A Referendum Will Decide if Land Can Be Bought and Sold in Canada's Most Remote Territory

Residents of Canada's most remote northern territory are heading to the ballot box today to determine whether public land can be sold to individuals and corporations.

It's the first vote of its kind in two decades. At present, municipalities in Nunavut are the only ones who can own land — residents and investors can only lease it back from the local governments are a fee.

If the initiative passes in Monday — with each of the territory's 25 municipalities voting on it independently — that will change, and land could be put up for sale.

But the vote has raised questions about who stands to benefit from the shift, with critics highlighting the ongoing inequality in the vast, arctic land. While proponents point to the potential to spur investment and jobs, others have lashed out at the territorial government for providing what they see as inadequate information on what's at stake.

"Most people aren't in a position to own land under the current system and this will further that inequality," argues Iqaluit-based lawyer Anne Crawford.

"The land will much more be held in the hands of corporations, non-indigenous people," she predicted.

The existing lease-only arrangement is one element of the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA), which saw Inuit give up Aboriginal title to all of their traditional lands in exchange for certain rights, like ownership of about 18 percent of the land in Nunavut, a cash settlement of $1.173 billion, as well as the creation of the territory itself with an elected government to represent their interests.

The agreement was signed with high hopes for the cultural and social well-being of the Inuit population, protecting their traditional relationship to the land, giving them jobs and training, and ensuring they benefit from the land's natural resources.

The municipal ownership of land, in particular, was designed to ensure government wasn't centralized and to give Nunavut communities, which are unique from the rest of Canada in that they have constitutionally protected land rights, more decision-making power.

But more than two decades later, Nunavut's Indigenous population is still struggling with inadequate housing, high food costs, and a lack of affordable energy, and many believe it's because the NCLA has not been properly implemented.

Experts and locals are divided on whether the current municipal land arrangement is a contributing factor.

Proponents say a 'yes' vote in the referendum will streamline the land transfer process by taking away the municipal approval component and letting banks deal directly with landowners. It could also make getting a mortgage easier, experts say.

While the Government of Nunavut says it is staying neutral on the issue, critics have questioned its decision to spend $2.8 million on the referendum in the first place.

Crawford, the Iqaluit-based lawyer, suggests it's because some part of the government "wants to change the landholding system, and also wants to mask their desire for that change."

The government has released a document outlining the pros and cons of both possible outcomes, which says, "Land transactions may act as a stimulant to the local economy and create a healthy real estate market," and that the ability to buy new land could attract new investment, increase economic development, and job opportunities.

The territory is home to a half-dozen mineral mines, and could see more pop up as polar ice continues to melt and Canada's arctic become increasingly viable for a range of economic and industrial activity.

Another potential consequence of ownership — good or bad depending on who you ask — is that those living on the lots could become more protective of them.

Meanwhile, critics argue that the government hasn't researched the issue properly and has given residents outdated information from the last time the issue went to a vote in 1995.

The Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which looks after the rights and interests of Nunavut Inuit and ensures obligations under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement are carried out, for example, has come out against the sale of municipal lands on the grounds that not all Inuit could afford to buy in.

NTI's vice-president James Eetoolook told VICE News the corporation was concerned about what will happen to people, the elderly in particular, who are currently leasing from municipalities, which would be able to choose which lots to sell.

"Will there be assistance if they cannot pay for the lot? Will they lose their houses?" he asks, adding that there's increasing concern about big companies outbidding homeowners if the vote goes through and exacerbating the territory's housing crisis by taking away land that's needed for social housing.

"Not all homeowners are working right now, and some have retirement plans and a pension, so will that be enough to pay for the lot? Those questions need to be answered, so we've decided to support a 'no' vote."

Residents are also worried that municipalities currently don't have the ability to place residency restrictions on the sale of lands, which could result in an infiltration from outside buyers.

Crawford said the existing land system was designed to enhance the role of the Inuit in land management and local governance, in part by giving municipalities a tax base. But it hasn't really worked because municipalities aren't allowed to profit from the land they own.

"The government has basically abandoned the land's ideas," she said. If faster development and easier land transfers are the goals, the government could simply train more people and remove the municipal approval requirement, she argues. "I'm not prepared to let them go on their obligations right now until they sort out the system and potentially look at some of the goals this system was meant to achieve."

Follow Tamara Khandaker on Twitter: @anima_tk