Qikiqtani Inuit Association

  • 28m 50s

    03185IQ-QAG-96-__-INUK

    uploaded by: IBC admin

    channel: IBC

     Program: Qaggiq (“Gathering Place”) – is a current affairs program (refers to a large igloo built for the gathering of several families).

    Producer: Iqaluit Inuit Broadcasting, Nunavut
    Interviewer: Leevete Atagoyuk
    Host: Judy Lee

    Read more

    uploaded date: 04-01-2019

  • 28m 50s

    03177IQ-QAG-94-__-INUK

    uploaded by: IBC admin

    channel: IBC

     Program: Qaggiq (“Gathering Place”) – is a current affairs program (refers to a large igloo built for the gathering of several families).

    Producer: Iqaluit Inuit Broadcasting, Nunavut
    Host: Mary Shiutiapik

    Read more

    uploaded date: 04-01-2019

  • 28m 50s

    03161IQ-QAG-94-__-INUK

    uploaded by: IBC admin

    channel: IBC

    Program: Qaggiq (“Gathering Place”) – is a current affairs program (refers to a large igloo built for the gathering of several families).

    Producer: Iqaluit Inuit Broadcasting, Nunavut
    Host: Mary Shuitiapik

    Read more

    uploaded date: 04-01-2019

  • QIA releases public version of Mary River IIBA

    uploaded by: Cara Di Staulo

    channel: DID News

    Royalty rate still not disclosed, few agreement details not included in plain language version

    The Qikiqtani Inuit Association released the public version of the Mary River Project Inuit Impacts Benefit Agreement Dec. 6 — an agreement that sets out the working relationship between Nunavut Inuit and the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation.

    “It is QIA’s wish to share theIIBA openly,” said QIA president Okalik Eegeesiak in a Dec. 6 release. “We believe this will provide an opportunity to strengthen our implementation efforts.”

    The agreement would likely direct millions of dollars into QIA’s coffers after the mine moves into commercial production. The deal also came with a signing bonus.

    But most of the financial arrangements contained in the IIBA remain confidential, including royalty rates and land lease payments, although QIA said “amounts received as a result of the project will be reported at each annual general meeting.”

    The full impact and benefits agreement provides few details that aren’t already included in the plain language guide that was first released this past September, when QIA officially signed the deal with Baffinland.

    The agreement lays out how royalities will be paid to QIA: quarterly, beginning with the first quarter after commercial production begins at the mine.

    The royalty payment is defined as “the net sales revenue for a period multiplied by the royalty percentage.”

    However, the royalty rate is no disclosed.

    Those payments can be re-negotiated after 30 years, or once 1 billion tonnes of iron ore have been mined.

    As part of the IIBA, an implementation budget will be created along with several funds, which include:

    • business capacity and start-up fund — $250,000 per year paid by BIMC until commercial production begins;

    • Ilagiiktunut Nunalinnullu Pivalliajutisait Kiinaujat Fund (a fund to offset negative social or cultural impacts created by the project and to help distribute benefits) — $750,000 per year paid by BIMC and QIA equally for the first six years;

    • education and training fund — $1 million for the first two years the IIBA is in effect, paid by BIMC;

    • scholarship fund — $25,000 each year paid by BIMC;

    • workplace orientation programs; and,

    • money to pay the costs associated with implementation of any rights, obligation or requirements of the IIBA.

    An executive committee will be established to oversee implementation of the IIBA, made up three senior representatives from the QIA and another three from Baffinland.

    That committee will meet four times a year, and will be tasked with coming up with the minimum Inuit employment goal at the mine; reviewing a list of training and education opportunities for Nunavummiut and looking at contract award issues.

    Both the executive committee and a separate management committee respond to the need for any dispute resolution.

    They’ll also hire two IIBA coordinators, along with Inuit monitors, an elder in residence, a QIA employment and training coordinator and environment monitors.

    Baffinland is in the process of building an iron mine at Mary River in northern Baffin Island that start by producing 3.5 million tonnes of iron ore a year.

    www.nunatsiaqonline.ca

     

    NUNATSIAQ ONLINE Comments

    as of December 10, 2013:

    #1. Posted by Tommy on December 09, 2013

    Too bad only handful of people will actually benefit from this deal - not necessarily the beneficiaries - funny how NTI just increased the annual wages distributed to QIA, now signing bonuses and withheld info from those that serves - this is all wrong right from the get go

    #2. Posted by InukShook on December 09, 2013

    I know several beneficiaries and long time Nunavut residents who applied directly with Bafinland for jobs they are qualified for and been rejected or ignored. Meanwhile the 737 charter jet is flying up form St Catherines Ontario is full of non-Inuit workers. The Inuoit from Pond, Clude, Igloolik etc are only working in menial jobs. Just like Nanisivik and Cornwallis Island, majority of wqorkers will be from the south.

    #3. Posted by Richard on December 09, 2013

    Here is what I see is causing the problem with these so called agreements. Three representative from QIA and three from Baffin Island. Why is the company involved with the process that determines where or how the money is distributed and spent? It seems that all over the North, companies are coming up with hair brain ideals that serve very little good or meets very few priorities in our communities. These so called funds must be managed by the people it was meant for. No exceptions.

    #4. Posted by pissed off on December 09, 2013

    I agree with no 1 and 2 
    But don’t forget that the jet flying these people is   “”“” Owned by an Inuit Company”“”
    Or so they say!
    What a joke!!!

    #5. Posted by Olympic Trip Success on December 09, 2013

    How is this “openly” when facts are withheld?

    Did the lure of signing bonus get serious thinking put into the back pocket for the pressure of instant bonus “loss” to take over thinking?

    For 30 years royalties are locked in at, who knows what rate, because they cannot be re- negotiated. When it’s hush hush it doesn’t sound like one side got a good deal. Does that mean the royalties in 20 years, 2033 are still at 2013 rate? Or do the royalties increase over the years, covering inflation/cost of living?

    Why isn’t QIA talking with the facts? Are we people like the polar bears, wildlife getting next to nothing, only covered for the first 2 or 5 years of the 30 years mine? Will ITK be barking for the bears in Nunavut and people or saying shhh it’s our backyard.?

    Giving the free Olympic trip seems to of been an outrageously successful strategy.

    #6. Posted by Tommy on December 09, 2013

    This deal no longer serves the Inuit Interests, only the few Interested Inuit.  Okalik likely has generous pay as Prez from QIA and now a Signing Bonus from BaffinLand?  Why is QIA so secretive? There is no competetion directly with this deal - all sole sourcing done by Baffinland to keep the costs from over inflation and pure profits from pure extracted iron.  The true cost of this pure Iron is sure profit all around - so why all the secrecy

    #7. Posted by Truth on December 10, 2013

    And the rich get richer, especially execs on these orgs! Where’s money to help me with food? Freight ? Hunting? Like usual these orgs that are supposed to protect OUR birthright just look out for themselves. I am sure the prez made her best frind the MP happy and the can both look forward to board positions with the corp and living down south permanently in the future

    #8. Posted by Pilipuusi on December 10, 2013

    Everything else aside, QIA is a private Corporation legally owned by the Inuit of the Qikiqtani region. It is not a publicly owned corportation. As a regular beneficiary in the community I feel isolated from the decision makers as much as any other beneficiary. But if you bring you NTI card and insist on seeing something only meant for beneficiaries, I bet you would get a lot more information than a non-beneficiary.

    The key word here is ‘beneficiary’. If you live here and are not a beneficiary - get over it.

    #9. Posted by Observer on December 10, 2013

    Uninformed quote from #5 “Or do the royalties increase over the years, covering inflation/cost of living?”

    If you read the article it says the royalty is a fixed percentage of Baffinland’s net sales revenue. Sales revenue, not profit. So this means it does not matter if Baffinland makes a profit. The more iron ore they sell the more royalty cash will flow into QIA. The value of the sales revenue will go up and down with the price of iron and it will go up and down with the rate of production at the mine. If Baffinland goes ahead with a future railway and port and 12 month shipping, the QIA royalties will quadruple and maybe more.

    If the royalty percentage rate were known it would be pretty easy to come up with a ballpark figure for total royalty revenues every year. Problem is, probably 95 per cent of Baffin beneficiaries are too uneducated to understand this kind of information anyway.

    This of course will make it easier for all the thieves inside the Inuit corporations to grab huge amounts of cash for themselves. Bring on the Baffin kleptocrats!

    #10. Posted by Laughing Out Loud on December 10, 2013

    Its funny reading the comments, they are all the same. The question is. Did the beneficiaries actually think they would benefit from the trip to the Olympics? Sounds to me that Harry, Okalik and Levi just got GOLD.
    If you don’t stand up for yourselves you will get taken advantage off by the Gold diggers.
    Don’t be so GD naive. That’s why you have the right to vote and denounce the wrongs against you.
    It is sad that there isn’t a Mandela amongst you.

    Congratulations to Baffinland let the bottom line grow..Big corporations know how to make money..

     

    Read more

    uploaded date: 10-12-2013

  • QIA calls for review of oil and gas development

    uploaded by: Cara Di Staulo

    channel: DID News

    Nunavut Inuit org says Qikiqtani needs big review of oil and gas development

    “Not enough known” about impacts to marine wildlife

    PETER VARGA

    The potential oil and gas reserves in Baffin Bay and other Qikiqtani region waters may be huge, but Inuit of the region are not ready to support their exploration and production until they know more about the effect such projects will have on their communities.

    With that, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association resolved at its annual general meeting that its 13 member communities of eastern Nunavut need more information on oil and gas development in the region before they can support such projects.

    Some 20 per cent of Canada’s potential oil and gas reserves are thought to lie in Canadian waters off the east and north coasts of Baffin Island, according to Bernie MacIsaac, the director of lands and resources for QIA.

    “That 20 per cent represents $2 trillion dollars, and that’s huge,” MacIsaac told QIA board members on the final day of the association’s AGM, Oct. 11.

    MacIsaac told board members that Canada’s National Energy Board has long assumed that communities of the region support exploration and development in the area.

    But opposition to seismic testing in the region’s waters says otherwise, MacIsaac said.

    “Not enough is known about what the impact to marine mammals and wildlife might be in that particular survey,” he said.

    This, and lack of answers to questions about possible environmental hazards add up to “non-support” for the project so far.

    “People don’t really know what the benefits might be to Inuit in the communities,” he said.

    Seven QIA member communities on Baffin Island oppose seismic testing, MacIsaac said, because they fear this will affect wildlife populations — which they rely on for food and fisheries industries.

    Board representatives from each of the association’s member communities confirmed those concerns at the annual meeting.

    Many said they lacked information on the effect that seismic testing, which involves the use of sound to survey the sea floor, would have on whales and other marine animals.

    Simon Nattaq, community director for Iqaluit, said proponents claim current seismic testing technology has no effect on marine animals, although community members believe otherwise.

    Other directors pointed out safety concerns, such as the effect of oil spills, and questioned what effect oil and gas development in Greenland, across Baffin Bay, might have on animals that migrate into Canadian waters.

    The QIA has consistently pushed the National Energy Board to better inform the communities, “but they haven’t got all the answer to everybody’s satisfaction,” MacIsaac said.

    “A seismic survey leads to drilling, and drilling leads to production. So it’s the start of a chain, and we’ve got to deal with it now, before this snowball starts rolling down a hill and we end up with a situation where communities have to react to it as opposed to being involved,” he told board members.

    As part of its new policy on oil and gas development in the Qikiqtani region, QIA’s department of lands and resources would call for the federal government to conduct a “strategic environmental assessment” of such projects in Baffin Bay, MacIsaac said.

    “This would examine all the issues related to development, and establish what conditions have to be in place before oil and gas (development) takes place,” he said.

    “That’s the guts of what we’re working on. That nothing take place until these issues have been dealt with and examined.”

    www.nunatsiaqonline.ca

    COMMENTS from Nunatsiaq Online

    #1. Posted by snapshot on October 16, 2013

    lets wait till technology gets better, then we’ll get our shares of the trillion dollars.

    #2. Posted by yes! on October 16, 2013

    Finally, some sense in this situation.

    With Mary River opening up, there’s literally no need for oil/gas development on baffin. The region has nothing to gain and everything to lose from it.

    QIA and NTI should oppose it, out of principle.

    #3. Posted by concern inuk on October 16, 2013

    Stop being childlish you same old style towards white people.  Show some more respect to corporate aspirations.  Seismic survey are not killing marine mammals because you don’t see them floating near survey sites.  This is all too familar towards white people and to any business that want to do without any tricks from DIO.  I know my Community Director who is completely racists and makes it harder for local employee if he does not like him/her.  These personal attacks has to end on super Inuit who little or have no respect with Charter of Rights and Freedoms to another individual or corporation.

    #4. Posted by uncertain on October 16, 2013

    There are still a lot of unanswered questions that NEB themselves have no knowledge about as staff members keep deferring their questions to a later date…this may drag on for years but we have to be ready for anything.

    #5. Posted by The Arctic is the last global energy reserve... on October 16, 2013

    Number 1, Norway has been doing offshore drilling in arctic waters for over 20 years - the technology and know how already exists.  I’m not pro-drilling by any means, but critics of it always seem to conveniently forget that one arctic nation has been doing it for a while now.

    #6. Posted by pros and cons on October 16, 2013

    Better deal with it quick before somebody else such as the almighty American government taps into the oil reserves we have here in Nunavut. Don’t get me wrong because I too hunt and fish periodically when I have the time. Either way someone will want the piece of the pie.

    #7. Posted by no... on October 16, 2013

    #6—there is no way the USA can lay claims to minerals off Baffin Island

    Read more

    uploaded date: 16-10-2013

  • Inuit org nixes proposed Armshow South dam site near Iqaluit

    uploaded by: Cara Di Staulo

    channel: Isuma News

    Qikiqtani Inuit Association wants Qulliq Energy Corp. to "further explore alternative sites"

    The Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Community Lands and Resource Committee in Iqaluit said Sept. 25 that they oppose Qulliq Energy Corp.’s plans to develop a hydroelectric project at Nunngarut (Armshow South,) a popular hunting and camping area close to the Bay of Two Rivers.

    The QIA said it “encourages” the power corporation to look for alternative sites in the region that can potentially be used to hydro development.

    “The initial plans to build a dam at Nunngarut was opposed by many in Kimmirut and Iqaluit as it is a place that is frequented by Kimmirummiut and Iqalummiut for fishing and hunting activities. Travelling between Iqaluit and Kimmirut would also be threatened as the lake at Nunngarut is the only viable route to cross.

    “For these reasons we have concluded that the impact on Inuit would be too great,” said Simon Nattaq in a news release.

    Nattaq chairs Iqaluit’s Community Lands and Resource Committee, or “CLARC,” which advises about land management and development on Inuit-owned lands.

    Under QEC’s proposal, they would build a hydroelectric dam at Jaynes Inlet first, and after 2030, build a dam and power station at Armshow South.

    But the QIA said in a Sept. 25 news release that it will not approve any permits to build at Armshow South, which is partially located on Inuit-owned lands and within Katannilik Territorial Park.

    The CLARC and QIA say they want the QEC to resubmit their hydroelectric project proposal without the Armshow South dam component.

    The QIA announcement follows a Sept. 10 consultation with the Nunavut Impact Review Boardd where Inuit elders said they feared the effects of a hydroelectric project near Iqaluit.

    They also said at the meeting that QEC should negotiate an Inuit impact and benefit agreement with QIA.

    “I believe we need an IIBA in the millions,” Nattaq said at that meeting.

    On Sept. 18, the QIA provided comments on QEC’s hydroelectric dam proposal, which is currently under a Part 5 review by the NIRB.

    In the letter, the QIA said it would support community members’ opposition to the proposal due to the location. And QIA said the proposal should to be sent back to the QEC for changes.

    The power corporation has been planning a hydroelectric project near Iqaluit since at least 2005.

    The latest version of the QEC’s plan would see them spend up to $450 million on two dams and power stations over the next 20 years or so: the first at Jaynes Inlet (Qikirrijaarvik), about 40 kilometres from Iqaluit, and the second, planned for the decade following 2030, at Armshow South (Nunngarut) near the Bay of Two Rivers, 20 km southwest of Iqaluit.

    Those sites would be connected to the city by at least 84 km of power lines.

    www.nunatsiaonline.ca

    COMMENTS on Nunatsiaq Online

    #1. Posted by Worried Inuk on September 25, 2013

    Thank you for listening to our concerns QIA, there is too many concerns with damming this area, it is used so much I think there has to be more consultation before the green light is turned on.

    #2. Posted by Bob on September 25, 2013

    Meanwhile, the QEC has to store and burn “millions” of liters of diesel fuel every year, just because some people use the proposed area as a fishing and hunting spot.  The negative effects from that, far exceed the negative effects from a dam.

    Iqaluit will continue to suffer from economic and social problems as long as there are people who are opposed to change, for the sake of being of opposed to change, at every turn.  It’s not like there are a lot, if any, viable alternative sites for a project like this.

    #3. Posted by children86 on September 25, 2013

    Had QEC argued for the opposite, I am nearly certain there would still be opposition. I feel like some organizations just put up roadblocks to be a part of things.


    I imagine it might have unfolded like this:

    QEC: We do not want to build a dam at Armshow, we would rather continue to burn diesel indefinitely.

    QIA: No, we do not support burning diesel, it is harming our fishing grounds. We want a dam at Armshow!

    #4. Posted by wondering on September 25, 2013

    screw them..as a ratepayer, taxpaer and some one who pays for outrageous power bills..You have my permission to go ahead and build the dam there…thank you..

    #5. Posted by White Dove on September 25, 2013

    Calm down. The article states that QIA encourages Qulliq to look for alternative sites. It can still be worked out, no need to be negative. It’s better if it’s put in place and is well thought out and planned.

    #6. Posted by Of course this happens on September 25, 2013

    This hydro project has been tossed around for years & countless dollars have been spent to determine that this was the best option for Iqaluit. Diesel forever I guess. That’s good for QIA though as they own Uksuq & deliver the diesel!

    I wonder how much research/critical thought went in to this decision by CLARC. I also wonder how many folks on CLARC actually pay the residential rate for power bills, vs. the heavily subsidized social housing rate that’s 1/10th the cost.

    Nunavut, where we take an ulu to our nose in spite of our face.

    #7. Posted by Bob on September 25, 2013

    @WhiteDove It’s been planned out for “8 years”.  It’s fine to “say” they encourage alternative sites, but realistically there are only so many sites you can feasibly put a hydro electric dam.  I have little doubt the same arguments will be used to oppose those sites as well.

    Iqaluit needs more power alternatives ‘now’.  There’s already brown outs, insanely high power bills, a ridiculous amount of diesel being used every year, and it makes the cost of ‘everything’ higher.

    I totally agree with commentors 3 & 4

    #8. Posted by pissed off on September 25, 2013

    It would be nice to research what QIA’s position on the matter had been in the past.  With the amount of time and money spent on consulting and researching this issue, I am sure they were consulted a lot of time.

    On the other hand , guess what!! there will always be an area that is dear to somebody and there will always be a river that someone is using for fishing and recreation. So if we go at this that way nothing will ever get done.
    Let’s make a political decision once and for all or close the coffin forever and stop wasting time and energy on this.

    Thanks

    #9. Posted by objective baced thinking on September 25, 2013

    @#4 will a $450million dam reduce power rates? or increases them 450mill is a lot to pay off….

    #10. Posted by Diesel Forever on September 25, 2013

    People who don’t pay for power nix a project they don’t understand. Great. Iqaluit will burn dirty expensive diesel forever. Thanks for nothing QIA.

    Read more

    uploaded date: 25-09-2013

  • QIA plans to release full IIBA text by Dec. 6

    uploaded by: Cara Di Staulo

    channel: DID News

    Qikiqtani Inuit Association also plans community tour to explain deal

    If you are a beneficiary of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement living in the Baffin region, you’ll find out by Dec. 6 exactly what the Inuit impact and benefits agreement that Qikiqtani Inuit Association signed with Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. for the Mary River iron mine project contains.

    The QIA has 90 days before it has to make public the full document, signed Sept. 6 in Iqaluit.

    That’s according to Sec. 26.8.1 of the NLCA, which says “an IIBA shall take effect 30 days after its receipt by the Minister” and Sec. 25.6 of the IIBA which states “the terms and conditions of this Agreement shall remain confidential for up to 90 days after which each Party shall be free to disclose this Agreement to any Person,” cited in a Sept. 11 news release from the QIA.

    The release said the “QIA therefore commits to providing a public copy of the IIBA on or before December 6, 2013.”

    To date, the QIA has prepared, released and posted to its website an open letter to beneficiaries, a project background document and an “initial draft [IIBA] plain language guide.”

    The QIA said it also plans to visit “impacted communities” to present the IIBA and its contents to beneficiaries.

    The dates of these visits will be made public “once logistics are finalized,” the QIA said

    Finally, the QIA said it will discuss the IIBA, its contents and initial implementation plans later with the media.

    In the meantime, the QIA or Baffinland can tell its advisors about the contents of the IIBA and disclose them, as required, during administrative, regulatory or court proceedings.

    The QIA may provide beneficiaries represented by QIA with “general information and a summary of this IIBA in sufficient detail as to understand the anticipated impacts and benefits of the project to Inuit.”

    www.nunatsiaqonline.ca

     

    COMMENTS on Nunatsiaq Online

    #1. Posted by snapshot on September 13, 2013

    im happy for this. Step in or step aside.

    #2. Posted by concern inuk on September 13, 2013

    QIA representative better do most of the talking when you do community consultation.  Our representative never talks to community members and I find him to be bully when it comes to meeting and trying to set up management partners.  I don’t think he wants QIA or HTO to work with Government or community members.  He is going other way.

    Read more

    uploaded date: 13-09-2013

  • 2h 57m 11s

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 3, live call-in June 27, 2012

    uploaded by: Mark Airut

    channel: My Father's Land

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 3, June 27, 2012, 177:11, live call-in about Baffinland Mary River Impact and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) and QIA negotiations, with QIA President Okalik Eegeesiak, Mary River Project Coordinator Solomon Awa, Baffinland Working Committee member Solomon Mikki and QIA Igloolik Board Member Zacharias Kunuk.

    Read more

    uploaded date: 27-06-2012

  • 2h 55m 5s

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 2, live call-in June 26, 2012

    uploaded by: Mark Airut

    channel: My Father's Land

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 2, June 26, 2012, 175:05, live call-in about Baffinland Mary River Impact and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) and QIA negotiations, hosted by Lucassi Ivalu with QIA President Okalik Eegeesiak, Mary River Project Coordinator Solomon Awa, QIA IIBA negotiators Paul Quassa and Phillip Paniaq.

    Read more

    uploaded date: 26-06-2012

  • 3h 22m 12s

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 1, live call-in June 25, 2012

    uploaded by: Mark Airut

    channel: My Father's Land

    ᓂᐲᑦ ᐃᓄᒃᑎᑐᑦ QIA and Mary River IIBA Part 1, June 25, 2012, 202:13, live call-in about Baffinland Mary River Impact and Benefits Agreement (IIBA) and Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) negotiations, hosted by Lucassi Ivalu with QIA President Okalik Eegeesiak, Mary River Project Coordinator Solomon Awa, Baffinland Working Committee member Solomon Mikki and Igloolik QIA representat… Read more

    uploaded date: 25-06-2012