major events that are subject to strict timelines. In fact, the effectiveness of the NWMB relies much more upon the Board's consistent pursuit, over the long-term, of goals such as: compliance with the principles of conservation, fisheries development, innovation in wildlife management, adequate and relevant research, legislative reform and development, and the integration of scientific knowledge and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit.

Despite the fact that the Board's operations do not focus on major events, the NWMB did conduct five in-person meetings and ten teleconferences in 2006-2007 and five in-person meetings and five teleconferences during 2007-2008.

An overall assessment of the achievement of the NWMB's obligations negotiations among the parties to the NLCA with respect to funding for the second implementation planning period (2003-2013) commenced in 2001. Approximately seven years later - and five years into the current ten-year implementation planning period - nothing has been settled, and NTI has filed a lawsuit against the Government of Canada for breach of contract. Persistent uncertainty over implementation funding continues to make it difficult for the Board to proceed with full confidence in implementing its programs and initiatives for the planning period.

Despite the unresolved funding issues, the NWMB enjoyed a productive 2006-2007 fiscal year, making progress, and, in a number of instances, significant progress, in all 25 categories of implementation activities identified in its February 28, 2006 workplan. The Board also made significant progress in 26 of the 29 categories of implementation activities identified in its February 28, 2007 workplan. The three categories where progress was minimal were: (1) the development of a live-capture policy for Nunavut, (2) the development of a Nunavut fisheries licensing policy, and (3) progress towards a public review of harvesting restrictions in the Thelon Game Sanctuary. The NWMB remains ready to act on these initiatives once the lead co-management partners (the [Inuit] Wildlife Policy Advisory Committee, and the Governments of Nunavut and Canada) notify the Board that they completed their initial, preparatory steps.

The Board scheduled and successfully held an important formal hearing dealing with proposed total allowable harvests and non-quota limitations under the draft Wildlife Regulations and Orders made pursuant to Nunavut's new Wildlife Act. The hearing involved all RWOs, HTOs, the GN, NTI, and invited Elders. Sessions of this "Special Meeting No. 12" spanned two fiscal years (Session A: September 25-28, 2006; Session B: October 22-25, 2006; Session C: May 15-17, 2007). The Board held its final three decision-making sessions in September 2007, October 2007 and February 2008. Once the NWMB decisions flowing from Special Meeting No. 12 have been reviewed by the Territorial Minister of Environment pursuant to the terms of the NLCA decision-making process, they will lead to a complete modernization of Territorial wildlife law.

Other important events during the reporting period included hearings into:

• the level of total allowable harvest for West Hudson Bay polar bear (April 24-25, 2007);
• the development of an NWMB allocation policy for commercial marine fisheries (June 12-13, 2007); and
• the 2008 level of total allowable harvest for bowhead whales in the NSA (March 6, 2008).

On November 29-30, 2006, the NWMB held an historic Nunavut offshore fisheries consultation session, attended by members of Nunavut's commercial marine fishing industry, DFO, the GN, NTI, several Baffin HTOs, and various observers. This major event was productive, well received by the participants, and a major step forward in the collaborative development of the Board's proposed new allocation policy for commercial marine fisheries.

In December, 2007, following approximately 18 months of development, the Board approved "A Memorandum of Understanding to Harmonize the Designation of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Species under the NLCA and the Listing of Wildlife Species at Risk under the Species at Risk Act". The MOU, which was produced in collaboration with DFO, Environment Canada, Parks Canada, the GN and NTI, is an essential document to ensure the fair and efficient listing of wildlife species at risk in Nunavut.

Also in December of 2007, and also following a year and a half of development, the NWMB finalized the "Allocation Policy of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board for Commercial Marine Fisheries". Since the establishment of the NWMB in 1993, Nunavut's commercial marine fisheries have been among the most dynamic and expanding fisheries in Canada. The objective of the Board's allocation policy, which is supported by Government, Inuit and the Nunavut fishing industry, is to facilitate a co-operative, professional and diversified approach to ecosystem-based fisheries development, maintaining compliance with the principles of conservation, relying upon re-investment in the fishery by Nunavut fishers, and ensuring the wide distribution of tangible benefits to Nunavummiut.

Overall, the NWMB believes that because of its efforts and the efforts of its co-management partners, Nunavut wildlife continues to be very well managed, and that the management system under the NLCA continues to serve as a model for other jurisdictions.

4.2 Nunavut Water Board

The work of the NWB increased during the reporting period due to more exploration and development in the Territory. Pursuant to the terms and conditions of licences, licensees are required to submit various, plans and reports to the Board for review and approval. In 2005-2006, staff reviewed 119 technical reports and submitted their recommendations to the Board for its approval. In 2006-2007, this number had nearly doubled, to 209 technical reports. At the end of 2006, 233 technical reports were carried over to 2007.

In 2007, the NWB received an additional 205 technical reports, reviewed 231 of them in 2007, and carried over 207 to 2008.

The Board reviewed, issued or assigned 59 licences in 2005-2006, 72 licences the following year, and 75 licences in 2007-2008. During 2007 the Board issued three Type A licences and 72 Type B licences.

Five Type A applications and 40 Type B applications were carried over from 2006 to 2007. In 2007, the Board reviewed, issued or assigned three Type A licences and 69 Type B licences. This compares to no Type A licences and 45 Type B licenses in 2006. In 2007, the NWB received an additional four Type A applications and 88 Type B applications. At March 31, 2008, six Type A applications and 60 Type B applications were under review by the Board. One Type A application (for the Meadowbank Mine Development Project) was carried forward to 2008.

Prior to the issuance of licences, public hearings were held to consider any detrimental effects of a potential use of water or deposit of waste on other water users. In 2007, the Board held two public hearings, one Type A application for the Doris North Mine Development Project, and one Type B application, Cape Dorset Municipal Licence.

Fiscal 2007 proved to be challenging, rewarding and, ultimately, a successful year for the Board in fulfilling its responsibilities over the regulation, use and management of water in the NSA. While the organization experienced staffing challenges throughout the year, overall the NWB achieved its primary function of issuing licenses for the use of water and the deposit of waste.

Work on the NWB database commenced during the reporting period and the NWB web site was successfully launched and is being used. A staff member has been assigned the responsibility for its regular updating and maintenance. Over the last year the Board has developed a three year computer plan to ensure that the NWB has the necessary technology and systems in place to operate in a cost effective and effective manner. The NWB maintains a file transfer protocol site and will continue to implement initiatives to update and maintain an accessible and complete Public Registry.

The NWB applied to NITC for a financial contribution for the implementation of its annual training plan, which allowed the NWB to have a Licensing Clerk Trainee. As per NITC eligibility policy, partial or total funding for training activities is reserved for Inuit beneficiaries of the NLCA.

The NLCA requires the IPGs to coordinate their efforts to avoid unnecessary duplication in the review and processing of applications. Working closely with NIRB, the NWB undertook a number of initiatives to improve coordination between the IPGs. In the coming year the Board will develop a framework for cooperation with NIRB for large mine development projects, giving due regard to potential for joint hearing processes. The NWB also plans to continue implementation of cooperation initiatives with INAC, the GN, and other IPGs.

In 2007, the Board recognized that the work of the Nunavut Water Regulations Working Group is key to providing stakeholders with clarity of process and the requirements of the NWB. In 2008 the Board will continue to prioritize the development of water regulations to be promulgated under the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. These regulations will reflect the economic, operational and administrative realities, and the unique challenges and opportunities, facing water management in Nunavut.

Over the reporting period, the main activities of NWB staff were in support of the Board's licensing and regulatory activities, including attendance at Board and business-related meetings, public hearings, and workshops and conferences. Staff participated in a number of external events, to inform stakeholders about the role of the NWB and to foster cooperation, including:

• A presentation to the Nunavut Mining Symposium in April 2007;
• A presentation to the Mineral Development and Advisory Group in June 2007;
• Observer at the NPC Uranium Workshop in June 2007;
• A presentation to the Northern Territories Water and Waste Association Conference and AGM in November 2007;
• A coordination meeting with the INAC Inspector in Iqaluit in November 2007;
• Coordination meetings with NIRB in November 2007 and January 2008;
• A coordination meeting with the GN in November 2007;
• A presentation to the Cordilleran Roundup in January 2008;
• Participation in a NIRB workshop on Uranium Mine Development in February 2008;
• Participation in the NWB / GN Workshop on Municipal Licensing in Iqaluit in March 2008;
• Co-chairing of the Nunavut Water Regulations Working Group from 2007 to the end of the reporting period, and ongoing.

In accordance with the Board's Rules of Practice and Procedure for Public Hearing (adopted May 11, 2003) the NWB held a Pre-hearing and Technical Meeting Conference (PHC) in Cambridge Bay on June 25, 2007 for the Doris North Mine Development Type A water licence application prior to a final hearing of the Board on August 13-14, 2007 in Cambridge Bay. A post hearing meeting of the Board was held on September 9, 2007 in Edmonton.

The NWB held two PHCs (one via teleconference on July 3 and a second, in-person, PHC in Iqaluit on October 1, 2007) for the Cape Dorset Municipal Type B water licence application prior to a final hearing of the Board on January 26-27, 2008 in Cape Dorset. A post hearing meeting of the Board was held on February 13, 2008 in Winnipeg.

On February 26-27, 2008 the NWB held a PHC in Baker Lake for the Meadowbank Mine Development Type A water licence application.

To provide guidance to stakeholders and improve operational efficiency, the NWB has developed a series of Guides for Applicants. In the coming year, the NWB will consult with stakeholder groups to finalize the Guides, for publication in 2008.

The executive director of the NWB co-chairs the Nunavut Water Regulations Working Group, the main objective of which is to bring together parties with water responsibilities in Nunavut (specifically, the NWB, INAC, NTI and the GN), to develop recommendations for a comprehensive set of regulations to be promulgated under the Act. The goal of the working group is to develop regulations that reflect the economic, operational, and administrative realities and recognize the unique challenges and opportunities faced by water management agencies in Nunavut. The NWB will continue to play a key role in 2008 promoting, and providing input into, the development of water regulations for Nunavut.

The NWB is in the process of developing a three- to five-year strategic plan to provide longer term guidance to the organization and allow for development of capacity to meet the forecast increase in development activities in Nunavut. One aspect of this planning is to increase the use of Panels of the Board.

4.3 Nunavut Impact Review Board

During the reporting period, NIRB began the process of developing a five-year strategic plan. The bulk of the Plan has been completed; however, a small portion has been deferred into fiscal year 2008-2009 due to scheduling. NIRB continues to strive towards the provision of more efficient, user-friendly service. The Board has continued to look at ways to be on-line and accessible to different groups and organizations. The creation of a website and ftp site have significantly improved office operations.

The Board is also working towards a better public consultation process and a more efficient hearing process. Both of these will require additional monies to accomplish (through production of newsletters, advertisements, trade shows etc.)

NIRB participated in the following conferences:

• Nunavut Mining Symposium 2007
• Geoscience 2007
• GeoNorth 2007 International Circumpolar Conference on Geospatial Sciences and Applications
• AMEC Cordilleran Roundup 2008
• Prospectors' and Developers' Association of Canada 2008
• Municipal Waste Water Effluent, Northern Research Working Group

NIRB participated in the following workshops:

• Strategic Planning (2)
• Fuel Bladders and Environment Canada Fuel Storage Regulations
• Regional Monitoring

NIRB participated in the following courses:

• Building Personal Leadership
• ESRI ArcGIS
• Learning Payroll I & II
• MS Windows Server Training
• Managing in the Middle
• Outlook Training Level I & II
• Simply Accounting 2008 Training
• Simultaneous Interpreting II
• Writing for Results
• Year End Training
• Professional Technical Writing

NIRB belongs to the following associations:

• Arctic Institute of North America
• Association for Mineral Exploration British Columbia
• Canadian Cartographic Association
• Canadian Environmental Certification Approvals Board - Canadian Environmental Practitioner in Training Certificate
• International Association for Impact Assessment - Western and Northern Canada
• Urban Regional Information Systems Association
• Western Canada Water and Wastewater Association

Board members usually attend technical and legal training workshops in conjunction with regularly scheduled Board meetings. These training workshops are usually developed and delivered by staff and, when required, by external consultants. Typical subjects include:

• Climate Change
• Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit
• Geographic Information Systems
• Mining Training (general overview of processes)
• Uranium Training

NIRB board and staff participated in a workshop regarding uranium issues in conjunction with their February board meeting in Winnipeg.

4.4 Nunavut Planning Commission

During the reporting period, the NPC completed a final draft of Subsection 11.4.1(a) broad planning policies, objectives and goals for the NSA. This was done in cooperation with the Commission's planning partners. Discussions have subsequently been held with QIA, NTI, GN and INAC on next steps.

The Commission continued to advance its view on the 10 year implementation funding delays, including representation at a devolution meeting with Paul Mayer.

NPC staff participated in mining strategy consultations with the GN.

Ongoing work throughout the reporting period included conformity determinations against the terms Keewatin and Baffin regional land use plan.

The Commission has implemented the transportation corridor requirements of the North Baffin Regional Land Use Plan (Terms 3.5.11 and 3.5.12).

The Regional Planning Department continued its map biography program in a number of communities.

The Commission participated in the Nunavut Mining Symposium and the Northwest Territories Geosciences Forum. Meetings were held with industry and government representations at these sessions. In January 2008 a very successful half-day workshop with industry, government and Inuit organizations was held at the Cordilleran Roundup.

A uranium workshop was held in Baker Lake to address conformity requirement 3.5 of the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan.

The Commission is working towards the development of a single comprehensive Nunavut-wide land use plan with regional and sub-regional components. Planning partners have identified a number of issues to be addressed in the plan, including the identification of marine and terrestrial conservation areas, parks, and special places. Social development concerns have also been expressed.

A request has been received to remove restrictions on all-weather roads, specifically with reference to the proposed Churchill, Manitoba to Rankin Inlet highway.

The Hamlet of Coral Harbour has requested an amendment to the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan to support lifting an NRCan moratorium on hydrocarbon exploration and development in Hudson Bay.

The Commission's comprehensive 10-year strategic plan (for the period 2006 to 2016) was reviewed, updated and presented to the Commission at a meeting in February, 2008.

As required under Section 12.7.6 of the NLCA, the Commission is supporting government with the development of a Nunavut General Monitoring Plan (NGMP). In March 2008, the NPC, in partnership with INAC, the GN and NTI, co-hosted an NGMP workshop in Iqaluit.

The NPC has contracted out a major research project to collect information and data from Government, Inuit Organizations, and industry. A general literature review is part of this process. Results will be fed into step three of the plan development process.

4.5 Nunavut Implementation Training Committee

The NITC promotes training to enhance Inuit participation in the Nunavut workforce by providing funds and expertise to implementation organizations, by administering the Nunavut Beneficiaries Scholarship, and by supporting the federal and Territorial governments in the development of Inuit employment and pre-employment training plans.

Between 2006 and 2008, NITC contributed more than $120,000 for workshops, training and education to a range of client organizations, including RIAs, development corporations, regional and local wildlife organizations, and IPGs.

A noteworthy trend to emerge in the last two years has been the surge in training to support organizations associated with the newly established Nunavut Inuit Wildlife Secretariat. NITC's 2005 strategic plan called for an increase in support to this critical sector, which represents both an important priority for land claim implementation and will be a major Nunavut employer.

The Nunavut Beneficiaries' Scholarship Program provided funding to 148 beneficiaries during the reporting period. Grants were used to attend university, college, and the Nunavut Sivuniksavut Training Program. The number of requests for support continued to rise, indicating an encouraging interest in post-secondary education among young Inuit. Unfortunately, the declining balance of the Nunavut Training Trust has reduced NITC's ability to respond to this rising demand, and the number of scholarships NITC has been able to grant has dropped for two consecutive years.

In its fifteenth year of operation, NITC is facing serious challenges. The expansion of DIO responsibilities, the growing in-house training needs of DIOs and IPGs, an increase in the number of youth eligible for and seeking post-secondary education, and rising competition among Inuit organizations for skilled and qualified employees have all led to a huge increase in the demand for training support from NITC over the last few years. When it became clear three years ago that rising demand for services was exceeding the organization's capacity, NITC took several immediate steps. Staff has been reduced by 25 percent, while reorganizing assignments to maintain the same level of service to clients. Scholarship Program funding has been capped. Rigorous standards for eligibility, based on academic achievement, have been implemented. Programs have been integrated and streamlined. Program management systems have been introduced for greater administrative efficiency. Several corporate services have been discontinued, including a quarterly training newsletter and an online training resource. NITC has reduced its costs to the extent possible, but the demands on the organization continue to rise, and the Board is considering a range of options including the termination of the Beneficiaries Scholarship and the closure of the organization by 2012.

More than a dozen major studies and evaluations, by the Auditor General of Canada, Justice Thomas Berger, Pricewaterhouse Coopers, and others, have emphasized the critical importance of training and education for the success of Nunavut. NITC believes that meaningful Inuit participation in the governance and management of Nunavut will require access to training that ensures them a representative share of the management, administrative and technical employment opportunities created by the NLCA. The need for that training has never been greater. NITC hopes to work closely with the NIP and its members over the next year to ensure that that need is met.

5. Appendix

Court File No. 08-06-713 CVC

In the Nunavut Court of Justice

Between:

Plaintiff: The Inuit of Nunavut as Represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Defendant: The Queen in Right of Canada as Represented by the Attorney General of Canada

Statement of Claim

Parties

1. The Plaintiff, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated ("NTI") is a non-profit corporation with head office in the City of Iqaluit. NTI represents the Inuit of Nunavut ("the Inuit") in this proceeding.

2. The Defendant represents the Queen in right of Canada (hereinafter "the Crown") pursuant to section 23 of the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, R.S.C. 1985 c. C-50.

Nunavut Land Claims Agreement

3. In 1993, the Queen in right of Canada entered into an agreement with the Inuit entitled Agreement between the Inuit of the Nunavut Settlement Area and Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada ("the Agreement").

4. In consideration of the rights and ongoing benefits promised by the Agreement, the Inuit surrendered their aboriginal title to lands and waters in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

5. In the Negotiations that culminated in the Agreement, the Inuit were represented by the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut. NTI is the successor of the Tungavik Federation of Nunavut.

6. The Agreement was ratified by the Inuit by vote. For the Crown, the Agreement was ratified, given effect and declared valid by enactment of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, S.C. 1993, c. 29 and, in particular, by sub-section 4(1) of the Act.

Contract

7. The Agreement ins an enforceable contract between the Crown and the Inuit.

8. Pursuant to section 2.3.1. of the Agreement and section 5 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, the rights and benefits of the Inuit in the Agreement have not merged in any statute or other law.

9. Pursuant to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act, 1993, c. 29, the Agreement in binding on the Crown.

10. The Agreement is a land claims agreement within the meaning of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Accordingly, all rights of Inuit under the Agreement, including the promises of ongoing rights and benefits, are recognized and affirmed pursuant to sub-section 35(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982.

Honour of the Crown

11. The Crown has a duty to act in a manner that is consistent with the honour of the Crown in the interpretation, implementation and performance of its promises and obligations under the Agreement.

Breaches of the Agreement

12. The promises made to the Inuit in the Agreement have not been fulfilled and the terms of the Agreement have been breached in the following respects:

1. Since 2003, proper and adequate funding has not been provided to the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Surface Rights Tribunal, in breach of sub-section 37.1.1(e) of the Agreement;
2. Adequate funding has not been provided to Hunters and Trappers Organizations, in breach of section 5.7.13 of the Agreement;
3. A general monitoring plan has not been developed and there has been no general monitoring and data collection, in breach of section 12.7.6 of the Agreement;
4. Initiatives required under section 23.2.1 to increase Inuit participation in government employment have not been undertaken;
5. There has been no cooperation in the development and implementation of adequate employment and training under section 23.2.2 of the Agreement;
6. An Inuit labour force analysis has not been carried out under section 23.3.1 of the Agreement;
7. Inuit employment plans have not been prepared to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level, in breach of section 23.4.1 of the Agreement;
8. The specific measures required to be undertaken as part of Inuit employment plans under section 23.4.2 have not been undertaken;
9. The required second independent five-year review of the Inuit employment plans under section 23.7.1 has not been carried out;
10. Procurement policies pursuant to section 24.3.2 have not been established or maintained;
11. The implementation of section 24.8.1 has not been monitored or evaluated;
12. Funding levels allocated to the implementation of the Agreement pursuant to sub-section 37.2.2(d) and (e) have never been identified;
13. Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements have not been entered into despite the requirements to do so;
14. Funding required to permit Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreement to proceed has been withheld;
15. Funding for implementing the Agreement after the initial 10-year period following its coming into force has not been agreed upon pursuant to section 37.2.2;
16. Consent to use the arbitration process provided for in the Agreement to resolve funding and other issues relating to the implementation of the Agreement has been unreasonably withheld.

Crown's Fiduciary Obligations

13. For the Inuit, the Agreement is of fundamental importance and the ongoing rights and benefits promised in the Agreement are critical to achieving the broad economic, social and cultural objectives of the Agreement.

14. Various provisions in the Agreement require the Crown to take governmental initiatives in order to fulfill promises made to Inuit in the Agreement. The Crown's power to design, select implement such initiatives affords it power to control the manner and degree to which the Crown's own obligations under the Agreement are performed.

15. As a consequence of the Crown's dominant power in this regard, the Inuit are placed in a correspondingly vulnerable position where obtaining the benefit of the Agreement is dependant on the exercise of discretionary power by the Crown.

16. In order to honour its ongoing obligations under the Agreement, the Crown is also obliged to provide sufficient funds to provide for the activities required to fulfill the promises made by the Crown in the Agreement. Implementation of the governmental obligations in the Agreement are wholly dependent on funding fro the Government of Canada.

17. In dealing with funding for implementation of the Agreement, the Crown is in a dominant position because the steps necessary for the appropriation and allocation of funds to carry out the Agreement are outside the control of Inuit and are entirely within the control of the Crown. The Inuit are thereby placed in a vulnerable position where performance of the ongoing rights and benefits promised in the Agreement is dependent on the willingness of the Crown to provide sufficient funding.

18. In the context of the special relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, the Crown is not entitled to use its dominant position to avoid or minimize ongoing governmental obligations under the Agreement. The Crown has an obligation to ensure that its interest in other policy objectives, including limiting public expenditure, does not interferer with its obligation to take governmental initiatives and to provide adequate funding on an ongoing basis to permit the promises made to Inuit under the Agreement to be fulfilled. These circumstances give rise to sui generis fiduciary obligations on the Crown's conduct in establishing governmental initiatives required by the Agreement and place limits on how the Crown may exercise its powers over funding necessary for implementation of the Agreement. Specifically, in relation to the issues in this proceeding, the Crown has the following obligations:

1. It is obliged to engage in good faith negotiations with the Inuit for the purpose of reaching agreement on the funding necessary to fulfill the promises made to Inuit in the Agreement;
2. It cannot unilaterally exercise its power over the appropriation of funds so as to erode, delay, or minimize the scope and substance of the benefits promised to Inuit in the Agreement;
3. In the event of an impasse over the funding necessary to fulfill the promises made by the Crown in the Agreement, it is obliged to have the matter determined by submission to the arbitration procedure provided under the Agreement or by another neutral dispute resolution process agreed on by the parties;
4. It is obliged to seek the agreement of the Inuit on governmental initiatives it proposes to establish for the purpose of fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement;
5. It is obliged to design governmental initiatives required by the Agreement in a manner that is intended to achieve and is reasonably capable of achieving the objectives set out in the Agreement.

Breaches of the Crowns' Fiduciary Obligations

19. In its dealings for the purpose of providing funding and taking governmental initiatives to carry out the Crown's obligations under the Agreement, the Crown has breached the fiduciary obligations set out in sub-paragraphs 18(a) through (e) in the following respects:

1. It has failed to appoint a representative with authority to participate in meaningful negotiations concerning funding levels for implementing the Agreement in multi-year periods after 2003;
2. It unilaterally withdrew from negotiations on the Implementation Plan for the period after 2003;
3. It failed to disclose relevant information, including the amount of funding for implementation of the Agreement during the first 10 years after ratification;
4. It refused to respond to expert reports and studies and detailed evaluations tabled by Inuit;
5. It failed to conduct any relevant studies, reports and evaluations;
6. It failed to involve its own departments, agencies and officials having knowledge and expertise relevant to specific issues;
7. It refused to address funding in the context of the specific requirements of the Agreement;
8. It refused to discuss anything other than a minimal adjustment to existing funding levels;
9. It insisted on continuing to use an annual inflation adjustment formula that it knew or ought to have known did not reflect circumstances in Nunavut;
10. It adopted a "take it or leave it approach" throughout the discussions;
11. Notwithstanding that its own conduct created an impasse over the funding and other steps necessary to implement the Agreement, it consistently refused to resolve any impasse over funding or other implementation measures through arbitration under Article 38 of the Agreement or through any other impartial process;
12. It declined to act on the recommendations of a conciliator and responded to those recommendations in a way that demonstrated fundamental misunderstanding of obligations of the Crown;
13. It failed to seek the agreement of Inuit on governmental initiatives required for the purpose of fulfilling its objectives under the Agreement or to design such initiatives in a manner that is reasonably capable of achieving the objectives of the Agreement.

Arrangements for Ongoing Implementation of the Agreement

20. Promises made to Inuit in the Agreement were to be delivered on behalf of the Crown in accordance with the procedures and arrangements in Article 37 of the Agreement and in a manner that is consistent with the guiding principles set out in section 37.1.1 of the Agreement.

21. Part 2 of Article 37 required the development of an ongoing Implementation Plan to identify the specific actions and funding arrangements required to fulfill the promises made to Inuit in the Agreement.

22. Section 37.2.3 of the Agreement required that the actions and funding identified in the Implementation Plan were to be consolidated into a contract appended to but separate from the Agreement. This secondary contract may supplement but cannot amend or derogate from the Agreement.

23. With the exception of specific capital transfers made to Inuit under the Agreement, the funding required to fill all promises made by the Crown was not to be capped but was expected by the parties to be fixed from time to time.

24. Pursuant to sub-section 37.2.2(d) of the Agreement, the funding necessary to implement the Agreement for the first 10 years after the coming into force of the Agreement was to be identified in the Implementation Plan developed at the outset of the Agreement. Thereafter, the updated Implementation Plan is to identify the funding required for successive multi-year periods, as provided for in sub-section 37.2.2(e) of the Agreement.

25. Day-to-day oversight over the operation of the Implementation Plan is to be provided by an Implementation Panel established pursuant to part 3 of Article 37. The Implementation Panel is composed of representatives of Inuit and Government.

26. On May 25, 1993, the Inuit, the Government of Canada, and the Government of the Northwest Territories signed a Contract Relating to the Implementation of the Final Agreement ("the Implementation Contract"). Pursuant to section 37.2.3 of the Agreement, the Implementation Contract was a consolidation of the provisions of the initial Implementation Plan.

Funding for NPC, NIRB, NWB, NWMB and SRT

27. The Implementation Contract set out levels of funding required by the various bodies that are required under the Agreement to carry out specific functions and responsibilities, including the Nunavut Planning Commission ("NPC"), Nunavut Impact Review Board ("NRIB"), Nunavut Water Board ("NWB"), Nunavut Wildlife Management Board ("NWMB"), and the Surface Rights Tribunal ("SRT"). As provided for by sub- section 37.2.2(d), the Implementation Contract identified the required level of funding for these bodies only for the first 10 years of the life of the Agreement.

28. The continued funding of these bodies at a level adequate to permit them to discharge their functions under the Agreement is essential to ensure that the Inuit enjoy the rights promised to them under the Agreement.

29. Sub-section 37.1.1(e)(ii) of the Agreement provides that funding for these bodies shall

Provide those institutions with sufficient financial and human resources to plan for and carry out the duties and responsibilities assigned to them in the Agreement in aprofessional manner appropriate public involvement.

30. The funding provided to these bodies since 2003 has been inadequate. As a result, they have been unable to fulfill a number of key responsibilities, including the following:

1. Acquisition and maintenance of appropriate staffing levels;
2. Provision of adequate housing that is required to recruit and retain staff;
3. Performance of their work in Inuktitut and both of Canada's official languages;
4. Provision of adequate levels of training and professional development;
5. Participation in the work of a Nunavut Marine Council.

31. In addition, the NPC has been unable to carry out a number of its responsibilities under or flowing from the Agreement, including:

1. Development of a general monitoring plan and the direction and coordination of general monitoring and data collection;
2. Establishment and maintenance of the Nunavut Resource Centre;
3. Production of map biographies, which are essential in the land use planning process.

32. Due to inadequate funding, the NIRB has been unable to cover its essential logistical costs, including costs relating to NIRB internal meetings and meetings with government agencies.

33. The NWMB has been unable to conduct essential research, including periodic harvest studies and research into Inuit traditional knowledge.

Inadequate Funding For Hunters and Trappers Organizations

34. Article 5 of the Agreement deals with matters relating to wildlife and wildlife management within the Nunavut Settlement Area.

35. Part 2 of Article 5 establishes the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board ("NWMB") and identifies the NWMB as the main instrument of wildlife management in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

36. Part 7 of Article 5 goes on to provide that, in addition to the functions given to the NWMB, the exercise of harvesting by Inuit shall be managed by Hunters and Trappers Organizations ("HTOs")

37. Section 5.7.13 of the Agreement provides that adequate funding for the operation of HTOs shall be provided by the NWMB.

38. Section 5.2.19 of the Agreement further provides that:

The costs of the NWMB shall be the responsibility of Government. The NWMB shall prepare an annual budget subject to review and approval by Government.

39. The Implementation Contract identified funding for HTOs in the initial 10 years' operation of the Agreement in the amount of $48,000 per HTO annually (adjustments for inflation not included).

40. The 10-year experience with this approximate level of funding demonstrated that it was not adequate to permit HTOs to effectively fulfill their role and responsibilities under the Agreement. This level of funding permitted that staffing of HTOs with only a single employee, typically hired on a non-permanent part-time basis. This was insufficient to permit HTOs to carry out adequately their role and responsibilities.

41. The NWMB has determined that, to achieve a minimal level of effectiveness in carrying out its obligations, each HTO requires staffing equivalent to at least one full-time employee. The NWMB has determined that, given administrative costs and the cost of office space, the costs associated with maintaining staffing levels at one full-time employee, the annual HTO funding supplied to each HTO must be increased to $119,000 (adjustments for inflation not included).

42. The Crown has failed to provide adequate funding for HTOs, in breach of its obligations under sections 5.7.13 and 5.2.19 of the Agreement. As a consequence of the breach, NTI has been required to spend approximately $265,000 to date to provide basic managerial and organizational support to HTOs across Nunavut. Further as a result of the inadequate funding of HTOs, Inuit have lost the opportunity to respond to land management and wildlife management issues, and Inuit interests have been prejudiced on important matters because HTOs lack organizational capacity.

General Monitoring Obligations

43. Section 12.7.6 of the Agreement provides as follows:

There is a requirement for general monitoring to collect and analyze information on the long term state and health of the ecosystemic and socio-economic environment in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Government, in co-operation with the NPC [Nunavut Planning Commission], shall be responsible for developing a general monitoring plan and for directing and co-ordinating general monitoring and data collection…

44. The Crown has failed to develop or to fund the development of a general monitoring plan and to direct and co-ordinate general monitoring and data collection, including matters of vital importance to Inuit such as the rate of impact of climate change, airborne and waterborne contamination and demographic changes. Although it has developed a general workplan as to how it would satisfy its obligations under section 12.7.6 of the Agreement, the workplan does not meet its obligations under the Agreement, and, in any event, the Crown has not proceeded to complete the various tasks so itemized, nor has it taken other substantive steps to collect and analyze information on the long-term state and health of the ecosystemic and socio-economic environment in the Nunavut Settlement Area.

45. As a result of the Crown's failure to develop or fund the development of a general monitoring plan as required by the Agreement, the Nunavut Planning Commission and other bodies have not had the benefit of this information. The viability and efficacy of the integrated management system established by the Agreement have been compromised and Inuit well-being has thereby been prejudiced.

Inuit Employment Obligations

46. Section 23.2.1 provides that the objective of Article 23 of the Agreement is to increase Inuit participation in government employment in the Nunavut Settlement Area to a representative level. This objective applies to the federal and territorial public service. To that end, the Agreement requires that specific steps be undertaken, including the undertaking of a detailed analysis of the labour force of the Nunavut Settlement Area and the preparation of Inuit employment plans to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level.

47. Section 23.1.1 defines "representative level" as a level of Inuit employment reflecting the ration of Inuit to the total population in the Nunavut Settlement Area. Attaining the representative level requires Inuit participation in the federal and territorial public service in Nunavut at a level of approximately 85%.

48. Article 23 requires initiatives to effect the transformation of the federal and territorial public service in Nunavut into a predominantly Inuit public service. The Crown's obligation under Article 23 requires that concrete and specific initiatives be undertaken and that the necessary funds be provided for such initiatives for the purpose of achieving Article 23's defined objective.

49. In the period between the coming into force of the Agreement on July 9,1993, and the coming into existence of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999, the Crown in collaboration with NTI, took initiatives to increase the level of Inuit participation in the federal and public service in Nunavut. These initiatives were valued at $39,5 million and reflected a commitment to a minimum Inuit participation rate of 50% at April 1, 1999, and the ultimate achievement of full Inuit representation level of approximately 85% by 2020.

50. At the coming into existence of the territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999, the Inuit participation rate was less than 50% and has remained less than 50% from that date to the present.

51. The initiatives instituted by the Crown in the period 1993 to 1999 came to an end on April 1, 1999. The Crown's initiatives since April 1, 1999, have been wholly inadequate to meet its obligation under Article 23, and the Crown has refused to provide funding for initiatives to increase Inuit participation in the federal or territorial public service. The Crown has rejected all initiatives proposed by NTI or recommended by third parties.

52. Section 23.4.1 provides as follows:

Within three years of the date of ratification of the Agreement each government organization shall prepare an Inuit employment plan to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level.

53. Section 23.1.1 defines "Inuit employment plan" as a plan designed to meet the objective of the Article 23 provisions.

54. No Inuit employment plans have been developed to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level as required by Part 4 or Article 23. The Crown has consistently refused to fund any measures that would serve as the basis for a realistic Inuit employment plan to achieve the goal of Inuit employment in the federal and territorial public service in Nunavut at a representative level.

55. As a result of the failure of the Crown to undertake and fund the required initiatives to increase Inuit participation in government employment in Nunavut to the representative level, the failure to develop Inuit employment plans required by Part 4 of Article 23, and the failure to fund measures that would serve as a basis for realistic employment plans to achieve the goal of Inuit employment in the federal and territorial public service at a representative level, the Inuit have suffered loss of direct employment income in the amount of approximately $130 million per year.

56. Section 23.3.1 required, within six months of the ratification of the Agreement, that "a detailed analysis of the labour force of the Nunavut Settlement Area to determine the availability, interest and level of preparedness of Inuit for government employment" be undertaken. The date in the labour force analysis was also to be maintained and updated on an ongoing basis.

57. No detailed labour force analysis as required by section 23.3.1 of the Agreement was completed and no analysis has been maintained on a current basis.

58. Section 23.7.1 requires the Implementation Panel to arrange for an independent review of Inuit employment plans and other measures required under Article 23 every five years. The Crown, through its representatives on the Implementation Panel, refused to permit the Implementation Panel to obtain an independent review of the period following 1998 as required by section 23.7.1.

Procurement Policies

59. Section 24.3.1 requires the Crown to develop and maintain procurement policies respecting Inuit firms for all contracts required in support of the Government of Canada's activities in the Nunavut Settlement Area. The Agreement further provides as follows:

24.3.2 The Government of Canada shall develop or maintain its procurement policies in close consultation with the [Designated Inuit Organization], and shall implement the policies through legislative, regulatory or administrative measures.

24.3.3 The measures referred to in Section 24.3.2 shall be binding on the Government of Canada, and shall be given effect: (a) in all cases, no later than one year following the date of the ratification of the Agreement; and

60. The specific objective of Article 24 is to provide business and employment opportunities to Inuit

61. The Crown has failed to establish or maintain procurement policies for Nunavut as required by the Agreement or to adapt its policies for Nunavut in accordance with section 24.3.5.

62. Section 24.8.1 of the Agreement obliges the Crown to take measures to monitor and periodically evaluate the implementation of Article 24.

63. No such measures have ever been undertaken

64. As a result of the Crown's failure to develop, adapt or monitor procurement policies in accordance with Article 24 of the Agreement, Inuit have lost business and employment opportunities.

Inuit Impact and Benefits Agreements

65. Article 8 and 9 of the Agreement require the Crown to conclude Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreements ("IIBAs") for all parks and conservation areas in Nunavut.

66. The Crown has refused to provide adequate funding to allow implementation of the Umbrella IIBA for Territorial Parks in Nunavut. As a consequence, this IIBA, which was concluded in May, 2002, remains unimplemented.

67. In 1995, the Crown established two new National Historic Sites without entering into IIBAs as required by section 8.4.4 and 9.4.1 of the Agreement.

Disclosure of Funding Levels for Implementation

68. Sub-section 37.2.2(d) and 37.2.2(e) require that the Implementation Plan identify the funding levels for implementing the Agreement in the initial 10 years after its ratification and for successive multi-year periods thereafter.

69. The Crown refused to identify in the Implementation Contract or thereafter the funding levels allocated to federal departments and agencies for implementing the Agreement. In response to all requests from NTI to identify all funding levels allocated to implement the Agreement, the Crown has disclosed only that departmental budgets were increase to facilitate implementation of the Agreement. The Crown's refusal to identify the funding levels dedicated to implementation is in breach of the terms of the Agreement and has prevented meaningful and informed negotiation of the amount of funding necessary for successive multi- year periods under sub-section 37.2.2(e).

Crown's Conduct in Dealing with Funding for Ongoing Implementation

70. Section 37.2.2 of the Agreement provides as follows:

37.2.2 The Implementation Plan shall identify (d) the funding levels for implementing the Agreement for the ten-year period following the ratification of the Agreement; (e) as agreed to from time to time by the parties to the Plan, the obligations and funding levels for implementing the Agreement for successive multi-year periods.

71. In addition to the implementation contract with the Inuit of Nunavut covering the first 10 years after ratification from 1993 to 2003, the Government of Canada also entered into bilateral agreements with the Government of the Northwest Territories ("GNWT") that fixed the amount of funding to be transferred from the federal government to the territorial government for purposes of implementing the Agreement. NTI and the Inuit of Nunavut were excluded from the negotiation of these bilateral agreements. When the bilateral agreements were entered into, it was known that the GNWT would have no responsibility for implementing the Agreement after the establishment of Nunavut in 1999.

72. Pursuant to these bilateral agreements, the Government of Nunavut ("GN"), which in 1999 succeeded to the GNWT as the territorial government under the bilateral agreements, received approximately $2 million per year for purposes of implementing the Agreement. Of this amount, approximately $1.25 million was earmarked for training Municipal Lands Officers and the balance of approximately $750,000 per year was to be applied to other territorial government costs of implementing the agreement. These included negotiating and implementing IIBAs for territorial parks, park management plans, IIBAs for conservation areas, developing new wildlife legislation to conform with the Agreement, developing and implementing Inuit employment plans, and taking measures to increase Inuit employment in the public service.

73. The funding provided to the GN pursuant to the bilateral agreement was grossly inadequate to fund the ongoing responsibilities under the Agreement that the Government of Canada had purported to assign to the territorial government by way of the bilateral agreement.

74. Inuit made reasonable and sustained efforts to negotiate adequate funding levels on a consensus basis. In 2001, in anticipation of the expiry of the Implementation Contract in 2003, NTI requested the Crown to negotiate revisions to the contract in the form of new funding arrangements. NTI sought, inter alia, adequate funding for the NPC, NIRB, NWB, NWMB and SRT; established of a general monitoring program; adequate funding for IIBAs; an annual adjustment formula relevant to experience in Nunavut; and funding measures that would lead to measurable and significant progress in increasing Inuit employment in the federal and territorial public service.

75. In response, NTI was informed by the Department of Indian Affaires and Northern Development ("DIAND") that it would appoint a negotiator to meet with NTI. However, the DIAND negotiator was given authority only to discuss a modest accounting adjustment to the amounts in the 1993 Implementation Contract. The DIAND negotiator refused to discuss funding for NPS, NIRB, NWB, NWMB and the SRT in light of their responsibilities or experience over 10 years; refused to discuss the appropriateness of the annual adjustment formula that had been used for the initial 10 years; refused to discuss the funding needed to establish a general monitoring program; and refused to discuss the funding for initiatives to increase Inuit employment in the federal and territorial public service.

76. The Crown also disclaimed any responsibility for providing GN with funds to carry out measures required under the Agreement, notwithstanding that the GN is wholly dependent on transfers from the Crown for funding. In particular, the Government of Canada refused to discuss the funding necessary for the GN to carry out measures required under Article 23 of the Agreement to increase Inuit employment in the territorial public service.

77. By January 2003, negotiations had reached an impasse as there had been no change in the position of the Crown and it refused to provide any justification for its position. It also refused to engage in an evaluation of original funding assumptions or to acknowledge responsibility for the obligations in Article 23. No further meetings were scheduled.

78. When NTI complained that the negotiations had not been carried out in good faith, it was induced to resume negotiations by an offer, in May 2003, of certain short-term initiatives with funding attached.

79. After negotiations resumed, NTI was informed that DIAND had sought to obtain funding for the promised short-term initiatives under Article 23 but had not been successful. The DIAND negotiator continued to assert that he had no mandate to negotiate funding for initiatives required by Article 23. As a result, the Crown's position was not materially different from its position when the impasse was reached in January 2003.

80. On November 5, 2004, the Crown disengaged itself from negotiations. DIAND wrote to NTI, advising it that DIAND had exhausted the mandate available to it.

Arbitration

81. Article 38 of the Agreement provides for consensual arbitration of any matter concerning the interpretation, application or implementation of the Agreement. Disputes are to be arbitrated by a person or persons selected from an Arbitration Board established under the Agreement. The Arbitration Board established by the parties in Article 38 pf the Agreement is the most appropriate forum for determining impasses over funding and implementation of the Agreement.

82. The Crown does not have unfettered discretion to refuse its consent to submit matters for arbitration. Where there is an impasse over the funding necessary for performance of the Crown's obligations under the Agreement, the Crown has a fiduciary obligation to refrain from unilaterally deciding the funding to be made available to implement the Agreement. In these circumstances, the Crown has an obligation to exercise its discretion to permit such an impasse to be submitted to arbitration for determination. In the alternative, it is an implied term of the Agreement that neither party may unreasonably withhold its consents to use the agreed-upon arbitration process when an impasse has been reached in attempting to arrive at a negotiation resolution of a matter relating to the implementation of the Agreement.

83. In breach of its obligations, the Crown has since the inception of the Agreement adopted an inflexible policy of refusing its consent to have any matter related to the Agreement resolved through arbitration.

84. NTI has sought to refer the disputes that are the subject of this action to arbitration in accordance with Article 39 of the Agreement. The Crown has refused to consent arbitration.

85. Since July, 2003, the Crown has unilaterally determined whether, and in what amount, to fund the implementation of those benefits promised to Inuit in the Agreement that are dependent on government initiatives and activities. In the absence of good faith negotiation and in the absence of consent to have impasses over funding determined by arbitration, the Inuit of Nunavut have been deprived of a meaningful opportunity to secure the full performance of the promises made to them in the Agreement.

Relief Sought

86. The Plaintiff seeks the following relief:

1.  
   1. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation to provide proper and adequate funding to the Nunavut Planning Commission, the Nunavut Impact Review Board, the Nunavut Water Board, the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and the Surface Rights Tribunal;
   2. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation in section 5.7.13 to provide adequate funding for the operation of HTOs;
   3. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under section 12.7.6 to develop a general monitoring plan and to direct and coordinate monitoring and data collection on the long-term state of the ecosystemic and socio-economic environment of the Nunavut Settlement Area;
   4. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under Article 23 to take initiatives or to provide funding for initiatives to achieve the objective of increasing Inuit participation in government employment in the Nunavut Settlement Area to a representative level;
   5. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under section 23.2.2 to cooperate in the development and implementation of employment and training;
   6. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under section 23.3.1 to conduct a labour force analysis;
   7. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under section 23.4.1 of the Agreement to prepare Inuit employment plans to increase and maintain the employment of Inuit at a representative level, in breach of section 23.4.1 of the Agreement;
   8. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its obligation to undertake the specific measures set out in section 23.4.2 as part of Inuit employment plans;
   9. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under section 23.7.1 to carry out the required second independent five-year review of Inuit employment plans;
   10. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its obligation to established and maintain procurement policies to section 24.3.2;
   11. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation to monitor or evaluate the implementation of section 24.8.1;
   12. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation under sub-section 37.2.2(d) and (e) to identify funding levels allocated to the implementation of the Agreement;
   13. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the obligation to enter into Impact and Benefit Agreements
   14. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the Agreement by withholding funds to permit the implementation of Impact and Benefit Agreements;
   15. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the Agreement by failing to agree or take reasonable steps to obtain agreement on funding to implementing the Agreement after the initial 10-year period from its coming into force, pursuant to section 37.2.2;
   16. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of the Agreement by unreasonably withholding its consent to have disputes resolved by the Arbitration Board established under Article 38 of the Agreement;
2. An Order for Specific Performance requiring the Crown to carry out the obligations set out in sub- paragraphs (a) (i) through (xvi) of this Statement of Claim and an Order providing for continuing supervision by this Honourable Court to monitor and supervise the Crown's performance and to resolve any differences over the Crown's compliance;
3. An Order requiring the Crown to consent to refer to arbitration in accordance with Article 38 of the Agreement the disputed matters that are the subject of this action, or such of the disputed matters as the Court determines;
4. 1. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its fiduciary obligation to engage in good faith negotiations with Inuit for the purpose of reaching agreement on the funding necessary to fulfill promises made to Inuit in the Agreement;
   2. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its fiduciary obligations by unilaterally exercising its power over the appropriation of funds to erode, delay and minimize the scope and substance of the benefits promised to Inuit in the Agreement
   3. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its fiduciary obligation to have impasses over the funding necessary to fulfill the promises in the Agreement determined by submission to arbitration under the Agreement or by another neutral dispute resolution process;
   4. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its fiduciary obligation to seek the agreement of the Inuit on governmental initiatives it proposes to establish for the purpose of fulfilling its obligations under the Agreement;
   5. a Declaration that the Crown is in breach of its fiduciary obligation to design governmental initiatives required by the Agreement in the manner that is intended to achieve and is reasonably capable of achieving the objectives set out in the Agreement;
   6. a Declaration that the Crown has failed to interpret, implement or carry out its promises under the Agreement in a manner that is consistent with the honour of the Crown;
5. Damages in the amount of one billion dollars ($1,000,000,000);
6. Special damages, including out-of-pocket amounts expended in negotiations on implementation from 2001 to 2006;
7. Punitive damages;
8. Costs;
9. Such further and other relief as the Court deems just.

Place of Trial

87. The Plaintiff proposes that this action be tried in Iqaluit.

DATED at Ottawa, on December 5, 2006, and delivered by Douglas E. Brown, solicitor for the Plaintiff, whose address for service is c/o Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Igluvut Building #921, P.O. Box 638, Iqaluit, Nunavut X0A 0H0.

Douglas E. Brown
Nelligan O'Brien Payne LLP
Barristers & Solicitors
1900 - 66 Slater St.
Ottawa, ON K1P 5H1
Tel: (613) 231-8210
Fax: (613) 788-3661
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

TO:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
234 Wellington Street, East Tower
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8

Court File No. 08-06-713 CVC

In the Nunavut Court of Justice

Between:

Plaintiff: The Inuit of Nunavut as Represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Defendant: The Queen in Right of Canada as Represented by the Attorney General of Canada

Statement of Claim

This Statement of Claim is issued by:
Douglas E. Brown
whose address for service is:
c/o Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Box 638, Igluvut Building #921
Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0
Tel: (613) 231-8210
Fax: (613) 788-3661
Solicitor for the Plaintiff

Address of the Plaintiff:
c/o Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
Box 638, Igluvut Building #921
Iqaluit, NU X0A 0H0

Address of the Defendant:
John H. Sims, Q.C.
Deputy Attorney General of Canada
Department of Justice
234 Wellington Street, East Tower
Ottawa, ON K1A 0H8

I certify that this Notice to the Defendant/Statement of Claim was filed by telecopier/copy by the Clerk of the Nunavut Court of Justice on December 6, 2006.

December 6, 2006
Douglas E. Brown