2008-2010 Nunavut Implementation Panel: Annual Report

Reasons for Judgement

A. Summary

[1] This Submission is respectfully made by the Land Claims Agreements Coalition concerning the ongoing failure of the Government of Canada to fully, meaningfully and universally implement the modern treaties between it and the members of the Coalition, who are the indigenous signatories of all of the 21 modern treaties in Canada since 1975.

[2] The rights contained in these treaties, which are constitutional "building blocks" of Canadian Confederation, are human rights. However, the Government of Canada has failed universally to fully implement the spirit and intent and the broad socio-economic objectives of all modern land agreements.

[3] This failure is inconsistent with the Constitution of Canada, many judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada, and Canada's human rights obligations in international law, including the right of self-determination, the right to economic, social and cultural development and well-being, and other particular collective rights belonging and applying to indigenous peoples.

B. The Land Claims Agreements Coalition

[4] Established in 2003, the Land Claims Agreements Coalition consists of all Aboriginal signatories to modern treaties (comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements) entered into in Canada since the first modern treaty of 1975. A list the modern treaties entered into by Coalition members is attached ^{Footnote 3}.

[5] The first "modern land claims agreement" between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown in right of Canada was entered into in 1975. Since then, 21 modern treaties have been negotiated, applying to Aboriginal traditional lands encompassing more than half of the lands and waters of Canada and the immense resources they contain.

[6] These agreements represent "basic building blocks in the creation of our country ^{Footnote 4}."

[7] Coalition members work together to ensure that comprehensive land claims and associated self-government agreements are respected, honoured and fully implemented in order to achieve their objectives. The task at hand is to implement the modern land claims agreements in ways that bring political, economic and social justice to their signatory nations and their members and that achieve in full measure, the letter, spirit, intent and lasting objectives of modern land claims agreements.

C. Aboriginal and treaty rights are human rights

[8] As noted by the United Nations Human Rights Committee in 1999, Canada has acknowledged that: "the situation of the aboriginal peoples remains ‘the most pressing human rights issue facing Canadians ^{Footnote 5}.'"

[9] However, the Coalition notes that Canada voted against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples ^{Footnote 6}.

[10] Key indicators of socio-economic conditions for indigenous peoples in Canada are unacceptably lower than for non-Aboriginal Canadians ^{Footnote 7}.

[11] The U.N. Human Rights Committee has expressed particular concern that Canada has not yet implemented the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples (RCAP). It recommended that: "decisive and urgent action be taken towards full implementation of the RCAP recommendations on land and resource allocation ^{Footnote 8}."

D. The issue - Canada's modern treaty implementation policy and practice

[12] In December 2006, Leaders and Representatives of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition assembled in Ottawa to discuss how Canada is doing in honouring the modern treaty undertakings it made to Aboriginal peoples over the past thirty years. They declared that:

Through these modern treaty agreements, Ottawa made important and solemn treaty promises enshrined in the constitution in return for reconciling Crown and aboriginal sovereignties and clearing the way for development in more than half of Canada's land mass and the immense resources it contains. More than three years ago, the signatories of all major modern treaties wrote to the Government of Canada. We called for the mutual development of a new federal Policy to fully implement the fundamental objectives of these important agreements. No meaningful progress has yet been made, and the federal Crown has essentially rebuffed efforts to engage constructively. No progress has been made since that time ^{Footnote 9}.

[13] For indigenous signatories, land claim agreements are intended to enable economic, social and cultural development, environmental protection, and self-government.

[14] Some individual progress has been made in treaty implementation. In 2008 the Grand Council of the Crees entered into a New Relationship Agreement with the Government of Canada, 33 years after entering into its treaty with Canada.

[15] However, overall, members of the Coalition are frustrated and disappointed that their treaties are not all being properly implemented by the Government of Canada.

[16] While the Government of Canada has enunciated its objectives many times, for example in its 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims policy, it has not worked to support the full extent of the land claims agreements.

[17] The Government of Canada's 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims policy stressed that:

… land claims negotiations are more than real estate transactions. In defining their relationships, Aboriginal peoples and the Government of Canada will want to ensure that the continuing interests of claimants in settlement areas are recognized. This will encourage self-reliance and economic development as well as cultural and social wellbeing. Land claims negotiations should look to the future and should provide a means whereby Aboriginal groups and the federal government can pursue shared objectives such as self-government and economic development.

[18] This policy objective still enjoys the support of indigenous peoples in Canada and is directly incorporated in some land claims agreements.

[19] However, in the experience of the members of the Coalition, the ink is barely dry on each land claims agreement before the federal government, and especially its officials, abandons any talk of the broad objectives of the agreement, and proceeds instead on the basis that the government's sole responsibility is to fulfil the narrow legal obligations set out in the agreement.

[20] The Cree-Naskapi Commission, an independent federal land claims agreement review body, stated in its 1995 Annual Report to the Parliament of Canada:

In the course of Canadian history, a notion persists that governments make promises to induce natives to surrender their lands and other rights and then routinely break these promises, frequently hiding behind legal technicalities. Regrettably, the evidence supporting this notion is extensive.

[21] The members of the Coalition are not aware of any policy having been explicitly adopted by the Government of Canada that the objectives of entering into the land claim agreement are to be forgotten or ignored once it has obtained the indigenous signatures on the document. And yet that has become the entrenched attitude of Department of Indian and Northern Affairs ("DIAND" or "INAC") of the Government of Canada.

[22] This attitude has led at least some of the indigenous peoples in Canada who have entered in good faith into these modern land claims agreements to conclude that there have been deliberate, continuing efforts on the part the federal Crown to minimize, frustrate and even extinguish the rights and benefits the Aboriginal parties expected would accrue from their treaties.

[23] Some have stated that a "two-step" policy of extinguishment of Aboriginal and treaty rights can be seen in the federal neglect of what had been considered to be mutual objectives and commitments. As the first step, governments make promises to induce natives to surrender or otherwise provide so-called certainty in respect of their lands and other rights. Then, as the federal government's commitment to the objectives and ongoing obligations under the treaty begins to wane, chronic disagreements between the parties emerge about the meaning of the various treaty provisions, litigation ensues, and little regard is had to whether the objectives are being achieved.

[24] Rather than allowing the apprehension of a two-step policy of extinguishment to continue to grow, surely it would be more appropriate for the federal Crown to instead reaffirm its commitment to the timely and responsible implementation of both its obligations and the objectives of modern land claims agreements.

[25] In his 2004 report to the Economic and Social Council, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on human rights and indigenous issues also reported on the concerns raised by the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. He noted that:

… the Land Claims Agreement Coalition [has] called upon the federal Government of Canada to pay urgent attention to full and meaningful implementation of the socio-economic and developmental objectives of these agreements, warning that if conditions among signatory peoples continue to fail to improve meaningfully after the signing of such agreements, other Aboriginal peoples may conclude that there is no benefit flowing from such agreements. ^{Footnote 10} [Emphasis added.]

E. The Land Claims Agreements Coalition is not alone in this concern regarding the Government of Canada's overall failure to fully implement modern treaties with indigenous peoples in Canada

[26] In addition to the international authorities referred to above, important human rights and governmental accountability authorities within Canada have repeatedly echoed the concerns raised by the Coalition.

[27] Most recently, in May 2008, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples of the Parliament of Canada reported:

Treaties are solemn agreements that set out promises, obligations, and benefits for both the Aboriginal peoples and the Crown in right of Canada. The Government of Canada acknowledges that these agreements represent the "basic building blocks in the creation of our country."

…

However… the committee is troubled by the narrow approach to treaty implementation adopted by the federal government. Federal practices and policy in this regard have resulted in the diminishment of the benefits and rights promised to Aboriginal peoples under these agreements…

[W]ithout the funds necessary to promote political, social and cultural development, the preservation and transmission of Aboriginal cultures to future generations cannot occur as envisioned by the treaties…

Our present study on the federal role in implementing modern treaty obligations, along with the Committee's previous studies on specific claims, economic development and the delivery of safe drinking water to First Nations communities, suggest to us that there are deep structural reasons for the government's failure to make measurable and meaningful progress on issues affecting Aboriginal Canadians. We believe much of this failure rests with the institutional role and mandate of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development Canada (DIAND), a department which is steeped in a legacy of colonialism and paternalism… [W]e find that the Department's ability to make meaningful improvements in the lives of Aboriginal peoples and its performance generally is woefully inadequate.

 We endorse the view that failure to properly implement the provisions of modern treaties puts Canada at risk for generating new legions of broken promises. However we are convinced that these challenges can be overcome. The honour of the Crown rests upon it. ^{Footnote 11} [Emphasis added]

[28] Regarding the federal Government of Canada's approach to treaty implementation, the Senate Committee further reported:

The Committee believes that any meaningful approach to treaty implementation cannot be focused solely on fulfilling narrowly, the legal and technical obligations identified in modern treaties… The government's focus… has largely been to discharge its obligations in a narrow sense, rather than working to achieve the full benefit of the reconciliation promised by treaties. This, in our view, is a diminished and restricted reading of treaty-making and treaty implementation… The result is that broader considerations of economic and social well-being are set aside. ^{Footnote 12} [Emphasis added]

[29] In October 2007, the Auditor General of Canada reported on implementation of one of the earliest modern treaties (signed in 1984). Her report noted:

3.92 Although the Inuvialuit Final Agreement has existed for 23 years, INAC [the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada] has yet to demonstrate the leadership and the commitment necessary to meet federal obligations and achieve the objectives of the Agreement ^{Footnote 13}.

[30] The Auditor General's 2007 report noted the lack of any change of approach by INAC since the Auditor General raised similar concerns in 2003 ^{Footnote 14}, stating:

3.83 We found that INAC… has taken no action to develop performance indicators or to ensure measurement of progress toward achievement of the principles that the Agreement embodies. Department officials describe these as being Inuvialuit principles, not principles to which Canada adheres. INAC officials emphasize that the Agreement does not impart any federal obligation to realize these goals…

3.84 We are concerned that the Department is not focused on achieving the goals expressed in the Agreement. ^{Footnote 15} [Emphasis added]

F. The impacts of the ongoing, universal failure by Canada to fully implement modern treaties entered into with indigenous peoples in Canada

[31] Objectives of land claims and related self-government agreements can be seen to fall into at least the following categories in which improvements should occur:

1. social well-being;
2. economic self-reliance through success and participation;
3. growth and stability of Aboriginal populations in their traditional territories;
4. environmental protection; and
5. cultural and linguistic protection and enhancement.

[32] Most conspicuously lacking from the federal approach to implementing, as well as negotiating land claims agreements, has been any apparent awareness that comprehensive land claims agreements should serve to bring about the inclusion of Aboriginal peoples into the regional, provincial/ territorial and national economies of which they and their lands and resources are part, and, over time, to improve the material well being of Aboriginal peoples while enriching the country as a whole. Land claims agreements can and should be regarded as important vehicles for the achievement of public policy goals, including ensuring the survival, viability and well-being of Aboriginal peoples as distinct collectivities.

[33] In his 2004 report concerning Canada, the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the rights of indigenous peoples concluded:

The settling of comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements are important milestones in the solution of outstanding human rights concerns of Aboriginal people. They do not, in themselves, resolve many of the human rights grievances afflicting Aboriginal communities and do require more political will regarding implementation, responsive institutional mechanism, effective dispute resolution mechanisms, and stricter monitoring procedures at all levels. ^{Footnote 16} [Emphasis added]

[34] Similarly, it has been noted in a paper recently published by the [Canadian] Institute for Research on Public Policy (IRPP) that Comprehensive Land Claim Agreements (CLCAs) appear not to be a "panacea for Aboriginal peoples:"

In and of themselves, treaties do not change the socio-economic conditions and overall well-being of communities, nor do they radically alter the colonial structure that Daniel Salée identifies in his study for the IRPP as one of the main explanations for the ‘glacial pace' of changes in the living conditions of Canadian Aboriginal peoples (2006). But, over time, and with proactive leadership and collaboration between all parties involved, CLCAs can become the instruments whereby Aboriginal peoples establish a governance relationship that better reflects their social, economic and political aspirations. ^{Footnote 17} [Emphasis added]

[35] Professor Papillon's paper for the IRPP concludes:

Governments should therefore acknowledge that land claims settlements are much more than land transactions: they are living documents that establish broad parameters for a decolonizing relationship that is bound to change as the conditions and priorities of the Aboriginal signatories change. ^{Footnote 18} [Emphasis added]

G. A way forward, consistent with Canada's international and domestic human rights obligations

[36] The Government of Canada's approach to implementing modern treaties entered into with indigenous peoples in Canada needs to be changed if it is to adhere to the legal, constitutional, and human rights reality of these agreements. What is called for is a change in the perspective, indeed in the very culture of the Government of Canada in respect of its view of the new relationships set out in land claims and self-government agreements.

[37] In this spirit, the Coalition calls for a new land claims implementation policy, based on the Coalition's "Four-Ten Declaration" ^{Footnote 19}. The Coalition's "Four-Ten Declaration" contains the following "Fundamental Principles concerning a new land claims implementation policy in Canada:

1. The history of nation-to-nation contact and interaction between the Crown and the aboriginal peoples in Canada has created an enduring relationship between the Crown and aboriginal peoples, one that is fundamentally predicated on the honour of the Crown.

2. "[T]he doctrine of aboriginal rights exists, and is recognized and affirmed by s. 35(1), because of one simple fact: when Europeans arrived in North America, aboriginal peoples were already here, living in communities on the land, and participating in distinctive cultures, as they had done for centuries." Supreme Court of Canada, Van der Peet, [1996] 2 S.C.R. 507 at para 30.

3. "The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably.

Nothing less is required if we are to achieve "the reconciliation of the pre-existence of aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown." Supreme Court of Canada, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2004] S.C.C. 73 at para 17.

…

5. Treaties and land claims agreements between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples are acknowledged to be "basic building blocks in the creation of our country …[T]reaties -- both historical and modern -- and the relationship they represent provide a basis for developing a strengthened and forward-looking partnership with Aboriginal people." Government of Canada, "Gathering Strength -- Canada's Aboriginal Action Plan", 1997.

…

7. Modern land claims agreements, which give rise to treaty rights, are multi-faceted, and the ongoing rights they affirm are, among other things, constitutional, statutory, contractual, fiduciary, and in keeping with the "living tree" principle of Canadian law, evolving and progressive in nature.

8. The negotiation and implementation of modern land claims agreements, and their ancillary agreements, engage the honour of the Crown, and demand results and ongoing outcomes that are just. "Where treaties remain to be concluded, the honour of the Crown requires negotiations leading to a just settlement of Aboriginal claims." Supreme Court of Canada, Haida Nation v. British Columbia (Minister of Forests) [2004] S.C.C. 73 at para. 20.

9. The treaty rights arising from modern land claims agreements express the mutual desire of the Crown and aboriginal peoples in Canada to reconcile through sharing the lands, resources and natural wealth of this subcontinent in a manner that is equitable and just - no longer so as to solely assimilate, take or extinguish the interest of the aboriginal peoples involved, but rather so as to implement mutual objectives that will ensure their socio-economic, political and cultural survival, well-being and development as peoples.

10. Aboriginal and treaty rights are human rights, and they are not amenable to extinguishment as a matter of respect for Canada's international human rights obligations. "The situation of the aboriginal peoples remains the most pressing human rights issue facing Canadians…. [T]he practice of extinguishing inherent aboriginal rights be abandoned as incompatible with article 1 of the [International] Covenant [on Civil and Political Rights]." United Nations Human Rights Committee, Concluding Observations of the Human Rights Committee - Canada. 07/04/99 CCPR/C/79/Add.105.

[38] In its May 2008 report, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples recommended that the Government of Canada, in collaboration with the Land Claims Agreements Coalition and its present and future members, take immediate steps to develop a new national land claims implementation policy, based on the principles laid out by the Coalition ^{Footnote 20}.

H. Conclusion

[39] In this Submission, the Coalition respectfully brings to the attention of the U.N. Universal Periodic Review Canada's ongoing failure to fully and meaningfully implement the spirit and intent and the broad socio-economic objectives of all modern land claims agreements.

[40] The Coalition respectfully requests that the Human Rights Council adopts the following Conclusions and Recommendations, consistent with the content of this Submission:

The Human Rights Council:

a) Notes Canada's record as a country in respect of overall socio-economic development and social inclusion has been a positive one in a number of important respects;

b) Observes that more than any other state facing the challenge of gross disparities between segments of society (such as between indigenous peoples in general and all other Canadians), Canada has had the popular good-will, the territory and resources, the governmental capacity, the foundation of existing constitutional, legal, policy and treaty frameworks, and the economic means to succeed;

c) Notes that the situation of indigenous peoples in Canada remains the most pressing human rights issue facing Canadians;

d) Notes with concern the "glacial pace" of changes in the living conditions of indigenous peoples in Canada, attributable in part to the Government of Canada's failure to universally implement the spirit and intent and broad socio-economic objectives of land claims agreements with indigenous peoples in Canada;

e) Observes that Canada has not adequately supported the full extent of modern treaties, and that its practice of ignoring the spirit and intent and broad objectives of these agreements is contrary to its human rights commitments and obligations;

f) Urges Canada to affirm its full commitment to the universal, timely and responsible implementation of the spirit and intent, and both its obligations and the broad socio-economic objectives, of land claims agreements entered into with indigenous peoples;

g) Further urges Canada to promptly develop, consistent with Canada's international human rights obligations and relevant rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada, a new national land claims implementation policy based on the principles of the Land Claims Agreements Coalition's "Four-Ten Declaration" in full consultation (as required by the Supreme Court of Canada) with the Coalition; and

h) Concludes and recommends that the fulfillment of the broad socio-economic objectives of modern land claims agreements entered into with indigenous peoples in Canada, and associated self-government agreements, must be undertaken, not only because it is the obligation of the Government of Canada, but because it is in Canada's national and international interest to do so.

Land Claims Agreements Coalition

• Council of Yukon First Nations
• Grand Council of the Crees (Eeyou Istchee)
• Gwich'in Tribal Council
• Inuvialuit Regional Corporation
• Kwanlin Dun First Nation
• Makivik Corporation
• Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach
• Nisga'a Nation
• Nunatsiavut Government
• Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated
• The Sahtu Secretariat Incorporated
• Tlicho Government

c/o The Consilium Consulting Group, 488 Gladstone Ave., Ottawa, ON, K1R 5N8
Tel: (613) 237-3613 Fax: (613) 237-3845 www.landclaimscoalition.ca

The Land Claims Agreements Coalition gratefully acknowledges the support of the Gordon Foundation in the development of this policy document.

Foreword

When explorers from Europe arrived in North America they "discovered" a continent occupied and governed by Aboriginal peoples. In subsequent decades and centuries the relationship between the original peoples and the growing number of settlers and immigrants was complex and sometimes difficult. But looking back, it is important to note that Crown-Aboriginal treaties were a central mechanism used in Canada to avoid conflict and to constructively define the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and newcomers. The Royal Proclamation of 1763 affirmed treaty-making as the key element of the policy of the Crown toward Aboriginal peoples. This approach was continued in British North America following the American Revolution, and by the Government of Canada after Confederation.

Treaty-making occurred as early as the 1600s. Beginning in 1871, numbered treaties were concluded on the Prairies, in northern Ontario, in northeastern British Columbia and in part of the Northwest Territories. With the exception of a limited number of adhesions to the numbered treaties, treaty-making came to a halt in the 1920s, leaving much of northern Canada, most of British Columbia and Québec, and all of Labrador without treaties. In 1927, the Indian Act was amended to make it illegal for Aboriginal peoples to raise money to press land claims. Treaty-making, in its modern form, began in the 1970s - prompted by the 1973 decision of the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the Aboriginal title of the Nisga'a Nation in British Columbia. Litigation involving the James Bay Crees in Québec, the Dene of the Mackenzie Valley and the Inuit of Baker Lake provided further impetus.

Since then, nineteen modern treaties - sometimes referred to as comprehensive land claims agreements - have been negotiated and ratified. These modern treaties concern more than half of the lands, waters and natural resources of Canada.

The Government of Canada's policy toward the negotiation and settlement of comprehensive land claims was formalized in 1981 and revised and expanded in 1986. In 1982, Section 35 was added to Canada's Constitution, which recognized and affirmed the existing Aboriginal and treaty rights of Aboriginal peoples in Canada. In 1983 it was explicitly confirmed in subsection 35(3) that section 35 "treaty rights" include those contained in modern land claims agreements. In 1995 the Inherent Right Policy provided for the negotiation of Aboriginal self-government as a component of modern treaties.

Modern treaties are essential building blocks of Canada, and are intended to formalize the relationship between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown. They are entered into to protect the rights of Aboriginal signatories; ensure their continuity as peoples; provide for their political, social, economic and cultural development. This is why the implementation of modern treaties between Aboriginal peoples and the Crown is of national importance, and even attracts international interest.

The number of modern treaties continues to grow, and we now have years of experience in implementation that is both affirmative and problematic. Although much has been accomplished of which we can be proud, modern treaties are far-reaching and sometimes complex. All parties agree that implementation is a challenge and takes forethought, cooperation and, above all, ongoing attention and commitment. While the content of modern treaties varies from agreement to agreement, implementing them requires trust as well firm and enduring cooperation between the Crown and Aboriginal signatories.

In responding to the recommendations and requests of Aboriginal peoples with modern treaties, the Government of Canada will adopt a Land Claims Agreements Implementation Policy that provides a framework to promote the effective implementation of diverse modern land claims agreements.

As its title suggests, the purpose of this Policy is to ensure that modern treaties are fully implemented in accordance with their provisions, their overall objectives, and their spirit and intent. The Policy is not intended to re-write modern treaties or to create new and uncontemplated responsibilities, legally binding or otherwise.

Rather, the Policy lays out the firm commitment of the Government of Canada that federal Ministers, departments and agencies will work diligently with their Aboriginal counterparts to achieve the objectives of modern treaties in a lasting, generous and flexible manner.

Such an evolving and beneficial approach is consistent with long-standing Canadian governmental practice in all other inter-governmental contexts. The Aboriginal land claims agreements context cannot be permitted to languish as an unintended exception.

There have been positive developments in the decades since the first modern land claims agreement in Canada. However there is still more to be done before Aboriginal peoples and all Canadians alike enjoy the many benefits and achieve the overall objectives of our modern treaties.

Introduction

"The historical roots of the principle of the honour of the Crown suggest that it must be understood generously in order to reflect the underlying realities from which it stems. In all its dealings with Aboriginal peoples, from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and the implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably. Nothing less is required if we are to achieve "the reconciliation of the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown."

Supreme Court of Canada, Haida Nation v. British Columbia
(Minister of Forests), 2004

"The settling of comprehensive land claims and self-government agreements (such as those of Nunavut or James Bay) are important milestones in the solution of outstanding human rights concerns of Aboriginal people. They do not, in themselves, resolve many of the human rights grievances afflicting Aboriginal communities and do require more political will regarding implementation, responsive institutional mechanisms, effective dispute resolution mechanisms, and stricter monitoring procedures at all levels."

United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of Indigenous People, Report on Canada, 2004

Modern treaties are negotiated between the Crown and Canadian Aboriginal peoples who generally have not entered into "historic" treaties.

Modern treaties affirm the complex and multifaceted nation-to-nation and government-to-government relationships between Aboriginal peoples and Canada. They currently reconcile the Aboriginal peoples' title to their traditional lands and resources with the Crowns' subsequent occupation and use of more than half of the lands, waters and natural resources of Canada.

Each modern treaty is unique, but all articulate rights to be exercised by Aboriginal signatories, often also involve recognition of Aboriginal self-government or provide for a restructuring of public government. Basically, the Crown's claims in respect of Aboriginal peoples' traditional lands, waters and natural resources are clarified, to the great benefit of all Canadian peoples.

The Crown has, upon ratification of each modern treaty, been able to proceed immediately to manage, develop and dispose of lands and natural resources in reliance upon the terms of the treaty concerned. The promised benefits to Aboriginal peoples, on the other hand, are often incremental and spread out over many years. This fact requires the Government of Canada to ensure that treaty rights are respected now and in coming years and decades, and that the obligations, ongoing objectives, and sprit and intent of modern treaties are fulfilled. The intent of this Policy is to ensure that this is the case.

Modern treaties address such matters as:

• Ownership and use of lands, waters and natural resources including the subsurface;
• Management of land, waters, and natural resources, including fish and wildlife;
• Harvesting of fish and wildlife;
• Environmental protection and assessment;
• Economic development;
• Employment;
• Government contracting;
• Capital transfers;
• Royalties from resource development;
• Impact benefit agreements;
• Parks and conservation areas;
• Social and cultural enhancement;
• The continuing application of ordinary Aboriginal and other general programming
• and funds; and
• Self-government and public government arrangements.

When ratified, modern treaties become part of the law of the land. The treaty rights they contain are constitutionally recognized and affirmed, and the terms of these agreements thus take precedence over the other laws and policies in Canada.

It is important that modern treaties be implemented and interpreted, consistent with their spirit, in a manner that responds to changing circumstances. Aboriginal peoples rely upon them to chart their paths into the future, just as the Crown is able to use them to bring about overall public policy objectives.

The Crown and Aboriginal signatories to these agreements must therefore work together in creative partnerships, if modern treaties are to be used to full advantage in accordance with their modern purposes of reconciliation, development, and nation-building.

Each modern treaty reflects the aspirations and cultural diversity of the Aboriginal signatories, and the political and other circumstances prevailing when agreements were negotiated. The Land Claims Agreements Implementation Policy respects the differences between modern treaties, and is not intended to promote an inflexible approach to their implementation. Nothing in this policy should be viewed as a substitute for any existing process, plan, obligation, or objective for the implementation of individual land claim agreements that has been worked out by the Parties to those agreements. This policy is meant to strengthen, and not to replace, whatever arrangements currently exist in respect of the implementation of each treaty agreement.

The core commitment of this policy is that the Government of Canada will work with Aboriginal signatories to ensure that each modern treaty is fully implemented consistent with its spirit and intent, the developmental objectives of treaty-making in Canada, and the honour of the Crown.

The Modern Treaty Relationship Between the Crown and Aboriginal Peoples

Modern treaties confirm enduring relationships between the Crown and Aboriginal peoples that engage and rest upon the "honour of the Crown." These agreements formally enable Aboriginal signatories to "become part of Canada". As quoted above, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that in all dealings with Aboriginal peoples from the assertion of sovereignty to the resolution of claims and implementation of treaties, the Crown must act honourably to reconcile the pre-existence of Aboriginal societies with the sovereignty of the Crown.

The treaty relationship lies not with any single government department or agency, but with the Crown as a whole as represented by the Government of Canada. In practical terms this requires all agencies of the Government of Canada whose mandates and activities intersect (or may do so) with modern treaties to do their full part to implement them meaningfully.

Every department and agency of the Government of Canada has the responsibility to ensure that its duties and activities are carried out in a manner consistent with the obligations of modern treaties and contribute to the ongoing achievement of the objectives of these agreements. This puts a premium on coordination between federal departments and agencies, and with provincial and territorial governments. The Government of Canada will bring about effective coordination between federal departments and agencies to properly meet the obligations, objectives, and spirit and intent, of modern treaties. Moreover the Government of Canada will also cooperate with provincial and territorial governments; however, the Government of Canada will ensure that it meets its own ongoing modern treaty obligations and fulfills their objectives, regardless of particular steps other levels of government may take.

Obligations and Objectives

Provisions in modern treaties confer or affirm many important rights belonging to Aboriginal signatories and place lasting obligations on the Government of Canada that are enforceable in the courts. As stated in the 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims Policy, the Government of Canada takes a broad view of the purpose and intent of these agreements as to:

"encourage self-reliance and economic development as well as cultural and social well-being. Land claims negotiations should look to the future and should provide a means whereby Aboriginal groups and the federal government can pursue shared objectives such as self-government and economic development."

Such objectives provide the context within which treaty obligations and objectives must be met.

The socio-economic development objectives of modern treaties include benefits that Aboriginal peoples, like all other peoples in Canada, should be entitled to take for granted, at least to an average level already generally achieved in non-Aboriginal Canada. Importantly, this standard is already enshrined in the Canadian Constitution, in subsection 36(1), which states that all governments in Canada are committed to promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians.

As noted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and other authorities in Canada and internationally, disparities between the living standards and other opportunities of Aboriginal peoples in Canada vis-à-vis those generally enjoyed by all other Canadians are persistent and pronounced. Regrettably, these disparities continue to characterize many signatory communities of modern land claims agreements.

The Auditor General of Canada has urged the Government of Canada and Aboriginal signatories to focus on achieving measurable results against stated objectives when implementing land claims and self-government agreements. The Government of Canada accepts this recommendation and will approach the ongoing implementation of land claims and self-government agreements so as to achieve their developmental objectives with measurable outcomes.

The Government of Canada acknowledges that narrow and technical understandings and interpretations of its modern treaty obligations have, in the past, sometimes hindered effective implementation of agreements. To develop a broader appreciation of the nature of obligations and objectives, and to design implementation activities to achieve objectives, requires extensive discussion with Aboriginal signatories in the context of individual agreements. The Government of Canada proposes to engage treaty signatories in such discussions with the aim of injecting new energy, generosity and goodwill into the implementation of modern treaties.

These instruments are important building blocks of confederation. The rights of Aboriginal peoples contained in these modern agreements are no less a part of the Canadian constitutional landscape than any other Canadian constituting arrangements.

Self-Government

Self-government is a right that Aboriginal peoples have exercised in Canada since long before newcomers came to this land and there is an integral relationship between modern treaties and self-government by the Aboriginal signatories. This relationship is expressed in various ways. In some cases self-government arrangements are established outside the land claims agreement. In some cases there is a self-government agreement that is parallel or subsequent to the land claims agreement, and in some cases self-government provisions are fully or partially set out in the text of the land claims agreement itself. In some cases, self-governing aspirations are expressed through the establishment of new institutions of public government, in accordance with the agreement.

In all cases, the dynamic implementation of self-government arrangements is essential to the proper implementation of land claims agreements. This includes both recognition of the jurisdictions and duties for which the Aboriginal government is responsible, and the negotiation of stable, predictable and adequate funding arrangements that are based on the objective evaluation of the costs of governing and the social, economic and cultural needs of Aboriginal peoples.

Implementation Panels and Committees

Implementation committees, panels or other entities, in which the parties to the treaties discuss, negotiate and, in some instances, direct implementation, have been put in place for many of the modern treaties. If modern treaties are to achieve their objectives it is essential that these structures work effectively, efficiently, and creatively. The Government of Canada will continue to approach all implementation discussions and negotiations in good faith and generously, leaving narrow and technical approaches behind it, and will bring forward appropriately coordinated perspectives and positions. Further, the Government of Canada's representatives on these structures will be senior officials with clear mandates and authority to address implementation questions, resolve implementation issues, and set long-term directions. Representatives of federal departments and agencies with appropriate expertise, programmatic responsibilities, and authority will participate directly in implementation panels and committees when requested.

Implementation Plans and Fiscal Agreements

The 1986 Comprehensive Land Claims Policy requires plans to be developed to implement modern treaties. Such plans often identify the agencies of the Government of Canada responsible for implementing specific obligations and detailed budgets of institutions established pursuant to agreements. The Government of Canada reaffirms its commitment to negotiate in good faith with Aboriginal signatories to conclude multi-year implementation plans and fiscal agreements and arrangements. Further, the Government of Canada will incorporate the results of evaluations, reviews and audits of implementation experience in negotiating amendments and renewals of implementation plans and fiscal agreements. While specifying who does what is an essential component of implementation planning, finalized implementation plans and fiscal agreements should, as far as possible, be creative and adaptive documents that identify implementation priorities and enable parties to channel financial and personnel resources accordingly. The Government of Canada will consider, on a case-by-case basis, the need to periodically amend implementation plans and fiscal agreements to achieve mutually agreed objectives.

Moreover, if desired by the Aboriginal party, the Government of Canada will negotiate the development of implementation plans and fiscal agreements for modern treaties, concluded prior to 1986, for matters not yet fully implemented.

Financing Implementation of Modern Treaties

Aboriginal peoples face the same need for adequate and sustainable levels of funding to meet the objective needs and aspirations of their peoples as the other constituent part of the modern Canadian state. This is the legitimate expectation of one of the three constitutional orders of government in Canada. The Government of Canada undertakes to provide sufficient funding to fully implement the objectives of modern treaties, and will work in good faith with Aboriginal signatories to determine these requirements and ensure that funding is provided on a timely basis.

Parliament plays the central role in authorizing the expenditure of public moneys by agencies and departments of the Government of Canada. Modern treaties deal with issues that cross departmental boundaries, and financing their implementation does not always fit neatly within the Government of Canada's departmental budgetary system. The Government of Canada will therefore work with Aboriginal signatories to remove structural and procedural barriers in the current budgetary system, in order to expedite the ongoing implementation of all modern treaties.

Resolving Disputes

Many modern treaties specify means such as mediation and arbitration to resolve disputes between the federal Crown, or other governments, and Aboriginal parties. In some cases dispute resolution mechanisms are provided for in a companion agreement. The Government of Canada undertakes to ensure effective use of the dispute resolution mechanisms in agreements to resolve disputes. In addition, the Government of Canada will use such techniques as mediation, joint research, and joint information gathering and monitoring to resolve disputes, and, on a case-by-case basis, binding arbitration of disputes, including disputes of a financial nature. The Government of Canada does so with the understanding that these approaches to dispute resolution are preferable to both litigation and to the emergence of conflict as may occur when there is litigation.

In those cases where the use of binding arbitration requires the consent of both parties, the Government of Canada's consent will never be withheld as a matter of course, but only in rare and exceptional circumstances where it is demonstrably reasonable and justifiable to do so.

Public Policy and Implementing Modern Treaties

While Aboriginal signatories are entitled to the particular rights and benefits enshrined in their treaties, they remain entitled to all of the rights, privileges, programs and benefits available to other Aboriginal, and to non-Aboriginal, communities, citizens and residents in Canada generally.

There is great need in Aboriginal settlement areas to coordinate implementation of modern treaties with the many Canadian economic, social, cultural, language, environmental and other public policy objectives that have made Canada one of the most developed countries of the world. This is particularly the case in relation to such key areas as economic and business development, housing, education and training, community infrastructure and capacity building-essential processes that equip Aboriginal signatories to take full advantage of the developmental objectives of modern treaties.

Similarly, the Government of Canada will use the institutions and processes established through modern treaties to achieve other compatible policy objectives in treaty settlement areas, such as ensuring that resource development is environmentally and socially sustainable and equitable, and promotes public health and well-being.

The challenge before the Government of Canada is to implement modern treaties as a normal and accepted part of the way in which it carries out its business of national good governance. The Government of Canada will work with Aboriginal signatories to this end, to ascertain how best to co-ordinate implementation of modern treaties with other public policy processes.

Review and Evaluation

Most modern treaties put in place methods to periodically review and evaluate implementation with a view to improving the efficiency and effectiveness of decision-making. The Government of Canada will undertake or participate in evaluative processes that generate objective data that reveal whether, how, and how well modern treaties are being implemented, particularly concerning the social economic, cultural impacts of implementation on the lives and well-being of Aboriginal peoples. All parties to treaties need to know if implementation of modern treaties is moving Aboriginal signatories in the direction of achieving their long-term social, cultural, and economic objectives. The Government of Canada is committed to working with Aboriginal signatories to develop and refine indicators to measure progress to achieve the social, cultural, economic and other objectives of modern treaties, and to use evaluative results to improve implementation planning and decision-making.

Institutional Arrangements

In order to ensure a consistently beneficial approach toward implementation of modern treaties across the Government of Canada, and to ensure the objectivity of data upon which implementation decisions are based, the Government of Canada will, in active partnership with Aboriginal signatories, propose legislation to establish a Land Claims Agreements Implementation Commission. The Commission will evaluate and promote the implementation of modern treaties and advise the Government of Canada and Aboriginal signatories accordingly. The Commission of Modern Treaties will report periodically to the Parliament of Canada.

Aboriginal signatories to modern treaties and the Auditor General of Canada will be invited to work closely with the Government of Canada to design the Commission's mandate and the legislation to give it effect.

In addition, the Government of Canada will establish a Cabinet Committee on Aboriginal Affairs to oversee and co-ordinate the involvement of federal agencies in treaty implementation activities. A committee of senior civil servants will provide the Cabinet Committee with advice and recommendations and carry out its instructions. The job performance evaluation of members of the committee will take into consideration implementation of modern treaties.

Public Information and Education

Notwithstanding the constitutionally recognized and affirmed status and wide geographical application of modern treaties, and their extensive implications for third parties and fundamental role in improving the socio-economic well-being of Aboriginal signatories, few Canadians adequately understand or appreciate their national importance or the international interest they generate. That the Government of Canada has negotiated far reaching accommodations with Aboriginal peoples through modern treaties is of considerable interest and concern to countries in Asia, Africa, Latin America and elsewhere seeking to accommodate Aboriginal peoples or other minorities in those countries, and also to international organizations such as the United Nations, the Organization of American States and the Commonwealth.

The Government of Canada will work with Aboriginal signatories to develop, and distribute information to promote greater public and international understanding of the importance of modern treaties and their role in Canada. As well, federal Crown agencies including the Department of Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre will work with Aboriginal signatories to bring modern treaty experience to bear in the exercise of Canada's foreign and development assistance policies.

3.1.1 Land Administration Division

Pursuant to section 5.8 of the NLCA, the Land Administration provided Regional Inuit Associations (RIAs) with the right of first refusal before processing land applications for new sports or naturalist lodges in the Nunavut Settlement Area (NSA). As required under Article 7, Crown lands were made available to clients without an application fee for outpost camps approved by the local Hunters and Trappers Organizations (HTO) and screened by the Land Advisory Committee.

During 2008-2010, in accordance with Article 12, the Land Administration forwarded applications for 24 crown land dispositions, 55 land use permits, and 93 quarry permits to the NIRB for review and screening. Land Administration also participated in NIRB's hearing for the amendment to the Meadowbank Project Certificate.

Pursuant to sections 8.2.5 and 8.3.11 of the NLCA, Land Administration was active in two land exchanges. Agreements between the parties have been reached and Orders in Council's are being processed.

During 2008-2010, Land Administration continued to work jointly with the NWB in reviewing and approving the closure and reclamation plan for the Polaris Mine, the Nanisivik Mine, and the Cullaton Lake Mine.

Pursuant to Article 19 of the NLCA, Land Administration continued to review legal survey plans of selected parcels of Inuit Owned Land (IOL). All such surveys must be approved on behalf of the Minister. Land Administration received and signed off approximately 700 selected parcels of IOL between 2004 and 2010. A few outstanding plans have yet to be received and these still require review and approval.

Pursuant to sections 19.8.17 and 19.8.18, the Mining Recorder is responsible for resolving any disputes described according to the provisions of the Northwest Territories and Nunavut Mining Regulations in existence at the date of ratification of the Agreement. To date, no disputes have been registered with the Mining Recorder.

Under NLCA section 21.7.2, the Mining Recorder's Office pays quarterly lease rental payments to NTI on subsurface rights acquired prior to ratification of the NLCA and continues to administer these third party rights. In 2008-2010, there were approximately 60 such leases being administered by the Mining Recorder's Office.

Field Operations conducted a total of 243 inspections to ensure compliance of activities that have been authorized under Federal/Territorial Legislation. All authorizations have followed the processes established under the NLCA.

3.1.2 Environment Division

The Department continued to participate in the Nunavut Legislative Working Group in drafting the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment legislation which serves to implement certain provisions of Articles 10, 11, and 12 of the NLCA. The bill has been designated Bill C-25 and will be introduced to the House of Commons shortly.

Pursuant to Article 11 of the NLCA, the NPC is responsible for developing a land use plan to guide and direct resource development in the NSA. The NPC currently implements two approved plans that were developed in the 1990s: The North Baffin Land Use Plan and the Keewatin Regional Land Use Plan. These two plans will be replaced by a single Nunavut Land Use Plan that is currently being developed.

In collaboration with the GN and NTI, Canada is providing guidance to the NPC in regards to how the land use planning process should be undertaken to meet our respective interests. INAC has assumed the lead federal role for coordinating interdepartmental input to assist the NPC with its Working Draft Land Use Plan. Concerted efforts have been, and continue to be made by Canada towards ensuring the draft plan is consistent with operational, policy, and legal requirements, including those outlined in the Draft Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment legislation.

The Environment Division has coordinated input from other INAC divisions to produce several environmental review submissions and has also submitted follow-ups to previous reviews under the NLCA. The submissions were for five projects: (1) Baffinland's Mary River Iron Ore project, (2) Bathurst Inlet Port and Road project, (3) Agnico-Eagle's Meadowbank Gold project, (4) Hope Bay Minerals Ltd's Doris North project and (5) Jericho Diamond Mine project. This work entailed submissions to the NIRB on environmental assessment processes, scoping, guideline development, process coordination with the NWB and the NPC, annual monitoring reports, and requests for suspension of review. The Division also participated in a guidelines development workshop for the Baffinland project.

The Division also coordinated INAC's intervention and participation at public hearings for the first amendment to a Project Certificate under section 12.8.2 of the NLCA. This amendment took place to allow limited public use on the Meadowbank all-weather road linking the mine to the community of Baker Lake, while ensuring environmental and safety risks are monitored and mitigated.

3.1.3 Minerals Division

Under the NLCA, the Minerals Division is responsible for notifying the DIOs of the discovery of any deposits of carving stone on Crown lands (section 19.9.1). These discoveries can be reported to the division either verbally or through annual assessment reports submitted to INAC by exploration companies working on Crown land. No carving stone was discovered on Crown land during the reporting period.

3.1.4 Water Resources Division

A strong working relationship has been developed and maintained with the NWB. The Water Resources Division continued to provide support to the NWB by reviewing and providing interventions to water licensing and implementation processes for municipal, mineral exploration and mining activities. These activities included review of securities for the Polaris mine site and the water license amendment(s), Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plan and operational plans for the Meadowbank mine site. Interventions and Aquatic Effects Monitoring Plans reviews were also provided for the Lupin mine Type A water licence. As part of the interventions, INAC provides an estimate of the abandonment and reclamation costs for the project so the NWB can set the amount of water related financial security to be held by Canada.

The Water Resources Division provides comments and recommendations to the NWB. During 2008-2009, there were 88 technical reviews, 35 plans, 60 monitoring reports, 49 annual reports, 2 additional information items, 3 assignments, 3 closures/reclamations, and 3 abandonments upon which the division provided comments. In 2009-2010, the division provided comments on 265 submissions for Type B water licences and 19 Type A water licences. In addition, there were two hearings (Rankin Inlet and Lupin).

The Water Resources Division collects baseline and non-regulatory water quality sampling at four DEW line sites, at sites in and around the City of Iqaluit, and through a cooperative agreement with the KivIA, collects samples in the Kivalliq Region. INAC-NWT, with support from the Northern Regional Office (NRO) )) Division, has funded Environment Canada to monitor water quantity through Hydrometric Monitoring in Nunavut. As well, through a Shared Services Agreement with INAC-NWT, meteorological data is collected by INAC-NWT/NU at transboundary sites and in areas near existing and potential mineral development.

The Nunavut Water Board and INAC are in the process of developing water regulations under section 82 of the Nunavut Waters and Nunavut Surface Rights Tribunal Act. The GN and NTI also are members of the Nunavut Water Regulations Development Group.

3.1.5 Contaminated Sites

For the purpose of maximizing opportunities for Inuit and Northern firms in Nunavut, the Contaminated Sites Program undertook a number of project specific activities. These activities are summarized in Appendix 3. The following sites are reviewed:

• Bear Island: Project completion expected in 2010.
• CAM-B (Hat Island): Project on schedule.
• CAM-D (Simpson Lake): Work to commence in 2010.
• CAM-F (Scarpa Lake): Site remediation work completed.
• Cape Christian: Project is ongoing.
• FOX-C (Ekalugad Fiord): Site remediation activities completed.
• PIN-B (Clifton Point): Permit applications have been completed.
• PIN-D (Ross Point): Phase III Site Assessment has been completed.
• PIN-E (Cape Peel): Phase III Site Assessment has been completed.
• Robert's Bay Mine Site: Project completion expected in 2010.

3.1.6 Corporate Services Division

Inuit representation rates at INAC's NRO Division have fluctuated over the last two years. At the start of the 2008-2009 fiscal year, the Inuit employment rate stood at 25 percent but had risen to 28 percent by year-end. With the creation of the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency in 2009, the rate decreased as several positions were moved to the new agency. By March 31, 2010, the Inuit employment rate returned to 25 percent. An ongoing challenge with respect to Inuit representation is the limited pool of qualified Inuit who can fill the scientific, professional, and technical positions available within the NRO.

In an effort to increase the Inuit employment rate, the NRO has implemented various initiatives in the areas of recruitment, retention, and improving the cultural sensitivity of the workplace. These initiatives originate from the Inuit Employment Plans (IEP) (section 23.4.1-2 of the NLCA) and have been put into practice by the IEP Working Group and the Human Resources team. As a result, current NRO recruitment efforts ensure that all job postings support the provisions in Article 23 of the NLCA. For example, the Statement of Merit Criteria for job postings gives preference to qualified beneficiaries of the NLCA and seeks candidates who have knowledge of Inuit culture and society and/or can communicate in Inuktitut.

A renewal of the regional IEP Working Group was undertaken in 2009 in an effort to revitalize past work and to generate new approaches that improve Inuit employment. Membership consists of employees representing all directorates within the NRO. The Terms of Reference have been revised to ensure efforts are more focussed and effective. As one of its first priorities, the working group has taken on the renewal of the NRO Inuit Employment Plan, proposing new actions to ensure successful implementation.

The Inuit Summer Student Initiative is open to beneficiaries of the NLCA who are students in high school, college, or university and are returning to school at the end of their summer employment. The program is committed to hiring at least five Inuit students each year to give them the opportunity to learn more about the department and its mandate in the North in the hopes that they may consider full-time employment with INAC after completion of their post-secondary studies. Five Inuit students were hired in the summer of 2008-2009 and four in 2009-2010 to take on exciting and challenging summer work at NRO's main office in Iqaluit.

In the fall of 2008 the NRO launched a new ‘continuous job posting' open to beneficiaries of the NLCA. The job posting is open for an indefinite period to build an inventory of qualified Inuit to fill current and future vacancies in entry-level positions such as Administrative Assistants and Land Administration Clerks. There tends to be a higher turnover in these positions as candidates gain new skills sets which enable them to move into higher-level positions in the organization.

The NRO strongly supports the personal and professional development of staff and considers this to be a critical factor for the success of all employees. Through the Employee Performance Management and Learning Plan, employees are given the opportunity to discuss with management work performance and the setting of goals and objectives. This process requires employees to identify the required training needed to carry out the established goals and objectives. In addition, employees have the opportunity to discuss career aspirations with their supervisor in order to identify learning activities that can develop their skills for future jobs.

All NRO employees have been offered beginner, intermediate, or advanced Inuktitut language training. The program was initiated to allow staff to gain knowledge of a new language or to develop further their language skills. The training provides an opportunity for employees to learn more about Inuit culture and society and to incorporate this knowledge into their work environment. The NRO has also offered French language instruction to all employees in an effort to build capacity of Inuit to take on future jobs in the Federal Public Service.

3.1.7 Nunavut General Monitoring Plan

Throughout 2008-2009, the NGMP Working Group (comprised of NTI, NPC, INAC, and the GN) completed the NGMP Business Case, including a synopsis, implementation strategy, and five-year work plan. The NIP was briefed on the progress of NGMP during their January 2010 meeting. At the same time, the NRO had worked extensively with counterparts in HQ on exploring resourcing options for NGMP.

3.1.8 Northern Oil and Gas

Managing the development of oil and gas resources for Canada's federal lands in the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, and the northern offshore resources is the responsibility of the Northern Oil and Gas Branch of INAC is charged with this responsibility. The effort is to balance the northern and national interests in the context of Aboriginal land claims, to promote investment in the sustainable development of northern resources, and to provide related information and advice.

Annual calls that have been held in the Arctic Islands resulted in 19 significant discoveries including the Bent Horn field which produced high-quality light oil for many years on a seasonal basis has only recently been abandoned.

Each year, in advance of the annual call, the Department contacts NTI and requests information on the areas under consideration for the call, specifically, areas around the Parry and Melville Islands in the Svedrup Basin.

3.1.9 Devolution

While devolution is not an implementation requirement under the NLCA, section 2.10.2 does not restrict the authority of the Government of Canada to devolve or transfer powers or jurisdiction to the Territorial Government provided the rights of Inuit in the Agreement are not abrogated or derogated.

The devolution of province-like responsibilities to the territories has been a long-standing federal policy objective. Since the 1970s, Canada has seen devolution as a means to ensure greater local control and accountability by northerners for decisions central to the territories. The negotiation process involves territorial governments and Aboriginal groups. To date, education, health, and airports are among the responsibilities devolved to the territory of Nunavut.

The most recent discussions have focused on the devolution of the land and resource management responsibilities retained by the Crown. It is considered the final significant area of "province-like" responsibility to be devolved to the Government of Nunavut.

In September 2008, the Government of Nunavut, NTI, and Canada signed the Nunavut Lands and Resources Devolution Negotiation Protocol. The Protocol identifies topics for negotiation and sets out a phased approach in which they are to be addressed, with an initial phase encompassing lands, waters, and onshore minerals, and a second phase including oil and gas. It also asserts the role of NTI as a full party to negotiations, and speaks to the need for devolution-related human resource capacity challenges to be addressed, and to matters of process.

Following his appointment as Chief Federal Representative in February 2009, Mr. Bruce Rawson, engaged the other Parties in exploratory discussions about devolution-related issues including human resource capacity development challenges.

In July 2009, Canada released the Northern Strategy which included the priority of improving and devolving northern governance. As a core element, this encompasses devolution of land and resource management. Further, the March 2010 Speech from the Throne stated that Canada would, "continue to give Northerners a greater say over their own future and take further steps towards territorial devolution." This statement reiterates the Northern Strategy commitment to improve and devolve governance in the North.

3.4.1 Arts and Heritage

Canadian Heritage previously funded the IHT to elaborate a strategic plan for Nunavut's heritage sector along with a comprehensive training strategy for heritage workers. The resulting program was piloted by IHT in Ottawa in September 2008 and in Pond Inlet in March 2010, with participants from 11 Nunavut communities. The ongoing delivery of the program will result in improved skills among heritage personnel for the care and interpretation of collections, and improved preservation of Nunavut's heritage.

Canadian Heritage supported a number of special projects that contributed to heritage preservation and education. The Museums Assistance Program provided funding to Kitikmeot Heritage Society in Cambridge Bay for projects involving cataloguing materials, replicating artefacts, and developing an exhibition with complementary interpretive materials such as audio stations featuring interviews with Elders. Under the Partnerships Fund of Canadian Culture Online, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association received funding to develop the educational website entitled The Forgotten Story of the Inuit Whalers, which explores the history of Inuit people involved in the whaling industry in the Eastern Arctic.

Through the Canada Arts Training Fund (formerly the National Arts Training Contribution Program), Canadian Heritage funded Rankin Inlet's Kangirqliniq Centre for Arts and Learning in 2008 and 2009 for artist training. The Centre offers a unique 16-week workshop that combines artistic development with instruction in reading and arithmetic that is geared toward assisting the artists with the business of pursuing a career. The primary focus is on ceramics but other media such as printmaking and jewellery are included. Work produced by the workshop participants is widely recognized for its quality and innovation, and graduates are receiving exposure on a national and international scale.

The Canada Arts Presentation Fund (formerly Arts Presentation Canada) continued to provide programming assistance to the Alianait Festival in 2008 and 2009, including supplementary funds in recognition of the event's community engagement activities. In 2008-2009, the Canada Cultural Spaces Fund (formerly Cultural Spaces Canada) provided funding to the organizers to purchase a large outdoor performance tent, a modular stage, and specialized sound and lighting equipment, in order to increase the festival's audience size and technical capabilities. Alianait has evolved into a major arts festival and has contributed significantly to professional arts presentation in Nunavut.

3.4.2 Languages

The GN was assured continued funding in 2008-2009 through the Canada-Nunavut General Agreement on the Promotion of French and Inuit Languages. A portion of funding was used to support a forum by the Association des francophones du Nunavut. The forum on French languages services was organized in order to consult and inform Franco-Nunavummiut about their rights and obligations with respect to the newly adopted Official Languages Act. The agreement also supported a range of community-based initiatives designed to promote the use and development of the Inuit language. A new one-year agreement for the promotion of French and Inuit languages was signed for 2009-2010 with the GN.

The Department's Aboriginal Languages Initiatives (ALI) continued to support the preservation and revitalization of Aboriginal languages by facilitating their use in community and family settings. During the reporting period, QIA and KivIA served as regional agents for the delivery of the ALI in Nunavut. They supported a range of activities including the digitization of interviews concerning traditional knowledge, the production of magazines for young people, and Inuktitut summer camps. In 2010, several Inuit organizations in Nunavut were contacted to provide their views regarding the renewal of ALI. As per Article 32.2.1 of the NLCA, Canadian Heritage will provide Inuit organizations with the opportunity to participate in the design of cultural programs and will take these views, along with those of other program recipients, into account when moving forward with program renewal for ALI.

3.4.3 Youth

Through the Cultural Connections for Aboriginal Youth (formerly Urban Multipurpose Aboriginal Youth Centres) program, Canadian Heritage provided funding to QIA and KivIA for various youth-oriented programs. In the reporting period, the regional associations received funding for a range of activities, including camp programs, a video workshop, and a traditional clothing-making workshop, among others. Canadian Heritage held a national workshop on April 2009 to identify program best practices, issues, and challenges and to help establish national priorities for the program in the future. In meeting the spirit and intent of section 32.2.1 of the NLCA, several participants involved in youth activities in Nunavut were invited to attend and to present their views.

3.4.4 Canadian Heritage Portfolio

The Canadian Heritage portfolio has five agencies and nine crown corporations. During the reporting period, there was a Nunavut-focused initiative by the Canada Council for the Arts. In 2008, the Council determined that a targeted strategy for the North was warranted. For the medium term, the Council decided to focus on Nunavut while participating as a secondary partner in initiatives unfolding in the other territories and in the northern provincial regions.

Since 2008, Canada Council for the Arts officers and managers have visited Nunavut on a number of occasions to deliver information sessions, attend conferences, and pursue discussions with other government funders and potential partners. In May 2009, the Council held a two-day consultation in Ottawa with nine Inuit artists and arts administrators which included participants from Nunavut. In January 2010, the Council participated in the Northern Lights Trade Show in Montreal, supporting travel to the event by artists from Nunavut, hosting a networking event for artists, and organizing a tri-level meeting of arts funders. The Council's Research Office produced an Inuit art fact sheet and completed a review of existing labour force data in Nunavut ^{Footnote 23}. These activities have contributed to a discussion paper and a proposal for a strategy that will focus the level of service available to the arts community in Nunavut. The Council is working in collaboration with other funders and arts organizations to finalize the strategy and to determine the best approach for implementation.

In June 2009, the Canadian Museum for Human Rights held roundtable and bilateral meetings in Iqaluit as part of a content- and story-gathering tour across Canada. The Museum will explore the subject of human rights and encourage reflection and dialogue in order to promote understanding of human rights and respect for others. The Iqaluit event provided Nunavummiut with the opportunity to contribute their experiences and perspectives to the development of exhibitions and programs for the new museum. The Museum's representatives also conducted media interviews that aired across Nunavut, in order to raise awareness of the Museum across the territory and to invite Nunavummiut to contribute to the development of this new national institution. Located in Winnipeg, Manitoba, the construction of the Canadian Museum for Human Rights will be completed in 2012.

3.5.1 Background

The Nunavut Field Unit of the Parks Canada Agency manages four National Parks in Nunavut: Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, Sirmilik, and Ukkusiksalik ^{Footnote 24}.

3.5.2 Joint Park Management Committees

JPMCs composed of three members appointed by QIA and three members appointed by Canada have been established for each of the Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, and Sirmilik National Parks. Members are appointed for three years and each JPMC meets at least twice a year. Teleconferences may also take place. The JPMCs oversee the development of park management plans, yearly work plans, budgets, research, and monitoring projects.

3.5.3 Ukkusiksalik Park Management Committee

Members to the Ukkusiksalik Park Management Committee are appointed by Canada and KivIA who each appoint three members equally. Terms are for 4 years. Committee members meet at least twice a year and also can meet by teleconference.

3.5.4 Inuit Knowledge Project

The 5-year Inuit Knowledge Project aims to build a sustainable framework for incorporating Inuit knowledge into Nunavut national park management and operations - a commitment in the single Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik National Parks as well as the Inuit Impact Benefit Agreement for Ukkusiksalik National Park in Nunavut. The project's broad objectives are to:

• Enhance the understanding of Inuit knowledge with respect to the national parks.
• Increase the capacity of Parks Canada and communities to engage in collaborative research and management decision-making.
• Gain greater understanding of Inuit knowledge, skills, expertise, and perspectives that can be used by staff of the Auyuittuq, Sirmilik, and Ukkusiksalik National Parks.
• Improve and strengthen Parks Canada's ecological integrity research and management programs.
• Strengthen local Inuit involvement in park management.

As part of the Inuit Knowledge Project, a variety of materials has been produced including audio and video tapes, transcripts, and maps. To facilitate communication and the sharing of information between project partners, a website has been launched (www.lecol-ck.ca) with detailed information on the project ^{Footnote 25}. Following the end of the project March 2011 the next step will be to incorporate the project's lessons into ongoing park management.

3.5.5 Research and Monitoring

In 2008, under Section 6 of the IIBA for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, and Sirmilik National Parks, 25 research applications were reviewed in consultation with the JPMCs and 22 permits were approved to continue. In 2009, 21 applications were reviewed and 17 projects were active in the Nunavut National Parks. The majority of permits are related to natural science and some archaeological/cultural resources project. Fifteen projects involved beneficiaries as research assistants, bear monitors, camp labourers, or as advisors.

Annual monitoring projects for water quality continue in thee parks and for water flow in two parks. In 2009, tundra-monitoring activities were expanded to include three parks. Two new community-based programs in Qikiqtarjuaq were implemented in 2009: the Nunavut Coastal Resources Inventory in partnership with the Government of Nunavut, and Sea Ice Monitoring. A third community-based program, the Sea Ice Calendar, was developed for Pond Inlet and Qikiqtarjuaq.

3.5.6 Cultural Resource Management

Update on the Implementation of NLCA Article 33: Archaeology; and implementation of Article 4 of the IIBA for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, and Sirmilik National Parks: Protection and Management of Archaeological Sites and Sites of Religious or Cultural Significance.

The following activities were undertaken with respect to Article 12 (Development Impact) and Article 33 (Archaeology) of the NLCA and Article 4 (Protection and Management of Archaeological Sites and Sites of Religious or Cultural Significance) of the IIBA for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq, and Sirmilik National Parks.

Development Impact (NLCA Article 12): In 2008, NIRB granted Parks Canada a three year exemption under Schedule 12-1(7) of the NLCA for Research and Collection Permits only. In accordance with the agreement, Parks Canada has provided NIRB with copies of all issued research permits and with field reports to allow the Board to track the Parks Canada's application of the exemption. Other non-research related permits such as cruise ship permits and National Defence special activities permits have been sent to NIRB for screening. Where there is uncertainty over whether a screening is required, NIRB is consulted.

Place Names (NLCA section 33: Part 9): In 2006, the IHT submitted a proposal to officially change and name 43 geographical locations in Sirmilik National Park - 38 are new names and 5 would replace existing official geographical names. The Nunavut Field Unit and the JPMC are working together to initiate the approval process for the IHT proposal.

Reconstruction of Archaeological Sites (IIBA for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik National Parks, Article 4.1.5 (b)): The Nunavut Field Unit and the University of Calgary have entered a partnership to construct a 3D computer model of Fort Conger in virtual reality using three-dimensional laser scanning. This will provide the foundation for a successful cultural resource-monitoring program at Fort Conger. The project is for two years beginning in 2010-2011.

Areas of Special Importance to Inuit (IIBA for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik National Parks, Article 8: Schedule 8-1 (2)): The IIBA identified areas of special importance to Inuit within Sirmilik National Park and calls for the management plan to develop restrictions on visitor access to be developed. The Nunavut Field Unit and the University of Quebec are in the process of developing a partnership to research a sickness that took the lives of 24 people in the fall of 1943 at Qamaarjuit, Nalluat, Qirngniqtut, and Titiralik. These are located in Navy Board Inlet. This project will take place in 2010-2011 and will involve archival research relating to the events (RCMP, National Archives, and Anglican Church Archives) and a compilation of existing oral histories.

IIBA Negotiations (NLCA 8.4.2-8.4.10 and 9.4.1): In 2009-2010, Parks Canada initiated negotiations with the QIA for a national park on Bathurst Island (section 8.2.1). Discussions on an IIBA for national historic sites (Article 9.4.1) took place in 2007-2009, but they were placed on hold. NTI and Parks Canada have discussed scheduling the recommencement of negotiations on this IIBA for the fall 2010. Discussions to nominating Quttinirpaaq National Park as a World Heritage Site were initiated in 2006. However, these discussions were put on hold because Parks Canada has not been able to secure additional funding to support the nomination process and the negotiation and implementation of related IIBA obligations. No further progress on the World Heritage site nomination has been made since 2006.

National Marine Conservation Areas (NLCA Articles 8 and 9): In December 2009, the Government of Canada, the GN, and QIA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to a study to examine the desirability and feasibility of establishing a national marine conservation area within the Lancaster Sound Marine Region.

Nunavut Land Use Planning (NLCA Article 11): Parks Canada provided input on the Nunavut Land Use Planning process to the NPC in 2009 and 2010.

Management Planning (NLCA section 8.4.13): Parks Canada has been working closely with Joint Inuit-Government Park Planning Teams and the JPMCs for Quttinirpaaq, Auyuittuq, and Sirmilik National Parks in the development of their management plans. All planning meetings are conducted in Inuktitut and English, and all materials for the meetings are produced in both languages. In October 2009, the Minister of the Environment tabled the Quttinirpaaq National Park of Canada Management Plan in Parliament, the first for a national park in Nunavut since the NLCA was signed. The approval process for the final draft of the management plan began at the end of the 2009-2010 fiscal year. The first step of the management planning process for Sirmilik National Park began in 2007. This process is ongoing.

3.5.7 Visitor Experience and Inuit Access

Between April 2008 and the end of March 2010, visitors to the National Parks in Nunavut paid user fees with the exception of Ukkusiksalik where the park has not yet been gazetted. Inuit have free and unrestricted access to the parks. As part of pre-trip information and the mandatory orientation, visitors are informed that Inuit have unrestricted access to national parks in Nunavut and have the right to harvest resources. Visitors are told they may encounter Inuit carrying out their rights. Cultural information is provided to park visitors about local communities and their use of the park area. Visitors are encouraged to use local tour operators and guides, and to see the cultural component of their trip as an added benefit.

3.5.8 Inuit Tour Operators and Contractors

Between April 2008 and March 2010, Inuit Tour Operators and Guides constituted a significant part of business and guide licensees. Inuit businesses provide transportation to and from Nunavut parks. They have assisted film crews, expeditions, and climbing groups during their projects, and have assisted ski and hiking groups to access the parks. Inuit owned businesses have provided contract work for the design and printing of several publications, assisted with design, fabrication, and/or the installation of exhibits, provided Elder advice and cultural elements for training, fabricated elements of educational materials, and provided goods and services linked to community events and gatherings.

3.5.9 Advertising and Promotion of National Parks

During 2008-2010, Parks Canada placed advertisements in Above and Beyond magazine and Up Here magazine, developed two insert products for the magazines to highlight the parks in Nunavut, and attended several tradeshows in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, and Iqaluit to promote Nunavut's national parks. Promotional materials also were provided to Nunavut Tourism to be used at international tradeshows and media shows. Park information sheets to augment vacation planners were developed as well as a regional park planning product for use in visitor centres and at the national call centre.

3.5.10 Publications, Films, Videos, and Exhibits

All Parks Canada publications are developed with advice and assistance from the park's JPMCs and is produced in Inuktitut, English, and French. Between April 2008 and March 2010, Parks Canada developed and printed park posters, designed and/or reprinted maps/brochures for the Sirmilik and Quttinirpaaq National Parks. Additionally, a curriculum element for Nunavut schools (grade 7-9) was developed called The Environmental Stewardship Certificate Program, which includes a teachers' guide, audiovisual materials, and hands on materials. Several film and video projects were developed and some have been broadcast already. The Quttinirpaaq National Park exhibit was installed in the Resolute Bay Airport with local Inuit involved in the development, installation, and on-going maintenance of the exhibit.

The Sirmilik exhibit was installed in Arctic Bay at the Heritage Centre and utilized local people to fabricate most of the tools and clothing developed for the exhibit. The exhibit was developed in conjunction with the community and the Sirmilik JPMC.

3.5.11 Outreach and Education

During the reporting period, the Environmental Stewardship Certificate Program was developed and was presented in a workshop at the February 2010 Teachers Conference. The Know Your Park initiative was developed and presented in Iqaluit and in many of the Nunavut communities associated with parks. As well, Avalanche Awareness programs took place in several communities. A cruise ship readiness and interpretive training pilot program was developed and delivered to local people interested in working with the cruise industry. Another pilot program involved Parks Canada staff delivering interpretive programs to cruise visitors while on board a ship. Interpretive and information programs for visitors in the communities were undertaken and Elder Hostel programs were delivered.

3.5.12 Inuit Employment

Parks Canada's hiring process for Nunavut gives first priority to Inuit NLCA beneficiaries. As of January 31, 2010, Inuit employment was 57 percent. A member from the JPMCs or the Ukkusiksalik Park Management Committee participates in the screening and interview process. When JPMC members are not available, the QIA or KivIA participate in the screening and interview process.

3.6.1 Marine Mammals

The focus of the marine mammal research was to estimate the abundance and population dynamics of key species. During the period 2008 - 2010, surveys to estimate abundance were conducted for the following:

• Northern Hudson Bay and Admiralty Inlet narwhal.
• Cumberland Sound beluga.
• High Arctic, Foxe Basin and South East Baffin walrus.
• Western Hudson Bay seals.

Tracking and dive recording studies are conducted to assist in the interpretation of survey data. These studies were completed for beluga, bowhead, and narwhal.

An integral component of marine mammal management is to understand the stock structure of species to ensure that harvest does not cause local or population wide decreases in abundance. The Department used a combination of genetic and tracking studies to define marine mammal stock structure during the reporting period. These studies focused on walrus, narwhal, beluga, and bowhead whale populations.

Determining the disease and contaminant (e.g. mercury concentrations) burdens in marine mammals is an important element in evaluating the population health of marine mammals and are important indicators of environmental change. In conjunction with CBM marine mammals sampling programs in various Nunavut communities, a surveillance program to detect "emerging infectious diseases" of concern has been ongoing since the mid 1990s. To estimate the impact on population productivity, the Department uses its CBM collaboration with communities to determine trends in contaminant burdens among marine mammals. In addition, the Department communicates the results of these investigations to both Canadian Food Inspection Agency and Health Canada in respect of their mandates to ensure a sustainable marine mammal resource for future generations and to protect the health of Canadians.

Climate change has the potential to affect significantly the abundance and distribution of marine mammals, largely due to shifts in ice and local productivity. In collaboration with communities, the Department has monitored the increased distribution and seasonal duration of killer whales in the Arctic. The Department is using this information to estimate the impact of killer whale predation on the abundance, distribution, and sustainability of marine mammals traditionally consumed by the residence of Nunavut.

3.6.2 Fish and Invertebrates

DFO is committed to ensuring the sustainability of fish stocks through the development of management plans with co-management partners. In support of these initiatives, DFO Science is conducting ongoing surveys to determine the abundance of fish and invertebrate species. Work is underway on stock assessments for Greenland halibut and northern shrimp. In addition, the department has conducted Arctic char stock assessments throughout Nunavut to advise on sustainable harvest of stocks from Cambridge Bay, Kivalliq, and Cumberland Sound.

The Greenland halibut commercial fishery in Davis Strait and Baffin Bay is the largest commercial fishery in Nunavut. The Department uses the multi-species survey to provide advice to managers on sustainable TAH for the fishery. The Department recommended and implemented a 500 tonne increase in the TAH for the fishery in 2010. In addition, the Department has advised managers on the impact of fishing gear on marine mammals and sharks.

The northern shrimp fishery has developed into an important industry for the residents of Nunavut. The Department conducted multi-species trawl surveys in shrimp fishing areas 0, 1, and 3 to estimate the abundance of northern and striped shrimp. Surveys provide the data for advice on sustainable TAH in the fishery. In addition, the surveys provide information on the distribution and abundance of other species including coral, sponges, and other benthic organisms. This information can be used for the identification of vulnerable marine ecosystems and ecologically and biologically significant areas in marine environments of the NSA.

DFO is developing an emerging fisheries science program centred in the Cumberland Sound area to support the expected increase in harvest of Arctic char, Greenland halibut, and other species arising from the harbour development in Pangnirtung. New surveys for marine fish and Arctic char are being conducted.

Development of a harbour in Pangnirtung is a significant priority for DFO. During the last two years, the federal government has designed and has begun constructing the small vessel basin, marshalling area, temporary bridge access, breakwater, and the floating wharves. This phase of the project will be completed during the summer of 2011. On behalf of DFO, PWGSC is currently tendering and will manage the implementation of phase 2 of the harbour project which consists of a large vessel basin, channel, and a fixed wharf. This work is to be completed prior to the open water season of 2013.

The Canadian Hydrographic Service (CHS) continues to conduct hydrographic surveys and publish updated products in support of safe and efficient navigation in Nunavut. During this reporting period, the CHS completed survey projects in 24 locations in Nunavut, and published 29 updated charts for the region. CHS also continued its supply of Tidal Predictions and the provision of Sailing Directions booklets for Nunavut.

DFO has worked with NTI, the QIA, the GN, and the communities of Igloolik and Hall Beach to identify cooperatively an Area of Interest for a Marine Protected Area in Foxe Basin. DFO staff have met with expert knowledge holders and other community members in 23 Nunavut communities to discuss Canada's plans for developing a Marine Protected Area Network.

Since 2008, the DFO Species at Risk Program has advised the NWMB on numerous species that could be listed under SARA. Several of these species have not moved forward on this list as DFO waits the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the Nunavik Marine Region Wildlife Board similar to the one signed with NWMB in May 2008 ^{Footnote 26}. The species which we have informed the NWMB have included:

• Atlantic Cod (Arctic lakes population).
• Acadian Redfish.
• Deepwater Redfish.
• Roundnose Grenadier.
• Killer Whale (Northwest Atlantic/Eastern Arctic population).
• Bowhead Whale - (Eastern Canada-Western Greenland population).

Listing recommendations under SARA for two beluga whale populations (Cumberland Sound and Eastern High Arctic - Baffin Bay) have been moving through the MOU with the NWMB. DFO has met with the Pangnirtung HTO on several occasions in order to complete a Recovery Strategy for Cumberland Sound beluga whale. Additionally, DFO has consulted with HTOs in Nunavut on the proposed listing of the Atlantic Cod Arctic lakes population and on the possible listing of Roughhead Grenadier in the spring of 2008.

Since 2008, the SARA program has provided funding to support research of the following activities:

Beluga whale:

• Defining seasonal and dietary trends.
• Population status and ecology.
• Critical Habitat identification in Cumberland Sound.

Bowhead whale:

• Foraging ecology and habitat requirements.
• Critical habitat identification and population estimates.
• Population dynamics.

Killer Whale:

• Diet and seasonal movements.

Narwhal:

• Dietary studies.
• Population genetics.

Atlantic Walrus:

• Distribution and abundance.

Funding has been provided for the development of Integrated Fisheries Management Plans for the following activities:

• Atlantic Walrus - Foxe Basin and Baffin Bay stocks.
• Beluga - Cumberland Sound population

DFO has continued its commitment to representative Inuit employment within the DFO Eastern Arctic Area office. Currently 23 percent of DFO Eastern Arctic employees are beneficiaries. DFO worked cooperatively with other federal departments through the Nunavut Federal Council on the proposed 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. Furthermore, DFO has initiated an informal agreement with the Arctic College Environmental Technology Program whereby DFO commits to hire their students in the summer to assist in DFO research and field works. Between 2008 and 2010, DFO was able to recruit four students to work at the Sylvia Grinnell River Char Research and monitoring project.

3.7.1 Background

Service Canada has offices in Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet, and Cambridge Bay. Offices in Rankin Inlet and Cambridge Bay are entirely staffed by NLCA beneficiaries who provide services in Inuktitut and Inuinnaqtun. Service Canada also provides services to 14 communities across Nunavut on a quarterly basis through outreach visits.

Service Canada has updated the information contained in the departmental annex to the Federal Inuit Employment Plan to reflect changes over the past five years. The information contained in the plan is up-to-date; the department anticipates some growth over the coming years. Data collected in 2002 set the baseline of Inuit employment at 52 percent. In 2010, the departments' Inuit employment rate was at 66 percent.

3.7.2 Recruitment

A process is underway to staff a leadership position in Cambridge Bay and a Citizen Services Officer position in Iqaluit. It is anticipated that one, if not both positions, will be staffed by NLCA beneficiaries. The recruitment processes will be carried out using practices described in the approved annex which reviews pre-employment, recruitment, and retention practices. Flexibilities under the Public Service Employment Act will also be utilized.

Service Canada has created a unique General Equivalency Diploma program to recruit Grade 9 and up students who are no longer in school but have the potential to complete their Grade 12 equivalency exam. The program involves working with Nunavut High Schools to identify candidates and with Human Resources and Skills Development Canada to give participants the opportunity for term employment with periods to attend high school. The intent is to encourage students to complete their General Equivalency Diploma, to improve their employment opportunities in Nunavut, and to provide the opportunity for post-secondary education. To date, one student has successfully completed this program and in 2009-2012, Service Canada expects to hire two more term employees under this program.

Service Canada participates in the Federal Public Sector Youth Program. The program allows young beneficiaries to develop meaningful employability skills through short-term internship positions. The internship provides a structured learning experience with a mentor. This ensures temporary interns get the most out of the assignment and are ready to enter the labour market. This program targets youth between 15 and 30. Service Canada will offer three to five internships over the next three years. To date, a beneficiary has successfully completed this program and has found indeterminate employment with the Government of Nunavut.

Service Canada also will recruit students through the Federal Student Work Experience Program. The program allows federal departments to recruit youth for summer employment. Service Canada will ensure that students are aware of the necessary registration for the program. Service Canada will endeavour to provide one student with a Federal Student Work Experience Program opportunity each year.

Service Canada is working with the Nunavut Federal Council and the Public Service Commission to establish a program of career fairs, school visits and other processes designed to capture the interest of young people in the territory and to help them make wise career decisions. To date, Service Canada has participated in 15 school fairs in various communities across Nunavut. The reaction from students has been positive with Service Canada representatives being asked many questions about the requirements needed for a career in the public sector.

Service Canada has established hiring practices to better accommodate northern realities. Every effort is being made to ensure that position advertisements appear in appropriate languages in all Nunavut communities. When necessary, boards can include community members fluent in Inuktitut, so candidates may respond in the language of their choice.

3.7.3 Retention

For employees, alternate work arrangements and volunteer work within their communities is encouraged and time away from work to accommodate these activities is provided. Volunteer work is seen as a learning opportunity and a way to strengthen community ties.

Staff member are encouraged to develop long-term career plans by completing a learning plan each year. Staff also receive feedback though a performance reviews. To date, all staff members have established learning plans in place. Complemented with performance reviews, staff are better able to move to positions that are more senior.

3.7.4 Purchasing Goods and Services

Since 2009, Service Canada purchases most of it supplies and travel requirements from local service providers. Supplies that are not available in Nunavut are purchased in the South.

4.3.1 Environmental Screenings

The NIRB conducts environmental screenings of project proposals in accordance with section 12.4.1 of the NLCA. The NIRB may decide: (1) that a proposal may proceed without review, (2) that the proposal requires review with particular issues or concerns identified, (3) that the proposal is not sufficiently developed to permit proper screening, or (4) that the proposal poses potentially unacceptable adverse impacts and should be modified or abandoned.

During 2008-2009, a total of 141 project proposals were submitted to the NIRB for assessment; 72 of these proposals were for new projects or significant modifications to existing projects and 69 proposals involved changes to previously screened projects for minor amendments, extensions, and renewals. During 2009-2010, another 186 proposals were submitted; 92 were for new projects or for proposals that required significant modifications and 94 involved changes to previously screened projects for minor amendments, extensions, and renewals.

4.3.2 Project Reviews

Following a screening of a project proposal, the NIRB may recommend that a project be subject to a review in accordance with section 12.4.2(a) of the NLCA. During the reporting period, the NIRB undertook the following project reviews:

• ARVE Resources Canada Inc's Kiggavik Project;
• Baffinland Iron Mines Corp's Mary River Project;
• Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Joint Venture Ltd's BIPR Project;
• MMG Mineral Resources' High Lake Project;
• OZ Minerals Ltd's High Lake Project;
• Sabina Silver Corp's Hackett River Project; and
• Uravan Minerals Inc's Garry Lake Project.

4.3.3 Monitoring Process

One of the primary functions of the NIRB is to monitor projects in accordance with the provisions of section 12.7 of the NLCA. The monitoring program serves to: (1) measure the relevant effects of projects on the ecosystem and socio-economic environments of the NSA, (2) evaluate a project's land and resource use within its predetermined terms and conditions, (3) provide the information base necessary for agencies to enforce terms and conditions of land or resource use approvals, and (4) assess the accuracy of the predictions contained in the project impact statements. During the reporting period, the NIRB continued monitoring the Jericho Diamond Mine, the Doris North Gold Mine, and the Meadowbank Gold Mine projects.

4.3.4 Other NIRB Highlights

The NIRB has an obligation to create opportunities for the active and informed participation of the public at every possible stage of the review process. Accordingly, the NIRB has worked towards better public consultations and a more efficient hearing process. During 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, the Board's public participation programs included:

• Garry Glen Project: Public scoping and guideline development workshop in Baker Lake;
• Mary River Project: Public scoping meetings and open houses in Pond Inlet, Arctic Bay, Resolute, Grise Fiord, Igloolik, Hall Beach, Coral Harbour, Cape Dorset, Kimmirut, Clyde River and Iqaluit;
• Meadowbank Gold Mine Project: Information and public hearing sessions in Baker Lake;
• Hackett River Project: public scoping meetings and open houses in Kugluktuk, Cambridge Bay, Umingmaktok, Gjoa Haven, Taloyoak, and Kugaaruk.

During the reporting period, the NIRB completed several initiatives and projects designed to provide guidance as well as improved operational efficiencies to regulatory stakeholders and the NIRB staff. A Five-Year Strategic Plan and Funding Requirements was completed in 2008 and is now being implemented. The focus is on such key areas as governance, legislation, policy development, and human resources. In order to ensure its continued success, the NIRB also updated its internal operational and board governance policies, and hired several new staff members to assist with fulfilling the NIRB's mandate ^{Footnote 29}.

The NIRB continues to coordinate and cooperate with our affiliate Boards, authorizing agencies, industry, and the general public to improve certainty and efficiency in the regulatory process. These activities include the following:

Nunavut Marine Council: Pursuant to section 15.4.1 of the NLCA, the NIRB, the NWB, the NPC, and the NWMB may individually advise and make recommendations to other government agencies about marine areas or proceed together as the Nunavut Marine Council. Following discussions first initiated in 2008, the NIRB continued in 2009-2010 to promote the potential usefulness of collaboration amongst the IPGs that would participate in the Council. Once formed, the Council would be well poised to offer advice and recommendations to government on issues common to each IPGs mandate that affect the marine environment of the NSA.

Nunavut Water Board: Pursuant to section 13.6.1 of the NLCA, the NIRB continues to work with the NWB to promote coordination of the impact assessment/water licensing processes during the screening phase of the regulatory system. Together they developed and distributed the Framework to Guide a Coordinated NIRB/NWB Process to a Nunavut-wide distribution list for comment. This collaborative review process was envisioned in section 13.5.2 of the NLCA. The two Boards are considering how the proposed Coordinated Process Framework may apply to such reviews currently in progress as the Hackett River project and the Mary River project.

Legislative Working Group: The NIRB remains committed to working closely with the Federal and Territorial governments and NTI to finalization of Bill C-25, the Nunavut Planning and Project Assessment Act. The legislation will further define both the regulatory framework for the NPC's land use planning process and the NIRB's development impact assessment process, as established by the NLCA. The bill will be introduced to the House of Commons shortly.

The NIRB board members and staff were provided with training in the areas of IQ, uranium mining, financial securities and performance bonding, and board governance practices. The staff were provided with ongoing-training in Inuktitut by the NIRB's interpreter/translator, and also maintained several professional designations and memberships related to environmental assessment.

In the coming year, the NIRB will pursue a fully functional website, undertake revisions to NIRB's series of public guides, and conduct further work with the Nunavut Marine Council.