Zacharias Kunuk digs into Baffinland debate with new documentary
‘They Have to Hear Us’ premières in Toronto; Isuma Productions 10-part docu-series to broadcast on TV and online this summer
Filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk, centre, departs a public meeting held to discuss the Baffinland Iron Mines Corp. Eqe Bay Project in 2021. The scene is part of the Igloolik filmmaker’s latest feature documentary, ‘They Have to Hear Us: Canada’s Duty to Consult Inuit’. (Screenshot courtesy of Isuma Productions)
Updated on Friday, July 18, 2025 at 5:37 p.m. ET
Activist filmmaker Zacharius Kunuk says he was shocked to be asked not to record a Dec. 7, 2021, public meeting held in Igloolik to discuss a proposed Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation exploration project at Eqe Bay.
“They told us not to record. It was a shocker for me,” Kunuk narrated in the opening scene of his new feature documentary, which seeks to frame a wider context surrounding the incident.
They Have to Hear Us: Canada’s Duty to Consult Inuit examines Canadian Arctic resource extraction and the Crown’s constitutional duties to Inuit.
It examines Baffinland’s relationship with Inuit in the area. The mining company operates the Mary River iron mine on north Baffin Island and has been involved in other mineral exploration projects, like the one at Eqe Bay, located south of Mary River mine.
Communication, or lack thereof, is a unifying theme in the film.
The documentary is mostly concerned with Baffinland’s ultimately unsuccessful proposal to double the amount of iron ore shipped from its mine, located on north Baffin Island, through an ecologically sensitive area near Milne Inlet.
Inuit pushed back against the idea because of fears the extra shipping and resource extraction activities would drive caribou, narwhal and other wildlife away. The people who live in Pond Inlet and Igloolik — the two closest communities to the mine — rely on these animals for sustenance.
Kunuk assembled the two-hour film with footage edited together from a 10-part docu-series he completed last year.
The world première was held June 18 at Toronto’s Hot Docs Cinema.
“There was Baffinland there,” Kunuk said in a phone interview from Toronto. “One of them showed up.”
Baffinland spokesperson Peter Akman says the company is aware of Kunuk’s film, but has a different view of how events unfolded.
The meeting was open to the public but, as a courtesy, the company requires release forms to be signed by people who attended it before any filming or recording was allowed, Akman said in an email to Nunatsiaq News.
“For that reason, the filmmaker was asked to pause filming until proper releases were provided. He was not asked to leave, only to stop recording people without their consent,” Akman said.
Akman also challenges some of the film’s narrative approach.
“While we respect the right of community members and filmmakers to express their views, we are concerned about omissions and misleading narratives in the documentary,” he said.
Onscreen, Kunuk interviews Inuit on both sides of the Baffinland expansion debate, fleshing out the competing interests of industrial development and employment for Inuit versus protection of land, water, and wildlife migration for future generations.
“In this film, we are not against the mine,” Kunuk said.
“The elders are not against the mining — it’s more the younger generation that’s against the mining. But, in the Inuit culture we listen to the elders. This is what the film is all about — young people talking, elders talking.”
There is frustration and there are tears in the film, composed of footage Kunuk collected over years of often heated, years-long public hearings and chats with elders in their living rooms and kitchens.
He also recorded interviews with student activists, hunters and community leaders about their thoughts on the competing interests between southern technologies and economics, and Inuit Qaujimajatuqangit, or Inuit traditional knowledge.
Baffinland’s proposed Phase 2 expansion, ultimately rejected by the federal government in 2022, would have seen 12 million tonnes of iron ore shipped annually from Milne Inlet.
The company is licensed to ship six million tonnes of iron ore per year through the area.
“We are proud of the work our Inuit and northern employees do every day. Their voices, those working on site, supporting families, and building careers, were largely absent from this film,” Akman said, adding the company remains open to “honest dialogue” and “committed to transparency.”
“The [Nunavut Impact Review Board] review process of Phase 2 was and continues to be the longest and most comprehensive process on record.”
Established in 2014, Baffinland is the largest private sector employer of Inuit in the region.
They Have to Hear Us: Canada’s Duty to Consult Inuit will be released in series format and feature format this summer on the Inuktut-language station Uvagut TV on basic cable via Shaw Direct satellite, Arctic Co-op Cable in Nunavut and N.W.T., and FCNQ in Nunavik. International viewers can stream the service online at uvagut.tv.
The broadcast dates have yet to be confirmed.
Correction: This article has been updated from its originally published version to provide an accurate quote from Baffinland spokesperson Peter Akman about why filmmaker Zacharias Kunuk was asked to stop filming a meeting in Igloolik.
The Nunavut Impact Review Board, and our other 50% Inuit co-management boards are set up as quasi-judicial institutions of public government. That means Inuit are formally and directly involved in deciding government matters, be they about development, water, land use or wildlife. Yes, they have to hear us, and they do.
Quasi-judicial means a body or entity, often part of an administrative agency, that has the power to make decisions like a court but is not a formal court. These bodies resolve disputes, assess claims, or impose penalties, and their decisions can affect people’s rights and obligations. Essentially, they operate in a “court-like” manner, but with limitations on their jurisdiction and the scope of their authority.
The NIRB and these other boards acts like a court in that they formally consider evidence, hear witness and export testimony, are bound by procedural fairness, and produce a formal, legally accepted record of their proceedings.
It is common for Canadian criminal courts to decide on what manner of media or other coverage is allowed for a case before a judge or jury. It is common for criminal courts to restrict media access or coverage of a case by the media or public, for a variety of reasons. Very rarely does any media take issue with this, and none that I am aware based on a supposed cultural basis. Our Nunavut boards have the same ability, and I see nothing controversial about this.
If an Inuit owned media company was not allowed to film or document a NIRB proceeding, that does not mean Inuit are not being heard. The NIRB Board is comprised of 50% Inuit. Inuit organizations with Inuit staff are intimately involved in NIRB proceedings. Individual Inuit can and do attend hearings in person, and hearings are done in public, in Nunavut communities, not some far away place. Elders have the right to interrupt NIRB proceedings to make a statement or ask a question. An exact record of board proceedings are available to all at board websites.
I honestly think that Inuit are running out of things to complain about. We fought hard to get these boards in place as part of our modern treaty negotiations. There are many, if not most, indigenous peoples in Canada that are not provided anywhere near our level of input into governmental decisions affecting them.
If we cannot effectively use the mechanisms we agreed to use to decide these matters, I can only think that we have no-one to blame but ourselves. That hardly seems something that warrants celebration with a film.
Minor correction: the NIRB has more than 50% Inuit Board members. Right now 5 of 6 Board members are Inuit. When Mary River was going through, it was 8 of 9. I think that in the last 20 years there has never been more than 2 non-Inuit on the Board at any one time.
That’s great, but how many employees at NIRB are Inuit? How many executives at NIRB are Inuit, do we have the numbers for that too?
Nunavut is now, the public schools are available through out the school year for the youth to become the future of Nunavut, it’ll happen only with the support of their family and community, the time for whining is done.
Amen to that.
Time to put on grown up underwear and pull up your socks.
An Inuk once told me, “Man up”🤪🤘
Gee, if only they had a website that had their staff listing, with biographies, that someone who wanted to know the answer could look and see for themselves.
The NIRB can only make a recommendation to the non Inuk minister on a project. The minister is not bound by the final decision of NIRB, so the make up of board will not be a determining factor of a projects prospect. It is of no use to blame Inuit and say they complain about everything. Don’t non Inuit complain about everything too! Quit race baiting as blaming immigrants is not allowed by this paper, why is being racists towards Inuit allowed!