Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Agriculture and Forestry
Issue 6 - Evidence - February 21, 2008 - Afternoon meeting
IQALUIT, Thursday, February 21, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry met this day at 1:59 p.m. to examine and report upon rural poverty in Canada.
Senator Joyce Fairbairn (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Colleagues, we are back in business. We have two eager people here to present. Thank you so much for coming.
Rhoda Palluq, Executive Director, Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak today at the standing committee on behalf of the Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women Council on the issue of poverty in the North.
Statistics show that women as a select group are at particular risk of poverty. By the numbers, young women are poorer than young men, mothers are poorer than fathers and grandmothers are poorer than grandfathers. Causes, experiences and impacts of poverty can be different for women and men and this difference is certainly visible in the North. An overall analysis of poverty in the North, with the objective of developing effective responses, cannot be complete without a gender perspective on this issue.
It is difficult to indicate the depth of poverty for women in Nunavut as statistics are scarce and often not disaggregated for men and women. Also, due to our small population, Statistics Canada does not calculate their standard measures of poverty for our territory. There are, however, other ways in which we can try and quantify poverty in general in Nunavut.
One way is to look at the Income Support payments as those payments are the primary social safety net for Nunavummiut who do not earn enough money to pay for their basic needs. For example, according to the Government of Nunavut Department of Education, 1,100 residents of one Baffin community were on Income Support during 2005. The 2006 Census tells us that the Inuit population of Nunavut was 1,445. This means that 76 per cent of all the inhabitants of this community were on Income Support at some point in 2005, which is a staggering number.
Another way is to look at overall income data. In 2005, the median after-tax income of families in Nunavut was 7 per cent higher than the Canadian average. These figures can be deceptive as they are offset by the high cost of living in Nunavut. Costs for groceries and basic supplies can be double or more than what they are down south. Thus, high costs of living and not being able to afford the basics can be a more qualitative indication of what we would consider poverty.
A 2005 Statistics Canada survey found that 56 per cent of Nunavut respondents stated that they or someone in their household lacked the money over the past year to eat the quality or variety of food they wanted, had worried about not having enough to eat or had actually not had enough to eat.
As Inuit women are often the primary caregivers for their families, they are impacted primarily by the issue of food insecurity as they often have many mouths to feed. Inuit women tend to start having children at an early age and tend to have large families, larger families than either First Nations or non-Aboriginal women. Also, statistics show that income figures for families with two or more children in Nunavut fall below the Canadian average.
Single-parent families provide another dramatic sample of the gender difference in family poverty rates. A disproportionate number of children live in the lower-income, single-parent families headed by women. The instability of the mothers' incomes impacts on their ability to provide for their children.
Thus, child poverty is closely connected to the poverty of women. As well, oftentimes, especially in the smaller communities, it is difficult for women to enforce receiving financial support from their former spouses or the father of their children, and maintenance payments are not enforced by law as systematically as they are down south.
The poverty situation of women also varies greatly depending on family status. Family-based income statistics assume income is shared equally among household members. This assumption of income sharing may obscure the real rate and depth of women's poverty.
In Nunavut, an interesting situation is that women are more often than not the main financial providers for their families. Often, also beyond the immediate household, a woman's income sometimes has to stretch far in Nunavut.
Housing issues are another aspect of poverty that affect women differently than men. Stats show that females are more likely than their male counterparts to experience housing affordability issues. This situation puts women at increased risk of homelessness. Housing is an important issue in Inuit communities due to high costs of construction, utility costs and lack of affordable housing in the North.
Families often live together, which can lead to overcrowding. A recent government study found that more than half of Inuit live in crowded conditions. Some three-bedroom homes here in Iqaluit are known to house as many as 20 people. This crowding contributes to existing social issues such as family violence, child sexual abuse and substance abuse, and a variety of health issues. As such, housing issues are a contributing factor and an indication of poverty.
Homelessness in women specifically is an issue in which Qulliit Nunavut Status of Women is actively involved at the moment. In the fall of 2005, a pan-territorial research project was started, called ``A Study of Women's Homelessness North of 60,'' which aimed to examine the ways in which gender, violence, poverty, access to housing and community services play a major role in creating women's homelessness. I have brought a number of copies of the report from that project, The Little Voices of Nunavut: A Study of Women's Homelessness North of 60, for those people interested.
One main finding of the report was that the threat of homelessness exists for a broad range of women in Nunavut. It exists for the unemployed to members of the workforce who have no subsidized housing or do not earn enough to pay market rents, to employees of the Government of Nunavut who are in precarious possession of staff housing. Specific characteristics of living in the North interplay to create a complex constellation of factors that contribute to, or sustain, the different forms of homelessness in the North. These characteristics include harsh climate, the high cost of living, limited employment and housing opportunities, especially in smaller communities, high rates of social issues such as addictions, domestic violence and intergenerational dependency on income support.
What is especially visible in northern communities is women experiencing relative or hidden homelessness, meaning women living in spaces that do no meet basic health or safety standards, or women who couch-surf or are forced to live in households where they are subjected to family conflict and violence simply because they have no other place to go.
Women are more likely than men to be single parents, to work in low-paying and non-permanent employment or to have relatively low income that is then stretched out to support an entire family. They are also more likely to suffer from domestic violence, which creates housing problems if the woman decides to leave finally. Women are more vulnerable to issues such as homelessness than men. The report also shows how these particular challenges can be risk factors for experiencing poverty for women. Homelessness is certainly an indication of poverty.
To summarize: In the North, social issues such as high rates of unemployment, drug and alcohol abuse issues, the high rates of family violence — this territory has the highest rates of violence against women in all of Canada — poor housing and living conditions such as overcrowding, risk of homelessness and the cost of quality food in remote communities are all related to poverty.
For women, these variables and risk factors are compounded with the responsibility of child rearing. Oftentimes women are the sole financial supporter of the household. Also, the lower value of women's paid work, lack of adequate child care and the conflict between parent and worker responsibilities increase their risk of poverty.
Statistics and other variables indicative of poverty are useful to understand the implications and depth of poverty for women in Nunavut. However, women's actual lived experiences are another story altogether. Women's voices are important and need to be heard at the table when it comes to discussions of poverty and homelessness. That is why our territorial report on women and homelessness was called The Little Voices of Nunavut.
Here are a few voices that demonstrate women's experiences of poverty and homelessness and how vulnerable women are to them:
I was a nanny back home in my community and when I moved in with the family, I gave up the house. I thought it would be a good move, give me some stable income. After a while, the job didn't work out anymore and I was left with nowhere to go.
I live with my parents. We are five in a one-bedroom house. It's very hard trying to support my whole family.
We have no services to help us. Kids are hungry all the time. We need more food banks. More and more kids are going into foster homes and group homes because of homelessness. That is causing depression, family violence, separation, more drinking, drugs.
Men got no kids to take care of either. The kids are with the women. Women get used to being controlled, and sometimes they lose their children too if they have no place of their own. My husband won't even help with the milk or Pampers.
I was relocated to another house, but I had unpaid bills so I was evicted. Arrears take on a life of their own. I can't catch up now. Everyone is going to turn to family. But it's now happening to so many people that everyone is going to the same house. Because it's so overcrowded, there is drinking and drugs.
These quotes are from the meetings on the homelessness.
Ladies and gentlemen, I hope I have been able to demonstrate today that an effective community response to poverty requires a better understanding of the ways in which poverty affects men and women differently. I hope that these standing committee hearings will contribute to our understanding of the differential causes and impacts of poverty on women, and that the results will be used to develop more gender-specific strategies that tackle the unique causes of women's poverty and will help to improve the lives of women and their families in Nunavut.
Qujannamiik.
Janelle Budgell, Community Wellness Coordinator, City of Iqaluit: Good afternoon, members of the Standing Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry.
I sat down a number of times in preparation for this meeting trying to decide what to say and how to say it. I debated including countless statistics and reports identifying issues pertaining to poverty and individuals in the North. However, in the end, that would only provide you with a duplicate presentation of already-presented materials such as The Little Voices of Nunavut, the Report on the Public Consultation on Social Issues and Wellness in Iqaluit, and the Annual Report on the State of Inuit Culture and Society prepared by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI.
Instead, I chose to focus my presentation on the effects of poverty on us as a community, as opposed to us who make up a community.
Poverty affects the community as a whole: the balance, the services provided and ultimately, the spirit of the community. A number of factors make the poverty situation in Nunavut much different than other communities, provinces and countries. The North has had a population boom and with this boom, we must deal with the high cost of living, the high rates of social issues, limited employment, outstanding debts with local housing authorities and almost non-existent housing options.
Poverty starts off as the problem of one individual who may be struggling with mental health issues, addictions and physical disabilities, or the individual may be part of the poor working class who simply do not make enough money to live. These problems spread out to affect the partner and family of a poverty-stricken individual.
The vast majority of the Inuit population currently lives in overcrowded conditions because individuals become homeless and turn to family and friends for assistance. This type of temporary housing generates tension and conflicts between family members, and impacts everyone's physical and mental health.
You can see how this problem has grown from one person's problem to one family's problem to multiple families' problems to a community problem. The additional strains that poverty places on an already overburdened community are apparent in Iqaluit.
We have identified poverty as an issue that affects the community as a whole, so we must work as a whole to develop community-centered approaches and strategies to help reduce and eliminate poverty.
Since 1996, the Niksiit Committee, which is a subcommittee of City Council, has made a number of attempts to determine the nature and scope of poverty and homelessness in the community. In 2006, the committee commissioned a report to determine and set priorities for the next four to five years. The problem is that we do not receive enough funding from the federal government even to sustain the programs and priorities set forward. The funding provides assistance to community organizations such as Tukisigiarvik, the Oqota shelter and the Soup Kitchen.
As we speak, the Salvation Army are having a meeting to decide whether they can survive on the level of funding received from the government. They may consider pulling out of the community, and where does that leave us as a community? We are back to square one, with no emergency services not only for homeless women of this community, but now the men. A similar scenario is a reality for Tukisigiarvik. How do we grow and address other problems around poverty in the community when we have no guarantee or promise of additional funding to support the ongoing projects in the community at the present time?
As a community, we have learned many things. The best answers and solutions to poverty lie within the hands of the community and the people who make up the community. The approach needs to be community-driven to be effective. These community-driven approaches cannot survive on short-term funding or funding that is allocated on a per capita basis as that type of funding does not accurately represent the needs of the North, and the dollars do not go far enough.
There is also a need to increase the Northern Residents Tax Deduction because it does not reflect the high cost of living and the inflation that has taken place over the years. The creation of a rent supplement program would greatly impact the at-risk and homeless individuals in the community. Funding must be available to support low-income housing and low-income units as it is nearly impossible to make the move from emergency shelter to independent living.
To conclude, we have come a long way in identifying poverty as a reality in the North and moving forward to establish what works and does not work, given our limited resources. We, as a community, have identified and developed programs and services that work for the community. However, we need assistance and commitment from the federal government to ensure that multi-year agreements exist to provide support to current programs, and also allow us to move forward with new programs and projects that address poverty in our community.
Thank you for your time and for listening to my presentation. I hope that the information I have provided has given you a little lesson about poverty and its effect on our community.
Qujannamiik.
Paul Aarulaaq Quassa, Mayor, City of Igloolik: Igloolik is a small community with a population of about 1,600 but a fairly big community compared to the other communities in Nunavut.
My understanding is that the objective of the committee is to examine four areas related to rural poverty. I will not comment on how Canada compares to other countries in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, OECD, in this regard, but I will comment on how the other three areas relate to the communities in Nunavut.
In answer to your question, ``What are the dimensions and depth of poverty in Nunavut,'' put simply, real unemployment rates range from 9.8 per cent to 46.8 per cent, depending on the community. In Igloolik, the rate is 37.3 per cent. Clearly, these rates are significantly higher than the national average.
Furthermore, the median household income ranges from $30,114 to $54,997 per year, except for Iqaluit, which is understandably higher at $69,650 since it is the capital. Where I am from, the median household income in Igloolik is only $35,904, which is low even though it is the fifth largest community in Nunavut and one of the decentralized communities in Nunavut.
With unemployment so high and household income so low, combined with the high cost of living in Nunavut, it should be clear as to why poverty is so significant and widespread.
The next question is, ``What are the key drivers of reduced opportunity and poverty in Nunavut?'' In this regard, most communities throughout Nunavut tend to have, one, low levels of formal education and training; two, high rates of unemployment, as previously mentioned; three, high living costs, particularly for food as well as high costs to deliver most services and programs due to expensive freight and transportation costs; four, old, insufficient and, in many cases, no infrastructure to support economic and community development; five, significant shortages of housing; and six, as we all know, Nunavutmmiut have been and are in the midst of fast and dramatic cultural and lifestyle changes that have helped to create an array of widespread social problems.
Regarding housing, as we heard earlier, the overcrowded living conditions increase stress and other health problems and make it difficult, for example, for something as simple as finding space for students to do homework.
On ``suggested recommendations to mitigate poverty, and poverty in Nunavut,'' all kinds of recommendations can be made to help relieve poverty and improve quality of life in Nunavut, but after all is said, debated and done, in my view, the bottom line is that more investment in the North is required. More investment applies to every sector such as education, infrastructure development, health, housing, economic development, and so on.
Realistically, though, many argue more investment in Nunavut is hard to justify due to the small population of Nunavut. Yet, it is important to realize that a huge portion of any money invested in the North supports the southern Canada economy due to our dependence on southern goods and services such as the supply, purchase and transportation of materials.
In this regard, and in closing, I strongly suggest that more investment in Nunavut to reduce poverty not only will improve Nunavut, but will improve the overall economy of Canada as well. As a result, the South and the North should not compete with each other, but work more cooperatively together.
I also want to point out that in my community, every day on the local radio station, we hear people who are hungry and who are trying to sell their possessions within their household at times to get food to the table to feed their children. You hear that every day in my community, and I am sure we hear that every day in other communities. People literally ask others publicly, through the local radio station, for food to feed their children so they can go to school.
These are the realities in Nunavut and in my community.
Thank you for your time and opportunity to appear before your important committee hearings.
Qujannamiik.
The Chair: Thank you very much. We will start with Senator Adams.
Senator Adams: Qujannamiik.
As you have it in your report, there are opportunities for some people, especially in summertime construction. Some people do not have a job, or the education to get a straight job. Most have been on welfare for a while and living in a house. Sometimes, social workers find out they have a job and, as soon as the social worker finds out they have a job, they ask them to pay back what they collected in welfare. They have to say how much they were getting per month as a salary and 25 per cent off of their salary is taken to pay back that welfare and for the rent.
That is how the system works here. It is difficult to get a labourer to start working here, and people have talked to me about that a few times. That is why sometime, some people say, ``I think I will go back to my home and collect welfare.'' That system still exists here in Nunavut. I would like to see that end. That way, maybe people there can get more jobs, especially here in Nunavut where more construction is going on in the summertime for housing and so on.
Like Mr. Quassa said, that issue was studied at one time when Allan Rock was the Industry Minister. For any person who came up here in the summertime, over 70 per cent of the money went down south instead of staying in the community. This situation is appalling because the idea is to have more people working so the money can stay in the community.
With the territorial government, usually, any person can work in construction. If they want to be an electrician, carpenter, plumber, a tradesman or something, they usually put down how many hours they have worked. If they go into an apprenticeship in the future, they receive a credit for the hours worked already. I do not know if Nunavut has that kind of a program, but I think it would be much better especially for the Inuk who want to work in carpentry, maintenance and housing, or become electricians and plumbers and so on in the community.
I have to do something like that, especially for construction people, contractors and so on. In some communities, some projects have mostly Aboriginal workers, either as mechanics or heavy equipment operators, and the same thing is happening with a housing association. All the electricians, plumbers and others are local. If they work for a company that comes up here to work, they have to finish in the summer. To do that, they work nearly 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Sometimes, it is difficult to find workers in the summertime especially as families want to go out on the land to hunt. The company tells them they must work seven days a week and if they do not, they are fired.
That kind of thing goes on here in the North. There should be a change in policy.
[Senator Adams spoke Inuktitut.]
I always like to give a bit of history of Nunavut to our committee members. Mr. Quassa was talking about the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement in 1993 with Prime Minister Mulroney.
[Senator Adams spoke Inuktitut.]
Mr. Quassa: It is so true that in a lot of cases, when I say high unemployment in our community, it does not help when a different company from a southern firm comes up and does not hire the locals. That has an effect on our community.
In most communities, as in Igloolik itself, at least 60 per cent of the population is under 25 years old. We have a young population in most of our communities and it is disheartening to see our youth, at least in our community — and I am sure you see that in other communities — not working because of various factors.
If they live in public housing and they start working, their rent will go up drastically. Therefore, to avoid high rents, a lot of our youth are not working. They collect Income Support when they can work, and yet they are not working.
These other factors create such high unemployment because our youth who are able to work prefer to collect Income Support because of the rent, the housing situation and the way the system works. That is a disheartening thing to see in our community. On top of that, there is hardly any work in our communities at this time.
That is the reality in Nunavut.
Ms. Budgell: Sometimes, employment can actually create a problem as well. I am not sure if you are familiar with the Mary River Project. A lot of individuals from our community work there, so they will go for four weeks and then they will come home for two weeks. However, because there is such a housing shortage in all of Nunavut, especially in Iqaluit, these individuals come back from being employed, but they cannot find housing because they are only here for such a short period of time. Those individuals end up in the shelters because there is a lack of housing. They have a job, but they cannot find housing because there is such a shortage.
So sometimes, employment also contributes to the homeless situation because these individuals only need a place for two weeks.
Senator Peterson: Mr. Quassa, what percentage of the population still hunt and fish for their food in an amount enough to sustain them?
Mr. Quassa: Any able Inuk is a hunter. Even though I work full-time in an office, I am still a hunter. About half the population are still hunters.
On the other hand, sometimes, the animals that we hunt are not readily available with this climate change happening. For example, in Igloolik, hunters who want to go caribou hunting to Baffin Island cannot go because climate warming has changed that whole ice situation. Therefore, country food is less available because of this situation. However, any able Inuk in the community is a hunter, whether a weekend hunter or a full-time hunter. The number of full-time hunters is fairly small, though.
Senator Peterson: On the issue of people who are in housing now because they receive some form of sustenance, but then they get a job and then all of a sudden, having that job causes problems with housing et cetera. Have you thought of establishing a certain poverty or income level as a poverty line so people can earn at least up to that amount before the clawback starts rather than having it start right off the bat? Otherwise, you are right: Why would they go to work if they will lose all the other things?
Mr. Quassa: That is right. Right now, I believe with the housing associations, at least in Igloolik, 25 per cent of their salary goes to rent. I think that is the rate right now.
With that situation, the high cost of living and high prices of store-bought foods, they cannot really keep anything from what they make. That is why so many of our youth end up in the unemployment category. They are able to work but, because of that effect, they avoid working at times.
Senator Peterson: Who made that 25-per-cent rule?
Mr. Quassa: The Nunavut Housing Corporation coordinates all the housing associations in Nunavut, so the housing corporation would set up those limits.
Senator Peterson: I thought maybe they were set in Ottawa. They would not understand what was happening anyway. If the rule is counter-productive, why not change it? If it does not work, why not change it?
Mr. Quassa: That is what we have been trying to tell our territorial government to do.
Senator Mercer: I think Bill Riddell was trying to tell us that this morning. Mr. Quassa, do you agree though, that there must be a point where people who are working need to pay more than they were paying when they were not working, but the amount should not be such a burden that it is a disincentive to work. It must be an incentive to work, but at the same time, people who are working need to contribute to the solution of the housing problem by paying a little more too. Do you agree?
Mr. Quassa: Yes, if the food prices were lower, I think that suggestion would work, but store-bought foods are so expensive, especially outside of Iqaluit. The freight, et cetera, is added to everything, so at times, it is hard to work it out.
Senator Mercer: In your community and other smaller communities in Nunavut, do they have high-speed Internet? We learned that in the Northwest Territories, everybody had access to high-speed Internet. Is that the case in Nunavut as well?
Mr. Quassa: Yes, it is.
Senator Mercer: That access would make distance learning and distance working a little easier. I suppose that market should perhaps be explored.
Ms. Palluq, I was taken by a couple of things you said. I go back to a presentation we had in either Whitehorse or Yellowknife a few days ago. It seems like a long time ago, but it is only a few days ago. A young woman described what happens in a small community where there is abuse in a relationship and that woman tries to seek help. Because the community is so small, and perhaps the abuser is related to so many people in the community, the community tends to support his position rather than hers. Her term was ``mobbing.'' I will try to make sure that this term makes it into the report. It is a new term to me and it happens only in small communities.
Is that happening in Nunavut as well where you have a small community?
Ms. Palluq: Yes, in the small communities, a lot of people are related and a lot of the women who want help do not tend to go where they are supposed to go. They can go to families or friends, but they do not go to the right person because that person might be related to the spouse, the boyfriend or the common-law partner. That is a problem in small communities.
Senator Mercer: I also wanted to put on the record again — I have done this elsewhere — your reference to the report, The Little Voices of Nunavut: A Study of Women's Homelessness North of 60. I want to draw the attention of the committee, and put it on the record, so that when we write the report, we will make reference to the recommendations in this issue of the report.
On page 119, there are 14 recommendations, most of them dealing with housing, but some of them deal with other social issues that I think we need to pay attention to.
I have done that, but it seems we are in a bit of a Catch-22 here where we are chasing our tail. We want to create housing, and people are being forced out of housing because the price is going up.
Ms. Budgell, you talked about the Northern Residents Tax Deduction policy. How long has it been since it has been changed? Do you know?
Ms. Budgell: I was speaking with the Mayor of Iqaluit, Elisapee Sheutiapik, as well as the chief administrative officer, CAO, and both of them could not pin down a date. They looked for it. The mayor said that for as long as she could remember, it has been $7.50 a day. The cost of living keeps going up, and the northern living allowance has not changed for years. I wish I had the date for you, but I do not know the date. The mayor has been here her entire life, so that will give you an indication of the time frame we might be looking at.
Senator Mercer: If we knew how old the mayor was, we might have a better idea.
We heard all across the North about this issue, in Yellowknife and Whitehorse as well. I think the issue is bigger here, but it is an issue.
Housing, housing, housing: Every time we turn the corner, we come to the issue of housing. We had a different answer earlier today when I asked this question about the type of housing needed.
I am from a reasonably sized city, Halifax, and I am used to traditional houses that we have in the South. However, as we think about helping to solve the problem of housing in the North, I do not think we can think in the context of a three-bedroom bungalow or a three-storey walk-up apartment.
Tell me what you see as the ideal type of housing that government should consider supporting.
Ms. Budgell: As part of the community consultation process that has taken place in the community thus far, that question was already posed. If you would give me one second, I can tell you what the community said would work.
They suggest a ``newly designed five-plex that contains two-bedroom units. The five-plex has many energy efficient and culturally sensitive design features, including excellent insulation, two exits, and a country-food storage and preparation area.''
Senator Mercer: You ask a specific question, you receive a specific answer. I like that. Thank you very much. I am glad we have that on the record. Do we have a copy of that report?
Ms. Budgell: This is from the Nunavut Housing Corporation's Trust Delivery Strategy.
Senator Mercer: Can we have a copy for our files?
Ms. Budgell: Also, probably you would like a copy of the Report on the Public Consultations on Social Issues and Wellness in Iqaluit, the annual report that was done. It voices all the opinions of the majority of the people in the community, so it is a strong voice.
Senator Mercer: I think we heard some of that earlier today, but it was not that specific. I appreciate that.
Senator Mahovlich: Since you are on a roll, Ms. Budgell, is it more difficult for a woman to stay in school in the North than it is for a man? Does she have more problems getting an education than, say, a young boy does?
Ms. Budgell: That point you brought forward is an interesting one.
In reviewing the report released by the Status of Women, reference is given to the fact that if they are in school, they are provided housing accommodation for the eight months they are in school. Then, when school finishes, they are out of housing for four months until school resumes again in September.
That situation makes it extremely difficult because how is a woman to make a decision to go back to school and better her education when she does not have guaranteed housing for the full year?
Also, if her situation happens to be a broken relationship and she has the children, it is difficult as well because she can make only an eight-month commitment.
Another huge factor makes obtaining an education in the North and the homelessness issue in the North a unique paradigm. There is lack of support and assistance for women who wish to get a better education and that sort of thing. Thank you for asking that question.
Senator Mahovlich: Mr. Quassa, how is tourism? Is it improving? I know the Americans like to come here to fish and hunt. Do we make it attractive for the Americans to come up here to hunt and fish like we do, say, in Whitehorse and Yellowknife? I know tourism there is good.
Mr. Quassa: I suppose it depends on the region within Nunavut. In my area, I am right in Foxe Basin, and we hardly have any tourists because it is not promoted enough. We do not have any tourism, at least in my area.
We do get a few sports hunters for walrus because my area is walrus country.
Senator Mahovlich: Are there any rivers there?
Mr. Quassa: Yes, we have a lot. We have a lot of fish. However, we do not get as many sports hunters as Northern Quebec does. I think the problem here is that the tourism industry is not developed enough yet and that is something that must be developed. You are so right. We have so much potential for tourism and I believe it is something that needs to be worked on by our Nunavut government.
Senator Mahovlich: As our cities become crowded in the south, in America, people are always looking to get away. Up there, canoeing in some of those rivers would be attractive.
Senator Mercer: I think it was Ms. Budgell who made reference to the Mary River Project. I have heard about that project before. Perhaps one of you could help me and tell me what the Mary River Project is, and put it into context for us.
Mr. Quassa: I am close to that mining company. Mary River is run by the Baffinland Iron Mines Corporation. It is a big project. They are only starting. They have big plans. In fact, they wanted to deliver a bulk sample of 250,000 tonnes of iron ore to Europe starting this summer.
It is a big project. It is only at the starting stage, so we do not have that much employment out of it yet, but we expect to have more, probably in a few years' time.
Senator Mercer: You are in Igloolik?
Mr. Quassa: Yes.
Senator Mercer: They will transport the iron ore, obviously by ship, by bulk carrier, and the destination is somewhere in Europe?
Mr. Quassa: Yes.
Senator Mercer: But nowhere in North America?
Mr. Quassa: No, it is all transported to Europe. They plan to have ships coming into our area through Foxe Basin 12 months of the year. I do not know how they will do it, but they plan to ship 12 months of the year, and to build a railroad from the mining site to a port site closer to Igloolik.
Senator Mercer: Is there a port now?
Mr. Quassa: No, there is no port yet.
Senator Mercer: You will have to construct wharfs along with a railroad?
Mr. Quassa: That is right.
Senator Mercer: Hopefully, that project potentially will generate some employment, because you said your unemployment rate was 37.3 per cent.
Mr. Quassa: Yes.
Senator Mercer: That number is horrendous. We have seen higher unemployment in other places, but the number is still terrible, especially with such a young population.
Is that your hope, that the mine and the infrastructure for the mine will jump-start the economy a little bit?
Mr. Quassa: I hope so, but again, there is that issue of the housing situation. A family starts working with Baffinland and their rent goes up. That issue keeps coming back because of the policies of the Nunavut Housing Corporation.
Senator Mercer: Governments always seem to react to problems and this is an opportunity to act instead of react. If there will be potential development, then the government should make sure that there is housing, at least on the drawing books if nothing else, so that if the development comes to fruition, we are prepared to put housing there and maybe help solve two problems at the same time; your housing problem and your employment problem.
We know that if that happens in your community, it is helpful for the rest of the territory.
Mr. Quassa: Yes.
Senator Adams: Senator Mercer, the Mary River Project started about ten years now. I have tried telling some of the mining associations in Ottawa that we know it will go ahead some time. It is a small association that has developed quite a bit. At that time, I heard that the Mary River Project needed about 350 employees or more.
Mr. Quassa: Yes.
Senator Adams: Right now, there are complaints to the mining company. They come up here and we know they will operate in the future. One thing that should be done is when people start working in Nunavut for the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, INAC, and so on, there should be staff training in order to have tradesmen, heavy equipment operators, electricians, plumbers and so on. By the time, operations start, it will be too late and we will then bring tradespeople from the South. People say workers need grade 12 and most people up there only have grade 8 or so. Some of them have dropped out. If they want to become tradesmen, it can take five years. The same is true for electricians, carpenters and mechanics.
Our committee should put more pressure on the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. The department should try to negotiate with the Nunavut government and the mining companies. Before they come up here to operate, they should create more jobs in the future for Nunavut people as tradesmen and so on even before mining starts.
The Nanisivik mine was operating at one time. Do you have an idea of the percentage of Inuit who worked at the Nanisivik mine before it closed down?
Mr. Quassa: I know upfront that when Nanisivik was starting, they said they about 60 per cent of their employees would be Inuit. However, during the life of the mine, I think the average percentage of Inuit workers was about 20 per cent. That percentage was small when the mine was operating. They never lived up to their commitment at that time.
Communities are always leery about those kinds of commitments when mining companies say how many Inuit will be hired to work in the mine.
Senator Adams: Do those associations that travel to your community talk to you about how many employees they will need in the future for the Mary River Project? Are people talking to you about that right now?
Mr. Quassa: Yes, they are. We have a good working relationship with that mining company and hopefully, they will live up to the commitments they made to us.
Senator Peterson: On schooling for women, you said they are at school for eight months and when they leave school, they lose their accommodation for four months. Does somebody else have that accommodation for four months? Say they want to come back, is somebody kicked out so they can come back?
If you want to educate people, the rule to kick them out is a silly one. Who is in charge of all these things? It does not make sense.
Ms. Budgell: Unfortunately, I do not have an answer for you.
Senator Peterson: They do not want to say who makes these rules.
Ms. Budgell: You will see that quotation from an Iqaluit resident in The Little Voices of Nunavut. That rule was one of the things that kept her from pursuing her education. There is no housing. If they lose their government housing, they cannot find an apartment on their own because there is no housing.
Ms. Palluq: There are also young teenagers who have babies at an early age and drop out of high school. Sometimes, they come back, but sometimes they do not.
The Chair: Thank you so much. You worked hard on these presentations, and we appreciate it.
Senators, our next presenters are Monica Ell and Glenn Cousins. I look forward to your presentation.
Monica Ell, Director, Business and Economic Development, Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated and Director of the Nunavut Economic Forum, as an individual: Senators, it is nice to welcome you to Nunavut. It is positive when you visit here. You can see and gather information firsthand. It is good for our communities and for us too.
[Ms. Ell spoke Inuktitut.]
Senator Adams, I know you will continue to encourage more Senate committees to visit Nunavut in the coming months, and this visit is important to us.
Senators, we hope you will encourage your colleagues on other Senate committees to come to Nunavut as well, to visit our local communities and talk with our people about our aspirations and our dreams.
Today, I hope to talk to you not only about the poverty in rural or, more specifically in our case, remote areas, but also about our plans for sustainable economic development. I hope to share with you information about our land, Nunavut; our culture; our language, Inuktitut; and the strength that we draw from these things as Inuit, as Nunavummiut, as a people, and as Canadians.
I am pleased to be here today as an individual, as the Director, Economic and Business Development for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, and as the Director of the Nunavut Economic Forum.
At NTI, our mission is to foster Inuit economic, social and cultural well-being through the implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
My message for you is simple: The solutions appropriate for Nunavut and our local economies have to come from Nunavut and our local communities. They have to be based on our reality, our unique geography and the many challenges and opportunities they present.
In Nunavut, our aspirations and desires are not unlike those found amongst most people in other regions of Canada, rural or otherwise. We want homes for our families, affordable healthy food choices, safe and secure schools for our children, access to health care, better recreational facilities, good jobs, training and employment and travel opportunities. We want to live a healthier, longer life. These aspirations are common, just like those of anyone anywhere else in Canada. However, our current conditions in Nunavut and the challenges we face today are different, and they are nothing like those found in other regions in Canada.
You have probably heard a lot of statistics today and you have been given a lot of information on statistics, so you know statistics. Our communities are remote communities in Nunavut, meaning we have no year-round road access. Everything must come in by air or sea. Consequently, in Nunavut, we have the highest cost of living in Canada. In real terms, this means a jug of milk that costs about $3 in the local store in the South will cost us about $9 to $14, depending on the community.
Studies have shown that the cost of food alone in the North leaves the average family with little or no money to pay for housing, transportation and other necessities of life. As an example, in Arviat, the average family currently runs a deficit of $168 per month just to buy food. For many in Nunavut, the choice is not between food and housing, the choice is between food or housing. With this situation, you would think, given the importance of our air and sea links for our re-supply, these facilities would be efficient across Nunavut, but they are not.
Our communities lack the basic transportation infrastructure that all communities take for granted. Our transportation costs and, consequently, the cost of everything that comes in and out of our communities are only compounded by the fact that our communities lack this basic infrastructure.
We want to be self-sustaining by using local resources to fill the jobs. The high cost of living combined with unemployment and low wages can have an impact on the health of an individual. We need better education and training. We need more apprenticeship programs. As an example, we need Inuit hired in the middle management positions.
Our communities do not have docking facilities. The vessels and the ships must anchor offshore, use barges, discharge the cargo and then drag it up above the high water mark on the beach. This handling takes time, increases the likelihood of damages and accidents, and ultimately drives up costs.
As an example, last year, the construction of a new hospital here in Iqaluit was delayed a whole year because a large key steel frame was accidentally dropped off the barge. Everything was delayed until the next shipping season. Can you imagine that? How do you factor for the costs of these delays in real terms, in human terms?
We must break the cycle of escalating costs. That process begins by dealing with our fundamental under-capacity in infrastructure, training and education for our people. This is where you can help us, senators. Please bring this message back to Ottawa.
In Nunavut, we are not looking for handouts from the federal government. We are not even looking for the old cliché, ``a hand up.'' What we want is Canada and all it has to offer. That is all. We want the same benefits, opportunities and capacity that Canada offers, provides for, and makes available in the southern regions to be made available here in our local communities for the benefit of our people across Nunavut.
A perfect example is the current power outages in Rankin Inlet. The community is dealing with rolling blackouts and limited heating opportunities because our power source and infrastructure are limited. We rely on outdated fossil fuel power plants for energy needs. These plants require the fuel to be procured and shipped from the South. The added cost is tremendous. As an example, the current power rates for the basic residential unit in Manitoba are between $5.79 to $5.94 per kilowatt-hour. In Nunavut, we pay from a low here in Iqaluit of 39 cents per kilowatt-hour to a high of 81.72 cents per kilowatt-hour in Kugaaruk.
A cookie-cutter approach to addressing poverty will not work. Nunavut is not poor. Our land is rich. Our people are strong. Our communities need only the basic tools that Canada makes available to its communities and its people in the South.
I noticed that Senator Terry Mercer who represents Halifax sits on this committee. I ask the senator from Halifax if he could imagine Halifax without its port. How would the economy look today in Halifax if the federal government had not invested in the port of Halifax? For that matter, how would Atlantic Canada have developed without all those federal small craft harbours?
In Nunavut right now, we do not have any ports. Iqaluit, Bathurst Inlet and Rankin Inlet are only a few examples of communities in Nunavut right now that are like Halifax, but without its port. The only port we have in Nunavut is in Nanisivik, an old mining area, and nobody lives there currently.
Nunavut is approximately one-fifth of Canada's land mass and we have about two-thirds of Canada's total coastline. Yet, we do not have any ports or wharves.
Our communities need these tools to make our own jobs in tourism, fishing, hunting, harvesting and processing and so on. We need the infrastructure. We need to utilize our resources and we can do that only with more education and training. We also expect that the federal government will deliver on its training and employment obligations for Inuit under our land claims agreement.
The current socioeconomic conditions in Nunavut are complex, but a first step in dealing with housing, food security, education, training and employment is to address the infrastructure under-capacity in our local communities, thereby reducing cost and improving services. For this first step, we need vision and leadership at the federal level.
When it comes to our North, we need nation builders. Nation building includes the vision and commitment to deliver on a plan that will finally connect all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, including Canadians in Arctic communities. This connection means forging critical new north-south links.
Our communities need major significant investments across all modes of transportation, including marine, air, rail and road. What is required is more than $26 million a year for the next seven years under the Building Canada Fund. Nunavut requires billions of dollars of federal investments in basic infrastructure. Tens of billions of dollars, in fact, are required.
Just like the federal government is required to apply a certain percentage of its surplus to servicing its debt, a similar program should be in place to ensure investments in Canada's North. Our communities, peoples and businesses want to work with the federal government to develop a plan to make these investments happen. For example, we want to work with the federal government to implement an Arctic gateway and trade corridor initiative, connecting our communities to the global supply chain through Canada's major hub gateways and corridors.
For this to happen, our community needs the infrastructure. Just like Canada's Pacific gateway initiative required significant federal investments in the ports at Vancouver and Prince Rupert, our communities need the same. We deserve the same.
I hope in the development of Nunavut, people will look back to your committee and its study of rural poverty as a catalyst for change. We hope in your conclusions that you will recommend that the federal government significantly increase its investments in infrastructure, training and other things required for Nunavut. Our sustainable economic development begins with this investment.
We have distributed several documents for the benefit of your committee. Thank you for your time. I welcome questions.
Glenn Cousins, Executive Director, Nunavut Economic Forum: Thank you, senators, for having the courage to boldly go where no committee has gone before. I think it is excellent.
I am probably the last speaker to sit at this table today, so there is probably not a lot more to say, but I have a few comments and I look forward to the questions and discussion that will follow.
The Nunavut Economic Forum, NEF, is a broad group of member organizations created to identify and share information in support of strategic planning for Nunavut's economic development. The primary focus is for members to collaborate in the implementation of the Nunavut Economic Development Strategy, which we refer to as the Strategy, each within their own area of activity and expertise. I have provided copies of that document for you.
Released in September of 2003, the Strategy is a comprehensive and integrated approach to development and is unique in Canada. Subtitled Building a Foundation for the Future, it takes a broad view of economic development, identifying issues related to the land, people and communities, in addition to more traditional economic concerns. It sets Nunavut's goal as the attainment of a high and sustainable quality of life defined by income and material well- being and such things as health status, education levels, cultural identity, civic engagement, and political and economic freedoms.
The NEF views the implementation of the Strategy as the long-term solution to develop our economy, reduce the infrastructure deficit, improve education outcomes and economic participation and, as a result, reduce poverty.
However, this solution is a major undertaking and requires a concerted, collaborative effort by a range of stakeholders as well as substantive and sustained investment commitments.
Recently, the NEF initiated discussions with Indian and Northern Affairs Canada advocating for the renewal of their Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development, SINED, which delivers important economic development funds. The SINED program was established to promote economic development in Canada's three northern territories, investing $6 million annually in each region for a five-year period. This investment program is scheduled to expire in March 2009. Renewal is critical to continue the momentum that has been established between the program managers and proponents and, therefore, to the ongoing implementation of the Strategy.
To frame this discussion, the NEF prepared a document entitled Qanijijuq II: The Journey Continues. I did not bring a copy of that document with me because I did not want to weigh you down with too much paper, but it is available on our website.
While economic development activities are critical, the positive impacts are often longer term in nature and shorter- term initiatives are required to help alleviate poverty in Canada's North.
The Government of Canada already has two programs designed to mitigate the high cost of living in the North. These two programs, the Northern Residents Tax Deduction and the Food Mail Program, are existing tools that can be enhanced to help reduce poverty.
In response to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance for pre-budget consultations on the theme ``The Tax System the Country Needs for a Prosperous Future,'' the NEF prepared a submission on the Northern Residents Tax Deduction. The submission advocates for an increase in the deduction based on the cumulative impacts of inflation since it was introduced in 1987 — someone asked about that earlier — to be increased to address more effectively the high cost of living in remote northern areas and to be enhanced to provide greater benefits for lower- income earners.
The submission also discusses the need for the Government of Canada to consider the Northern Residents Tax Deduction within the broader context of northern economic development. I have provided a copy of that submission to you.
The recommendation to increase the tax deduction has been supported by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is a land claims organization; the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut; and the federal New Democratic and Liberal parties. However, the Standing Committee on Finance did not include the NRTD as part of the recommendations listed in their final report released earlier this month.
Although the budget has not been announced yet, perhaps this opportunity has been missed to use the tax system to provide some measure of relief to Northerners, particularly to the working poor. This recommendation should be given further consideration by the Government of Canada.
The Food Mail Program is administered by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, and is designed to make nutritious, perishable foods more affordable in isolated communities that rely on air transportation service. Eligible foods can be shipped at a rate of 80 cents per kilogram plus handling charges. The program can be accessed by both retailers and individuals through established points of entry.
Last year, the cost of the program was $39.6 million, of which $22.4 million was utilized in Nunavut. Although this subsidy is significant, the cost of a basic nutritious diet for a family of four located in the most isolated communities of Nunavut or the Northwest Territories ranges from $370 to $450 per week. That cost is with the subsidy in place. For the same weekly basket of goods in southern Canada, the cost is $195 to $225 per week.
Overall, the cost of living in Nunavut has been estimated as 75 per cent higher than the Canadian average. At the same time, the median family income is $52,300 compared to $60,600 for Canada, while the average number of persons per household is 3.7 in Nunavut compared to 2.5 for Canada.
Clearly, with lower income levels and higher dependency rates, compounded by a high cost of living, an enhancement to the Food Mail Program would provide immediate relief by reducing the cost of nutritious perishable foods, making these foods more accessible and leading to healthier diets.
I intended to bring a prop, but I forgot. To put this program in a different perspective, the Nunavut portion of the program costs approximately two dollars per resident per day. In Iqaluit, an apple costs about a dollar. So, for the price of an apple a day, the Food Mail Program could be improved and be more effective as a tool to reduce poverty.
In closing, I want to thank you again for making the trip to Iqaluit, and for providing the opportunity to speak with you today. When I sat down and tried to decide what I would say in five minutes, it is difficult to identify a couple of specifics. I have tried to frame my comments in terms of a large, long-term issue, in terms of long-term investments in economic development and in terms of a couple of short-term items that perhaps could be addressed within a year or two years that would have immediate implications.
I look forward to questions and discussion.
Senator Mercer: I find that if we ask questions in this city, we might receive answers from the people we ask them of, but if not, somebody else comes along with the answers later on.
Thank you, Mr. Cousins, for the answer on the date of the introduction of the Northern Resident Tax Deduction. 1987 is a long time ago.
Ms. Ell, thank you for singling me out. I appreciate it because I sit on another committee, the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications where we are preparing a study on ports. I have the same concern as you do about the amount of money that the Government of Canada has invested in the Pacific gateway and in developing Prince Rupert but have not spent a nickel on the east coast or the northern coast.
By the way, you made reference that more than $26 million a year is required for the next seven years under the Building Canada Fund. If you go to the Building Canada Fund, I have discovered this matter through my Transport Committee work, and you ask them for an application for that fund, you cannot have one because they have not designed it yet. They have announced all this money, but they are giving none of it away.
This system is amazing and you will hear a lot more about it next week in the budget. They will tell you what they have done. You cannot apply for the fund because it has not been approved by Treasury Board.
Our friends who are not with us today will tell you how wonderful this initiative is, and I thank you for the opportunity to put in my political advertisement. However, I think we all need to address this issue of a port, and I want to hear more about it from Ms. Ell.
Some people in the last election campaign laughed a little bit at Mr. Harper talking about having a port in the Arctic. He was talking about a port for sovereignty reasons and for a military base. It will serve military purposes, but it makes more sense from an economic development point of view.
I know this question is difficult because I will ask a pan-Arctic question and you will give me an answer that is prejudiced because of your location in Nunavut. Where is the best place for a port in the North?
Ms. Ell: Rankin Inlet: Maybe an Arctic gateway council could answer that question.
Realistically, Iqaluit is the capital city of Nunavut. Rankin Inlet would benefit as one of the major cities. We are broken up into three territories. If we had to start with one, we would have to start somewhere. The other area would be in the Qikiqtarjuaq region, which would probably be Cambridge Bay, but they are talking about a road and port, which also are delayed. They are thinking of those things, but they are driven by the mining sector.
I was at a trade show recently, the first one ever, called Northern Lights, in Ottawa. A person from the Woodward Group of Companies was talking about how, if Iqaluit were to have a port, it would reduce costs for the people there. He said they would be able to have a ferry service between Labrador and Iqaluit. The ferry service would have two points of location where it could take off from Labrador Cove. One would be able to arrive within 18 hours and the other one would be able to arrive here within two days. The person talked about how that service could significantly reduce costs in all sectors. It could reduce costs not only for the construction of houses, but the costs for food and the costs for almost everything that we use up here, let alone the fact that for the first time, we would be able to drive south.
Senator Mercer: You give a good political answer and you did not even fall into my trap of sticking to Nunavut as there are opportunities in the Mackenzie Delta because of the gas and oil. Our friends in the Yukon did not talk about a port. They seemed to concede that it was probably best further east. They were talking about the Northwest Territories, not Nunavut.
It would seem to me that what we really require is a north and south port in the North; one on the Arctic Ocean side and one somewhere around here. I do not profess to know.
It would make some sense to build a port in a community the size of Iqaluit or Rankin Inlet because of the established communications.
What happens though, if we have a port in, say, in Iqaluit, for argument's sake? We then have to trans-ship, which we already do now. How do you trans-ship? I am looking at a map here. How do we transport things to Hall Beach now? Is it the same way? The ship is offshore, and they download the cargo onto something smaller and take it to the beach? Does that cargo originate in Iqaluit or does it originate in the South and the ship stops at Hall Beach and makes a number of stops along the shore?
Ms. Ell: The shipping companies have schedules every summer, but the summer schedule is limited. Sometimes, they have a boat carrier for Iqaluit and then they will go to other communities for more offloading of other supplies.
Senator Mercer: Do they drop a lot of cargo in Iqaluit for other communities on Baffin Island?
Ms. Ell: The supply-demand in Iqaluit is greater than those of the other communities.
Senator Mercer: If I wanted to ship something to Kimmirut, it would probably come through Iqaluit, as opposed to being shipped directly to Kimmirut.
Ms. Ell: It may and it may not. It may go further up north. It might be combined with traveling to other smaller communities.
Senator Mercer: Assuming that your recommendation came to fruition, the port idea is more than a port. You then need to think about roads because that infrastructure is there. In reality, Nunavut could spend all the infrastructure money that the government has said they have available every year and still not meet the demands. You used the figure that $26 million a year is required for the next seven years. What is the top priority for that $26 million?
Ms. Ell: Northerners would have to make that decision on their own. The decision would have to be left up to them. You know how much is in the Building Canada Fund. It is in the billions, I believe. I think you also know how much of that money will go, for example, to the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridor Transportation Infrastructure Fund, which is $233.5 million, as I understand it.
What we are getting in Iqaluit right now is in the $242-million range. That was announced recently. I am not sure of the exact number, but if you think about it, it is less than 1 per cent of the Building Canada Fund that is available.
All we want is an equal share of what should come to us.
Senator Mercer: I am on your side here because in the last budget, there is a line item for the Pacific gateway and there is no line item for the Atlantic gateway or the northern gateway. Those of us who live north and east are becoming a little tired of this situation and we will have to flex our muscles. I am making a speech, not asking a question.
Ms. Ell: If I had to make a speech, I would say that we could also improve our fishing industry, and not only tourism, but all our sectors. We cannot always depend on government.
Senator Mercer: That was one part of both your presentations that I liked; taking ownership of the problem. Obviously, government has a role to play.
Neither of you seemed to concentrate, and I thought you might, on the resource revenue that leaves the North and goes to Ottawa from mining and the gas and oil that is developed. All that money goes to Ottawa. We do not see that situation in Alberta.
I am happy to say that we do not see it in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland and Labrador because we have a separate agreement with the Government of Canada called the Atlantic Accord, although we are having trouble with certain people honouring it, but we will come to that issue.
It seems to me that to find a solution to problems in the North, one of the places to look is the royalty money that goes to Ottawa every year. Am I wrong here?
Ms. Ell: We have a whole other department that is in the Kitikmeot Region called the Department of Lands and Resources, and they deal with resource royalties and things like that. Unfortunately, we heard that we are able to speak only about a week ago and we have not been able to gather all kinds of information. We can bring forth maybe a one- page document that would talk more about the mining area.
Senator Mercer: As I move across the three territories in the North, I ask the same question: Did we come together collectively as three territorial governments, as three members of Parliament, three senators, and various other councils that may exist in all three territories, and talk to Ottawa, particularly about the tax issue, which is so out of date, and about the resource revenue, which seems to me is a huge part of the solution, particularly where more mineral exploration and exploitation goes on?
I would love to see your comments on that question at some point.
Ms. Ell: I can ask my colleagues back at the office for more information on that question.
Senator Mercer: Glenn, what is your opinion?
Mr. Cousins: Resource revenue sharing and devolution has been a hot political topic, although it has calmed down of late.
In the long term, an objective of Nunavut is to achieve devolution, and I stress ``in the long term.'' Currently, I would say, there are no operating mines or effectively operating mines in Nunavut, although some are on the horizon. The one mine that was in operation is now in bankruptcy protection, in Tahera, the Jericho mine.
Not that the issue is not important because nothing is in operation, but a number of capacity issues, I believe, have been identified as part of the preparation for devolution that must be dealt with first.
The Mayer Report on Nunavut Devolution identifies capacity as one of the obstacles to proceeding with devolution discussions with Nunavut.
Senator Peterson: For clarity, is the Nunavut Economic Forum a separate organization, or part of the government?
Mr. Cousins: It is a non-governmental organization, a small, non-profit organization. As a matter of fact, I am the one and only employee. I am researcher, clerk and everything else. That situation is typical of many organizations in Nunavut that do a lot of important work; small organizations with one, two or three employees.
It is an organization of about 30 members who have put themselves into this forum as a way to collaborate on economic development. The members include the Government of Canada through the regional office of Indian and Northern Affairs Canada here in Nunavut, the Government of Nunavut through the Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., other regional Inuit associations, Inuit development corporations, chambers of commerce and other small non-profits that have a stake in specific sector development like in arts and crafts or fisheries, that sort of thing. It is a broad membership organization.
Senator Peterson: Do you operate like a lobbying group? Do you lobby the federal government to give you money and then lobby the provincial and territorial governments as to how to spend it?
Mr. Cousins: We only advocate, never lobby. The idea is to work in collaboration. If we go to the feds, for example, if we go to INAC to talk about Strategic Investments in Northern Economic Development, SINED, we do so on a collaborative consultative basis, and not so much as a lobby group.
Senator Peterson: Is this one voice? You are not at cross-purposes with somebody else, both thinking you are doing the same thing but are not: Instead, you are competing with one another?
Mr. Cousins: At times, within the membership, there are competing agendas and competing priorities. There is no doubt about that. However, because we all have an overall objective to develop the economy, we can get along at a certain level.
Senator Adams: I know you are part of Nunavut Tunngavik Corporation, and I know some groups are still fighting with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs on some parts of the land claims agreement. I do not know if you deal with this or not.
Some people are mad about the land claims agreement in Nunavut. I will be in Ottawa next Tuesday morning for the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples, along with Senator Peterson. I do not know if there are parts of it are still outstanding for the Nunavut land claim agreement. Has the agreement been studied by the NTI?
Mr. Cousins: The forum has not been involved with that particular issue, except to be aware of it. It is between NTI and the Government of Canada.
Senator Adams: On the Nunavut Trust agreement for mining projects such as the Mary River Project, I do not know if you studied the land claim agreement for Nunavut lands and fed lands. I heard mostly from the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, QIA, and I think that land is owned by Qikiqtani Inuit up to 100 per cent. Do you study things like that on the agreements of the mining companies, economy-wise and so on?
Mr. Cousins: We have not done specific analysis of those sorts of projects, partly because not a lot of information is available, but the impact benefit agreements, as you know, are negotiated in secret between the mining companies and the regional Inuit association.
Our studies on the economy tend to be broader. I provided a copy of the last update to the Nunavut Economic Outlook, 2005 Nunavut Economic Outlook. This year, we will produce a revised outlook for 2008. The delay is caused by waiting for fresh census data. We will take a look at the economic impacts of those mining developments overall. However, once again, the direct relationship between QIA and Baffinland Iron Mines in this case is not public information.
Senator Adams: Your recommendation is for $26 million a year for seven years for a northern gateway. As Senator Mercer mentioned, organizations cannot apply as the application does not exist yet. Did your report go to the NTI, to the Nunavut Government or to the Department of Finance in Ottawa? If so, how does your organization think future development should happen? You will need more ports and money. Will you go back to the politicians to see how it can be done?
Mr. Cousins: As far as the allocation of the Building Canada Fund that was recently announced goes, as Ms. Ell discussed, the amount is not really enough. That announcement is relatively new, and I am not sure how we will proceed with that issue.
There is a lot of interest among some stakeholders in Nunavut to establish a gateway council, an Arctic gateway council, which probably would be better positioned to talk about the development of marine infrastructure in particular, but also air transportation infrastructure in relation to the Building Canada Fund.
I know Ms. Ell is involved, as I am to a certain extent, in establishing that Arctic gateway council. Again, a gateway council will be best positioned to lobby government for increased funds for Nunavut from the Building Canada Fund.
Senator Mahovlich: Ms. Ell, communities in the North are not conducive to docking facilities. Have you conducted any study on any northern country where they have a port that could compare with the quantities of ice that we have here in northern Canada? If there is none, the engineers would have to come in and almost create some kind of a new docking system, I would think, for large ships to dock at Rankin Inlet or Iqaluit.
Ms. Ell: I do not know if we need a study. We have one port in Nanisivik. It was built by a mining company for the gold mine, but nobody lives there. It was an old mining company. We have had one port in Nunavut for several years. It was to haul gold in and out of that area.
Senator Mahovlich: It was never used?
Ms. Ell: It was used when the mining company was in existence.
Senator Mahovlich: The port is still there?
Ms. Ell: It is still there. I do not have all the details, but apparently, it will be renovated, as I understand, by the federal government for sovereignty reasons.
Mr. Cousins: The City of Iqaluit has completed some initial but in-depth investigations into the establishment of a port facility and what that port would look like. I guess we have to put it into perspective. Much like Nanisivik, the port facility would not be a big one as we might imagine in St. John's or Halifax. It would be a small, rudimentary port facility. In some cases, it might not be a big port that a big ship ties up to or a big wharf that a big ship ties up to. It might be a docking facility for barges to tie up to, as opposed to tying up to the ship itself, and that sort of thing. The type of facility depends on depth of water, and so on.
Senator Mahovlich: You mentioned the tax deductions and the cost of living for this area, and you wanted some benefits.
For example, a fellow like me, if he came to Nunavut to live, the cost of living would be so expensive compared to living in Toronto, for example. I do not think I could afford to live here. For example, you said that the average amount in Canada is $28,000, as compared to $43,000 in Nunavut. That is a large difference.
Mr. Cousins: I believe you are referencing the poverty levels.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes.
Mr. Cousins: Yes, that difference is significant. At the same time, to make that situation even worse, we have higher dependency levels — larger families, the highest birth rates in Canada — and, of course, the high cost of basic services, food as well as heat and electricity, as Ms. Ell referenced when she talked about the cost of electricity and so on.
It is expensive. If they are not in a two-income family situation, it is difficult, even with various housing subsidies and so on that many residents receive, or subsidies from employers. Yes, it is expensive.
Senator Mahovlich: If the birth rate continues at the same level, 20 years from now, we will have twice as many problems as we have today. Housing will be enormous if things continue the way they are going, if we do not come up with a good plan.
Ms. Ell: If things do not change, the overcrowding rate in Nunavut will rise by 70 per cent.
Senator Mahovlich: Seventy per cent?
Ms. Ell: Yes, by 2016, it is estimated to be 70 per cent.
The 2003 statistics in Canada reported that Inuit living in overcrowded homes in northern communities was seven times higher than the national average. We have a waiting list in Nunavut. In the overall population, 15 per cent of the people who live in Nunavut are on a waiting list. We have an overcrowding issue and a lack of housing issue.
Mr. Cousins: I think the housing information was put together in 2004. There was a figure of 5,000 housing units required immediately just to catch up in terms of housing needs. The initial $200 million from the Nunavut Housing Trust Fund that is currently being implemented will deliver 700 houses. Of course, you can imagine the challenges and the logistics of building 5,000 homes in Nunavut communities.
From a personal perspective, I have an adult child living in my house, as many of us do. There is no way that they can go out on their own. That is a huge challenge. What do we do about it, right?
Senator Mahovlich: What is the situation with hospitals?
Mr. Cousins: The government of Nunavut has put a large amount of money into hospitals and health centres over the last few years. Even in Iqaluit, the new Qikiqtani General Hospital was recently opened. Those facilities are built at huge costs. The costs of construction have almost doubled in the last while because of energy and transportation costs, the price of steel, and the price of labour, because of Alberta basically. We do not have a shortage of labour because of Alberta; we have a shortage of labour because the education system, over the last 20 or 30 years, has failed to recognize that trades are a viable option in terms of education. When I went to high school, only the dumb kids were encouraged to go to shop class, right? It was not something that was encouraged. We are living with that attitude today, are we not?
The biggest problem in health care is facilities, but we also need to be able to attract and retain doctors and nurses. That is actually the biggest problem in health care. Even in a community as big as Iqaluit, we cannot make an appointment. It is bad.
Senator Mahovlich: Do we have an MRI?
Mr. Cousins: No, we have to go to Ottawa for everything.
Senator Peterson: The overcrowding in the units usually results in high humidity and subsequently, black mould. Then the units are condemned. Has that situation been an issue here yet?
Ms. Ell: Those are certainly issues. More significant is the respiratory issue with children, which has a high prevalence.
The Chair: I want to thank both of you. The presentation has been a vigorous one that requires many answers. I am from Alberta and I can remember all the difficulties of starting the gateway project in B.C., and you are right, you should have something here.
Colleagues, with our next presenter, our visit here will round up. It has been a wonderful visit today, wonderful in the way that people have come here. In another way, we are saddened by some of the difficulties here in this important place in Canada.
John Lamb, the President of the Iqaluit Community Greenhouse Society, will have the last word. Good afternoon, Mr. Lamb. We would very much like to hear from you.
John Lamb, President, Iqaluit Community Greenhouse Society: Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you.
Before I launch into my presentation, and knowing that this is the end of the day, I want to say that I have been here since 1999, and it is easy to be overwhelmed by the kind of things you have heard today, about the problems in Nunavut. However, you probably would have heard the same thing at one point when the west was being opened.
The number of problems is extraordinary, but a lot of people have a pioneer spirit here. I am not talking about only the southerners like me who come to the North. I am talking about the local people, especially the younger generation who see the importance of bringing their kids up right; good parenting and so on.
If you have heard a lot of negatives today, there are also a lot of positives. It takes a little more time to find them. It is too bad you could not stay a week here and travel around a little more because you find some of those positives that underlie the somewhat stark day-to-day realities.
Now, let me talk about what I am here for.
A few years ago, a group of residents of Iqaluit came together and decided to build a greenhouse. In the spring of 2006, the funding was raised. By the end of October, the greenhouse was built. We battened down the hatches, hoped it would not blow away to Kansas and, sure enough, it survived the winter.
There are some pictures to pass around to give you a picture of what I am talking about.
The greenhouse was never intended as a club for local gardening enthusiasts or southerners who miss their gardens back home. From the beginning, we viewed this project as a way to contribute to community wellness in Iqaluit.
We have a growing population here. As was mentioned earlier, this place is growing fast, with few recreational facilities, and a lot of what is around for people is not healthy. You know all the things that young people get into. We felt that a greenhouse would be something that would provide people in Iqaluit with a healthy alternative, something good to become involved in. That purpose was the central motivating one of the greenhouse project.
It is also a compelling project from an environmental perspective. As you know, a great amount of the food consumed in Nunavut must be imported, most of it by air. The greenhouse is an effort by one small Arctic community to reduce its carbon footprint by growing some of its own food. That effort is undoubtedly symbolic, but we think it is a symbol that could lead other people in other parts of the world who are causing climate change to do their part as well.
The project is already receiving a lot of national and international media attention about what one small community can do. We also think that greenhouses can contribute to Nunavut's economy and enhance its self-reliance. I look at the greenhouse a little in the context of the old saying, if you want to help a hungry man, do not give him a fish but a fishing rod.
In 2004, the federal and territorial governments entered into an Agricultural Policy Framework. Most of the focus of that framework is on harvesting caribou and muskoxen, but we think that there could be a viable agriculture sector in Nunavut.
The Inuvik greenhouse, which some of you may have seen, has a commercial operation. Northern Quebec produces herbal plants and markets them commercially. In fact, we can buy in the airport here herbal plants produced in northern Quebec, but we cannot buy Nunavut-produced plants. There is an element of the economy that could be developed and we think that the greenhouse can help move in that direction.
The impulses for this project are community wellness, the environment, and the economic benefits. However, let me tell you a little bit about the money for this project. The cost for the existing greenhouse was $170,000. That was to bring everything here, build it and the whole bit. The two largest funders were the Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Harvesters Association, which is an emanation or a program of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Seeing as how the mayor has just pulled up next to me, I want to mention that the City of Iqaluit has also been a major supporter for us, and I want to thank her.
I do not want to talk too long, so I will finish with my vision of where we go from here, and I have a suggestion for the committee.
Over the next couple of years, I believe that we will show that a modest-sized greenhouse can be operated efficiently in the North, and that it can produce a lot of food.
Ultimately, I would like to see a greenhouse in every community in Nunavut. The amount of food it can produce here in Iqaluit is probably only a drop in the bucket in a community of 6,000, going on 7,000, people. Most communities in the North are a lot smaller than that. A greenhouse the size of the one in the picture can produce a significant part of people's fresh fruit requirements during the growing season. It can reduce the amount of food that needs to be imported, and for the fist time, it can give people in the North a taste of what fresh vegetables really taste like.
As I said, we are now fundraising to expand the existing greenhouse. During its first season last year, there was way more demand for participation than we could possibly accommodate, so we are looking to expand it. Until now, the Government of Nunavut and local donors have provided most of the funding, but frankly, trying to raise money in Nunavut is like trying to raise money in Bangladesh. It is a poor jurisdiction, relatively. There are no foundations here. Companies like Canadian North Airlines, First Air and you name it are hit up all the time by everybody, and they are extremely generous, but it is hard to know where to go.
Here is where I come to my suggestion for the committee.
I suggest that the committee encourage the federal government to find a way to help build greenhouses across the North, or at least in some communities. The Nunavut Harvesters Association, again with money from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, has been generous, but its focus will be wildlife harvesting almost for sure.
We have been turned down three times by Indian and Northern Affairs Canada for funding, not because they are against greenhouses — in fact, they have tried to be helpful — but because their funding programs are too narrow. Their broad mandate, if you look on their website, is to support sustainable communities. I would say a greenhouse fits that mandate pretty well, but none of their project boxes is flexible enough to provide any funding for a project like this, and I would like to see that changed.
Some people might ask, when Nunavut has so many infrastructure needs — roads, sewage lagoons, housing and schools — how can we possibly justify putting a couple of hundred thousand dollars into something like a greenhouse? Yes, there are choices to be made. It reminds me of the old song: In addition to bread, people need roses too.
In addition to the basics for survival, people need things in their lives that speak of beauty and hope; things that make them feel good. I invite you all to go to the greenhouse, today and see if you do not feel good the moment you walk through that door. Our vision is that everybody in Nunavut can feel like that.
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Lamb.
I am pleased that you came today to see us, Mayor Sheutiapik. We have had a wonderful day here in your place, with outstanding people who have come to tell us things that we need to hear. We will do our best to follow up on them.
Elisapee Sheutiapik, Mayor, City of Iqaluit: Thank you very much.
I am excited. Welcome to our wonderful city. Although we have challenges, we are still great people.
I always try to approach all the challenges here in a positive manner, so ending with John Lamb is a great way to end the day.
I know there were talks about housing, and I always say ``affordable housing,'' because what is the point of building houses if people cannot afford to pay the rent?
A majority of the people are not educated, as people are around this table. Realistically, they do not have the $60,000 income to pay the market value so we need ``affordable housing.''
I say this because I sat on the board of directors of the Iqaluit Housing Authority. People have been on the waiting list for five years. Sometimes there are three generations in a house. When a young family comes to the board, when they have a newborn and there are issues within the family, it is hard as a board when the mother is crying and looking for a unit because they have already been on a wait list for two years in preparation of this young family they have.
As a board, when there is not one vacancy, it is hard. Sitting on the housing board was harder than dealing with the big issues of a city, believe you me, because it touches people's lives.
Overcrowding definitely has a social impact, so affordable housing is key here.
I could have jumped out of my seat earlier when you talked about the port. I have been working on a port for the last few years. Location is always an issue, but since 2007, there has been a lot of talk of sustainable planning.
I was fortunate to sit on the Prime Minister's Advisory Committee on Cities and Communities, chaired by Mike Harcourt. What a great experience that was. When I hear the word, sustainability, for me in our territory, it scares me, but we are trying to do our part to be sustainable.
On that note, when it comes to a deep sea port, I do not want to hear mining, because mining operations have lives. Today, you heard that a deep seat port in Nanisivik was built for a mine. That port is being revamped now, but it sat there after the mine closed. If we invest, let us invest in a sustainable fashion. If there is no mining, what do we need a port for? Usually, it is for dry goods.
As the capital, we have the most population, of course. We had a fatal accident last year with heavy equipment doing its thing on the ship. It backed up too far, went in the water, and there was a fatal accident. For me, safety has become another issue because as our population grows and the need for dry cargo increases, safety becomes an issue.
Twenty-five cruise ships sail by, and I am saying bye to that money because we have talented arts and crafts people in our territory. We are visual and hands-on, and I think those qualities produce lots of talent. This summer alone we had four or five ships docked at a time. I also know, in talking to the Makivik Corporation in Northern Quebec and to people in Happy Valley - Goose Bay, that they could direct a lot of cruise ships here. However because we do not have a docking facility, a lot of them just go back.
You have to remember also that some people on cruise ships may be challenged physically, and going on a Zodiac boat is questionable.
We could have a lot of benefits, new money I call it, because of our arts and crafts industry, our hotels and our restaurants. These activities are more sustainable than building a port for a mine.
I think, realistically, if the industry wants to grow, if they have the funding, they can build the port.
You talked about natural resources. I am also President of The Nunavut Association of Municipalities. We have been vocal about that issue. Unfortunately, realistically, I think we are not ready today, but the sooner we have devolution talks, the better, because mines have a life. When these mines open and after all the minerals are extracted, what will we get? We will get zero. You have heard of all the needs we have, so we could use some money in our territory, with funds coming from our own ground.
I am really excited. I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.
The Chair: We are delighted that you are here and willing to speak. You have a fine city here. I have been attached to it in a different way than the way we have been talking about here today. I am attached to it for the outstanding group of people devoted to literacy assistance in the city. Literacy is an issue that has been at the top of my political life for a long time, and I am still in touch with this group. These times have been hard in the last little while, but these people are wonderful and they have done a tremendous job here.
I would love it if you would phone them tomorrow and give them my best because they are people to be extremely proud of.
Senator Adams: Thank you for coming, Ms. Sheutiapik, and as the mayor, to welcome us here. Iqaluit, since the beginning of the territorial government, has always been a leader in the territory of Nunavut.
Senator Mercer and I are on the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications. I am also on the Fisheries Committee. We have been talking about things such as ports in particular and Nunavut in the future. The government and the departments always say they do not know anything about money.
Mr. Harper was campaigning in Winnipeg and I asked him a question one time on a trip there if he would build a port if he was elected prime minister in Canada. We have not seen anything yet. They were talking about a $50 million port. We know what the costs are here.
Mr. Lamb, I think your greenhouse project is interesting. I am on the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. Hopefully, it will be approved for the Fisheries and Environment committees to come here together sometime at the end of May. Hopefully, the committees will be provided with the money for traveling so they can see what is going on here.
I was a member of the Territorial Council and we talked about greenhouses. We are familiar with some of the missions that first came up here to the North. One in particular had a little greenhouse and they grew vegetables and so on. It usually worked. They work here because, as of this month, the sun starts coming up higher and around May, it is never dark. We have 24 hours of sunlight and then it becomes dark again around September.
One time, I met a Japanese man who invested in greenhouses in Japan. He asked me if it would be worth investing in the closed mines. I told him the best place was Rankin Inlet, but I did not know how much ice and water there would be as it has been closed since 1955. Perhaps, sometime in the future, your organization can look into that possibility.
In your greenhouse, what percentage of vegetables consumed here are you able to grow? I see right now they have the North Store and a co-op, a local store here. Can you enter into an agreement whereby they would buy their vegetables from the greenhouse?
Mr. Lamb: Maybe I can tell you quickly that the greenhouse we have right now is about 20 feet by 50 feet long. We are looking to double that size, and we think we can grow a lot of food in that size of greenhouse. It is not even nearly enough to provide for 6,000 people. But again, in a community of 700, 800 or 1,000 people, a greenhouse that size could contribute a significant proportion of the food.
Right now, if we start in a greenhouse, we can probably grow from toward the end of June to the end of August or early September. However, last spring inside the greenhouse in April it was minus 20 outside and it was plus 50 inside the greenhouse. That is during the day. At night, it goes back down to minus 20.
We have introduced what is called passive solar heating. That amounts to a whole bunch of garbage pails full of water. During the day, the water absorbs the heat and then it exudes the heat during the nighttime. That heating is not enough on its own. We need to keep the temperature up to about 6 degrees to keep plants growing. That is only one example of the kind of environmental technology that we will use. We are now looking into active solar heating, and maybe winds at some point. A variety of things can be looked at.
We would like to expand the growing season from April until October. Beyond that season, unless we have wind working well to keep heat, heating a greenhouse that does not have a lot of insulating value is costly. We are trying to find a sensible balance here, but we think we can do it.
Senator Adams: I remember one time, some of us here went on a trip to a powerhouse of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation with another group of senators. We heard about the heating of the reservoir, heating the water that goes to the town here in Iqaluit. The community hates the waste from the power plant affecting the communities. I hope in the future, corporations like that one will have better technology. Rankin Inlet installed some heat systems that looped to the government houses from the powerhouse with less waste, and they saved up to 30 per cent to heat the houses and government buildings.
I wonder if you are looking at something like that for the future, and if you want to expand to other communities.
Mr. Lamb: Maybe I can comment quickly, and the mayor may want to add to this comment.
The City of Iqaluit, I believe, was the first community in Canada to have a sustainable community land. At any rate, there was something that we were the first on a few years ago, the point being that the city recognizes that if we try to have a biggish city in the North, we have to figure out innovative ways of making it sustainable, and I think Iqaluit has done a great job on that front.
The city, as I said earlier, has been one of our best supporters. It has taken a lot to get the greenhouse up, for the reasons I told you about, but we hope to work with the city on various fronts to expand how, if you will pardon the expression, it puts down roots into the community where we are looking at. We have invited the Elders Society to become involved, and the Food Bank and youth groups. We want science classes from the schools to become involved. In other words, we want to involve more people.
We have reached out to conduct research with great people. The University of Saskatchewan, for instance, uses space in the greenhouse to work on soil usage in the North. There is a lot of potential for environmental research.
Also, this year is International Polar Year. To raise a slightly sore point, of the federal money that went into the International Polar Year that provided support for a lot of southern researchers — I will find a polite expression — very little actually stuck in the North. I am sure the mayor was involved in this issue. We tried to talk to them about legacy projects and leaving something behind. As I understand it, all the legacy funding dried up somehow and disappeared.
A greenhouse project should have been a focus for International Polar Year support, but it was impossible.
Senator Mercer: Mr. Lamb, I like your idea of having a greenhouse in as many small communities in the North as possible. It makes sense, with the high cost of food, and also with the tradition of sharing that is common in the North amongst the Northern people. Someone would not come in and open a greenhouse to make a fortune from the food. It would be shared in some equitable way with the community.
I wanted to ask about wind power because I have noticed it can be windy here. I come from Nova Scotia, where it is always windy, or at least, parts of it are. It seems to me that wind power makes so much sense, especially if it generates power that can be stored in some way, in those down times when it is not windy. You seem to indicate that this is economic?
Mr. Lamb: I think probably the mayor would have a better answer to this question than I do.
We would love to use wind energy if it were available. I think it makes sense.
Ms. Sheutiapik: For a few years, I sat on the board of a power corporation so I have some experience.
Senator Mercer: Is there anything she does not do up here.
Ms. Sheutiapik: We do residual heating here, which is taking heat from the power plant, recycling it and we use it for the new hospital expansion.
We had to build a new water booster station for our first Arctic sustainable subdivision, the project Mr. Lamb referred to. We developed and ensured there were low-flush toilets and showers in this subdivision. We had to have a lot of variances because we wanted the buildings to be built in such a fashion so they would have the most daylight savings, and those kinds of initiatives.
We were recognized by Engineering Research and Development in Agriculture, ERDA. It is an organization of professionals, engineers and planners. I believe they were established internationally in 1985. Iqaluit was recognized for its efforts on our first Arctic Sustainable Subdivision.
There have been a couple of wind power projects, I believe, in Baker Lake and Rankin Inlet possibly. Again, capacity becomes an issue. These wind generators are huge. In Baker Lake, I think it was, the winds were so high that the blades came off. That is how strong the winds were.
When there is an influx of wind in southern Canada, when the wind generates enough power, they have a community close by where they can give that excess to. We do not have that here. Our generators would be going offline anyway unless the wind generators have changed technology in the last few years. This is why they did not think wind generation was possible. First, on capacity, we do not have anyone to come and fix them, but most importantly, we do not have a community close by to send the excess energy produced when there is a huge influx of wind.
Residual heating is successful. I had the opportunity of touring in Panniqtuuq, and seeing a residual heating project to the school. They have to put on their heating system physically once a year just to get it going, because the school is heated enough through residual heating from the power plant.
Those kinds of projects are happening. Before I left the power corporation, Rankin Inlet was running projects as well. So, residual heating is being well utilized in our territory.
Senator Mercer: The technology is changing, though. It is advancing. It is not as good as you would like but it seems to me that we would be missing an opportunity. It would take a lot of turbines, a lot of windmills, before you ever reached a point where you had overcapacity for a city the size of Iqaluit.
If you built up to that capacity, yes, there is no community close by, but eventually there will be. It would seem to me that sometimes we cannot wait for it to happen. We must make it happen.
Ms. Sheutiapik: Right now, a feasibility study is being done on hydro. Originally, five sites were picked, and I think they are down to three. Because of this great long-term planning, it is supposed to eliminate silos, and I think that is happening in this community.
We completed a feasibility study on a deep sea port a few years ago. With this feasibility study on hydro, we have been talking that there might be a better location for a deep sea port that ties into the hydro. That kind of partnership is in the works right now.
In talking to the people about this possible hydro connection, they have informed us that there is a location where a port could be better suited because we could gain three months of it being opened and that would be best for our fishing industry.
I forgot to mention, that is an industry that we are finally tapping into from our own resources. I think we can maximize it. I had the opportunity of sailing on a Russian ship to Greenland this summer with the Annenberg Foundation. It was quite the experience to sail to Greenland, and there was Baffin Fisheries Coalition boat, our own shipping vessel, offloading in Greenland. My mind went ``click,'' that could be on our own dock.
Senator Mercer: The thought of having a port in Nunavut is a good one. Again, I do not think that we need to wait for the demand. It is one of those things you can build. This community is made for cruise ships because of what so many people do here so well, with carvings and so on. In Halifax, we have recently gotten back into the cruise ship business. We have a unique industry in Nova Scotia, crystal. It is the only crystal factory in North America. When cruise ships are in, the place is lined up with people coming in to see and buy crystal, which is terrific for the industry and a great spin-off for restaurants, bars and everything else, so I wish you well in that.
Ms. Sheutiapik: I want to make one more comment, because I am so passionate about the port.
You have to remember that all the key stakeholders have been involved right from the get-go. When it comes to the fishing industry, you are in a territory called Nunavut, which is our land. Therefore, we are protective and conscious of that when we talk about sustainability, and when it comes to our animals. You do not see ivory bone miniature villages in Montreal like you see in my office. When it comes to the fishing industry, they do not even want big vessels because they realize they will damage the bottom of the water. They want smaller vessels, which is great, because the surrounding communities, Panniqtuuq and Lake Harbour, can invest in these vessels, and they are close enough where they can offload here.
You also have to remember the other significant infrastructure that ties into a deep-sea port is the air strip. We have that. I believe when it comes to the shuttle, for an emergency landing, if they cannot land in Ottawa where they land today, we are back-up, so we have the air strip infrastructure.
Mr. Lamb: I want to make one comment on the energy issue we have been talking about, and try to tie a few things together here.
I think sustainability of Canada's Arctic communities is something that Ottawa needs to think a little differently about. A lot of focus is on the military when it comes to sovereignty. If we look at Canada's claim to the Arctic, it rests basically on the Inuit occupancy of this part of the country. Internationally, that is what it comes down to. If we occupy a place, then we have some claim to sovereignty over it.
The viability of communities in Nunavut, back in the traditional days, was not the same for Inuit. You now have communities that are tied to Canada's claim and if those communities ever became unviable, that situation would have an impact on Canada's claim to the North.
It seems to me that Ottawa ought to be open to experimentation, research and investment in the things that will make these communities viable. How high would the cost of a barrel of oil have to be before that cost would shut down communities? Our communities here are 100 per cent dependent on oil. There would be a point when we would have to say, we cannot afford that. The Government of Nunavut could be bankrupted without a whole lot of trouble by rising oil costs.
It seems to me that if Canada is serious about its interest in sovereignty, serious investment in alternatives to oil must be there.
The Government of Nunavut, for which I work in my real job, has been forced from limited resources to focus its effort on alternative energies, on hydro. They are doing a good job of looking into that alternative and developing projects, but I think the brains globally who talk about alternative energy talk about hybrid sources, multiple purposes.
It seems to me we have a lot of sunlight, solar energy, wind, geothermal — something I happen to be interested in — and hydro. All of these things ought to be invested in so that one day, we do not face shutting down communities.
Senator Mahovlich: It is a good feeling to have something positive here. I am all for the greenhouses.
When you look to save money and you have mining, did you ever think of a greenhouse underground? It is a lot warmer, it is damper, and it has been known to succeed. A lot of greenhouses are underground. Mr. Lamb, you probably know more about it than I do.
Mr. Lamb: I think you are jumping to a rash conclusion now.
It is interesting. I think I have heard of mushrooms, and is there not some place in Saskatchewan where they grow dope underground? Possibly, it is in Flin Flon.
Do you know how many grow-op jokes we have put up with on our greenhouse?
It is an interesting idea. I would be interested to know what the power consumption requirements for something like that are. Again, we come back to, where do we get energy.
Maybe if we go deep enough, things warm up, I do not know.
Senator Mahovlich: Yes, they do.
I came from a mining community, and the McIntyre Mine was something like three miles underground. Down there, the air was thicker, it was damp, and the men did not like it. If they had a cigarette, the smoke stayed there, it would not go away because the air was so thick, so things could grow down there quickly.
Mr. Lamb: What we need is more mines, I guess.
Is the Polaris Mine underground?
Ms. Sheutiapik: A councillor from Yellowknife was at the sustainable conference in Ottawa a week ago. They have an old mine and they are looking at how they can reuse the heat that is underground because it never becomes cold. I will talk with him.
The Chair: To all of you, thank you very much. We are delighted both of you came. It is a good way to end our discussions.
The other thing I would like to do is thank all the people who have sat here, worked with us and helped us today, and those from around who have enjoyed the event off and on as the day has gone by.
It has been a useful visit. On behalf of all the committee, we thank you.
The committee adjourned.