Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic
Issue No. 7 - Evidence - April 23, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, April 23, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Arctic met this day at 6:28 p.m. to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to the meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. My name is Dennis Patterson, senator for Nunavut. I am privileged to be the chair of this committee. I wish to welcome everyone with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. As a reminder to those watching, these committee hearings are open to the public and also available online on the Senate website at sencanada.ca.
I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Gold: Marc Gold from Quebec.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld from British Columbia.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Toronto.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Antigonish, Nova Scotia.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
The Chair: Colleagues, tonight we’re continuing our overall briefings on Arctic issues. For the first panel, I’m very pleased to welcome from the Nunatsiavut Government, Johannes Lampe, President; and Isabella Pain, Deputy Minister, Nunatsiavut Secretariat. Thank you both for joining us.
I will invite you now to proceed with your opening statements, after which we will go to a question-and-answer session.
Johannes Lampe, President, Nunatsiavut Government: Mr. Chair, thank you for your invitation to speak to you today. The Nunatsiavut Government represents about 7,200 Inuit, with about 2,200 living in five communities in Nunatsiavut. We have a land claims agreement, including self-government, which came into effect December 1, 2005.
We have been working with other Inuit regions and ITK to ensure that issues are viewed through an Inuit Nunangat lens. Many of the challenges we face in Nunatsiavut, similar to other Inuit regions, are directly connected to the need to build stronger, healthier communities through the preservation of Inuit culture, language and identity. Equally important are the necessary infrastructure gaps that must be closed.
We also need to ensure Labrador Inuit are afforded the opportunities to receive appropriate education and training in order to build a sustainable economy.
In order to build stronger, healthier communities, we need to focus on the physical and mental health needs of our people. We were pleased to see in Budget 2018 a commitment to the Inuit Health Survey and the commitment to eliminate tubercluosis by 2030. Like the other Inuit regions in Inuit Nunangat, we continue to have high rates of TB in our communities. In Nain this year, we have had four confirmed cases of TB. Five hundred and twenty seven people have been screened to date, and there are a number of ongoing investigations.
I would like to highlight the very positive cooperation we have had between our Department of Health staff, FNIHB, PHAC and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador in dealing with the current situation. In a short time frame, we have been able to get an X-ray machine into the community, which means people do not have to fly to Goose Bay for an X-ray. We are also working on getting a Genexpert machine into Nain, which will provide very quick results from sputum samples.
In order to eliminate TB, we need to look at the social determinants of health, including housing and food security. Again, we were pleased to see an allocation toward housing in Budget 2018. Nunangat government is near the final stages of completing a housing strategy for Nunatsiavut, and we continue to work with ITK on the National Inuit Housing Strategy. Nunatsiavut Government is also working with Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador to carry out the housing needs assessment in our communities to ensure we have current information on the levels of overcrowding, occurrences of mould in homes and the number of people who are homeless.
Nunatsiavut lacks basic infrastructure to service our communities and that is necessary to help stimulate economic growth and development. Our communities are serviced year-round by air, primarily by Twin Otter aircraft, and seasonally by marine freight and passenger vessels. There are no road links to Nunatsiavut or between Labrador Inuit communities. The sea is our highway, yet we continue to have substandard marine service.
Some of the strongest and earliest impacts of climate change are being felt throughout Nunatsiavut. Sea ice coverage in northern Labrador Sea along our coast declined 73 per cent over the last 40 years, the largest rate of decline in all regions of Canada. The current marine service has been plagued with problems for years. The passenger freight vessel MV Northern Ranger has experienced numerous mechanical and logistical problems, particularly in recent years. The freight vessel is inadequate to meet the needs of Nunatsiavut communities.
We recently learned that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador will issue a proposal for passenger and freight service. We have requested a draft copy for our review and input, but are still waiting to receive it. This lack of transparency is very concerning to us as a government, and we remain skeptical as to whether a new vessel will be able to meet our requirements.
The current port facilities are not equipped to accommodate longer shipping seasons and the necessary larger vessels. With anticipated increased shipping activity in the North as northern shipping routes are developed and expanded, emphasis should be placed on enhancing port facilities to meet future challenges and provide opportunities for economic and social development.
Extreme weather conditions are predicted to become more common in the future, creating a very real need for improved sea travel safety.
Nunatsiavut communities are willing to embrace new technologies and practices, yet are keenly aware that change within the region requires careful planning and great attention to how our way of life and our environment will be affected. The promotion of safe, active shipping, the development of highly responsive lifesaving search and rescue operations, and the expansion of more reliable telecommunications infrastructure in Nunatsiavut are key to helping us adapt to climate change.
The number of ships sailing along the north Labrador coast is on the rise and will continue to increase. We have to ensure the proper mechanisms, rules and technologies are put in place to reduce the changes of marine disasters.
The Nunatsiavut Government has been lobbying for years for a new airstrip for Nain, our largest community and our administrative centre. The location and length of the existing airstrip, along with the fact it is not equipped to accommodate night landings, has raised major safety concerns for many years. The town of Nain continues to expand, and future growth will result in increased air traffic, further compounding the problems that currently exist.
The Nunatsiavut Government anticipates a steady increase in tourist traffic to Nunatsiavut and the Torngat Mountains National Park, with Nain being the main staging point or gateway to the park. A new modern airstrip capable of handling aircraft larger than twin otters would help stimulate economic development and reduce air transportation and freight costs.
The government of Newfoundland and Labrador has funded the cost of a weather study to determine the best location for the new airstrip. The cost of a new airstrip is estimated at over $60 million. A high percentage of the cost would be associated with a road link from the community.
It is imperative the three levels of government enter into an arrangement to ensure this necessary infrastructure is built.
While there have been some improvements, insufficient band width and network capacity in our region threatens the delivery of essential government services, banking, health and education, et cetera, and continues to be a significant barrier to economic development and growth. Improved broadband services will improve productivity and support new and emerging businesses as well as access to outside markets.
Communication, commerce, service delivery and arts and entertainment all require high-speed network connectivity in today’s society. It is a critical piece of infrastructure that in some cases removes the geographic disadvantage for Inuit to connect with Southern Canada and the world.
The long-term solution to broadband connectivity in Nunatsiavut lies in a fibre optic connection to the telecommunications grid in Southern Canada. Both overland and subsea options exist, with the subsea option being the most immediately attainable. At issue will be the ownership of any future fibre infrastructure. If such infrastructure is put in place with public financial support, the funding partners should maintain ownership of this infrastructure as a public and possibly even strategic asset and not release ownership to private interests.
The lack of energy security in our communities is a hindrance to economic and social growth and stability. If we are to develop our economy and improve the lives of Nunatsiavummiut, then it is essential we find ways to address our long-term energy requirements.
All Labrador Inuit communities rely totally on diesel generation for the production of electricity, resulting in a complete dependence on imported fuel and high production costs which are also highly subsidized, making it difficult to determine the true cost of electrical generation.
The Nunatsiavut Energy Security Plan, which was approved by our government two years ago, is a proactive and sustainable development approach to meeting the energy needs in Labrador Inuit communities, while at the same time taking into account local social and economic conditions. The plan also touches on other municipal infrastructure dimensions, notably housing and community facilities.
Through a comprehensive, inclusive and substantive process, this plan directly addresses community needs for Nunatsiavut in a manner that considers the social, economic and environmental dimensions of energy. Equally important, it is grounded in the regulatory and policy umbrella of the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador and the economics of energy that are a reality for all.
Nunatsiavut Government, in partnership with Newfoundland and Labrador Hydro, have submitted a proposal under the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities: BioHeat Demonstration and Deployment Program Streams. The Nain remote microgrid proposal incorporates wind generation, energy storage, smart meters, and a microgrid controller integrated with the community’s existing diesel generation grid.
As I noted earlier,many of our challenges are not unique, but a different approach is required in order to address them. Additional federal resources must be identified to build the necessary infrastructure in our communities. We have identified this to the federal government so many times. Geography should not dictate whether we should or be afforded the opportunity to grow and prosper. Our success as a region will be a part of building a stronger nation, something we all want to achieve.
Again, I thank you for this opportunity.
The Chair: Now I would like to turn to questions from senators, and we will start with the deputy chair, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: I have two questions, if I may. First of all, I would like to thank you so much for your comprehensive overview of the situations you face. They are obviously multidimensional and complex.
I’m only going to address two, if I may. I know my colleagues will address more. I’m going to speak as one who likes to look forward by building on the past.
With the Arctic Policy Framework: Discussion Guide, which I hope you were consulted on, I’d like to know in what ways do you think the Arctic policy framework guide can open opportunities for the North and particularly northern residents and the Inuit living in your community? What do you see as the positive stepping-stones?
Mr. Lampe: Most certainly the first thing is that we have engaged, and that is very important. Consultation with Inuit is very important, as is the work that still needs to be done.
Isabella is able to answer your question in more technical terms.
Isabella Pain, Deputy Minister, Nunatsiavut Secretariat, Nunatsiavut Government: We have been engaged in the APF framework in the terms of the development of the guide and in terms of having consultations in our communities and in our region. In the Nain session, a number of issues were raised, not unlike you’re hearing today. In order to move forward we need to have basic infrastructure gaps closed. We need to recognize that social and health indicators have to be met. We have to figure out how to increase things like the use of Inuktitut and ensure people live the Inuit way of life if they so choose. We also need to provide for better education systems and employment. We want to have economic development in our regions. We believe the lack of basic infrastructure inhibits some of that.
We are pleased to be a part of the co-drafting effort in terms of the Arctic policy guide. I guess we’re still not there, so the true test will be whether we can actually come to a document we feel that we have really been heard, and the things we want end up in actual Arctic policy. Those things are still ongoing.
Senator Bovey: You mentioned the issues of the runway and the airport and the growing importance of tourism and all the connectors there.
I want to congratulate you on the cultural centre that I understand is soon going to open and likely, I hope, to be a very important tool in developing tourism. I know one of the challenges has been the understanding of culture and the use of your language. Can you talk about that a little bit in context with tourism and economic development?
Ms. Pain: Yes. We believe tourism is going to increase. We have seen increases in tourism over the last number of years. President Lampe discussed the marine infrastructure we have, and, as an example, one of our group of companies runs, on a contract to the province, that ferry service. We have bookings already for this season with tourists, but, because there is limited space on those vessels, we have to limit how many tourists we can put on because we know local people also need to use it for their own personal transportation and freight and other things. We’re already seeing the pressures between increased tourism and just life on the coast for the person who needs to use it as part of their daily life.
We see increased numbers of people who want to go to places like the Torngat Mountains National Park, which is really good. It’s not an easy place to get to. We also have the creation of the Mealy Mountains National Park Reserve on our southern boundary, which we also anticipate will bring extra visitors to our area. We’re starting to see some of that, but, at the same time, it does cause challenges with just our basic infrastructure.
We expect the cultural centre, Illusuak, will bring more visitors. It’s an amazing facility, and the new exhibit should be ready in the fall. It’s going to be an opportunity for us to tell our own story so people can some and hear our story as told by us and our elders.
Senator Bovey: Will you be able to circulate those exhibitions?
Ms. Pain: We are planning to do some online because, obviously, Nain is just one of our communities. Part of what we want to do is some outreach to all of our communities by having travelling exhibits for each of our other communities but also an online exhibit for people to visit. As President Lampe spoke about, though, we have capacity issues in terms of bandwidth. That is always something we have to think about. How much more demand can we place on a system that’s already not able to deal with the demands we currently have?
The Chair: I wonder, as a supplementary to that: Ms. Pain or President Lampe, you talked about the inadequacies of the motor vessel Northern Ranger. Who owns that ship, and who is responsible for improving the service, please?
Ms. Pain: The MV Northern Ranger is owned by the provincial government. It’s one of the ferries they operate. It’s operated on contract through the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies. We run it on behalf of the province. The vessel is owned by the province, and they are responsible for replacing it. It’s a very old vessel. They did previously go out to a RFP process a few years ago. It’s, obviously, very costly infrastructure, and they couldn’t afford to do it at the time.
A number of years ago, there was an arrangement with Canada. They created a transportation fund. The money has been used from that fund to build some roads in southern Labrador and in Goose Bay. Nothing to our communities. That fund is basically no longer there, and we are still left with a substandard marine service with not a lot of options to replace it. At President Lampe mentioned, we understand they’re going to go back out for another RFP in the next couple of months, but we have yet to see what that is going to look like.
Senator Eaton: Something that’s been of interest to me for a long time since sitting on the Finance Committee is Indigenous housing because, unlike Southern housing, which is very codified, Indigenous housing has not had codes for its geographical area. I think a lot of Indigenous and Inuit kids suffer from breathing problems because of the mould. Is that one of the causes of the TB, and, first, are you going to get codes for future housing that will be appropriate to where you’re living and the climate you live in? Second, would broadband help with your health and education? That would be a huge tool, wouldn’t it, in terms of health, availability of experts, palliative care, anything, if you had better broadband? I guess higher education, too.
Ms. Pain: In relation to codes for housing, that has been an issue we’ve identified for quite some time. We received the Arctic Inspiration Prize a number of years ago and part of that was to develop and then build a new type of housing. What we’ve done — and it’s just completed; we’re about to have residents move in the next month or so — is it has built to a higher standard than is currently required. It was designed by Inuit in the community. Through a series of design charrettes, what kind of housing would we like to see? It was built with that in mind in terms of a comfort factor, I guess, from a social perspective, but we also designed it to be highly energy efficient, lots of insulation, south facing to try to take into account passive solar heat in winter. We also have a number of efficiencies built in. I can probably get you all of the technical specs. Once we have that in place, it’s six apartment units. We will be doing ongoing monitoring. We’re working with CMHC in terms of some ongoing monitoring to see whether we have done the job to make this type of housing much more energy efficient. We are going to do that monitoring over the next couple of years. Part of our other interesst is social monitoring. We want to talk to people about whether this house meets their social and family requirements or whether there are other things to do.
Senator Eaton: I guess, in some communities, more than one generation live together, right? Sometimes the space that the CMHC used to do was for a perfect nuclear family.
Ms. Pain: We’ve tried to account for that. In terms of that specific housing unit — we called it our prototype unit — we made accommodations available for seniors who are, obviously, healthy and mobile and who could live in their own home, maybe with some assistance, some supports, but not medical supports. Three are for younger families because these are two groups of our population who are unable to avail themselves of the other kinds of housing we provide. These people just kind of fell through the cracks in terms of housing that was available. When we talk to seniors, as an example, about what kind of housing they would like, they’d like to have an extra room in their house. There might be just one or two of them. They might be a single person or a older couple, but they want extra rooms in their house to take in their grandchildren who come to live with them a lot of times or maybe older siblings. They wanted to have flexibility in terms of their family. It’s not a predefined conception of a family; it’s who they define to have as their family.
Senator Eaton: These houses, these codes, these new houses you’ve built, do you foresee a lifespan? Most houses built in the South could be 20 years old, 30 years. They have a certain life expectancy. The climate is very much harsher where you live, but are they built to withstand those harsher conditions?
Ms. Pain: The reason we are doing the research now and building this unit is because we have issues in terms of melting permafrost. It’s not as extreme as in some places because we don’t have permafrost everywhere. We have discontinuous permafrost, and we find it in pockets. The minute you dig it up to put in a foundation or water and sewer service, it starts to melt. Then, if you build on that location without using the appropriate foundation type, you will find your house will move when it freezes and thaws and freezes and thaws. We’re seeing some homes that we’ve built in the last 10 years that have to be replaced simply because they’re coming apart at the seams because of the ground condition. It has nothing to do with the house construction; the ground is moving all of the time. What we’re doing in relation to this particular prototype is looking at foundation types appropriate to the ground conditions to maintain the life of a home, so that it not only lasts 10 years but is actually going to last for a long time.
The Chair: In that connection, maybe I’ll ask you about Budget 2017, which President Lampe mentioned briefly in his opening remarks.
There was $400 million committed, over 10 years, to support Inuit land housing in the Inuit regions of Nunavik, Nunatsiavut and Inuvialuit.
We’re going to hear from a Inuvialuit representative later on tonight.
Could you tell us how that Inuit-led housing strategy is unfolding? It was for three regions — $400 million over 10 years, which is about $40 million a year. I’m not sure if that gets divided by three, but I’m wondering how that’s working out. It would give you a larger role in designing, building and constructing, I believe. How is it going?
Ms. Pain: Budget 2018 had that large pot of money, and we don’t know how much we’re getting yet; the allocations are still being figured out, so we don’t have that.
Budget 2017, though, was a good example of how it could and should work. The Inuit regions were allocated direct housing dollars from Canada. We received some allocations directly, and we were able to put them into the areas we thought were priorities. It wasn’t money flowing to the province for the province to re-administer. They were our decisions based on a housing needs assessment that we had completed in 2012 with data that showed where the overcrowding rates were, where we had to put more investment. We’re using that kind of data to make our decisions in terms of where we locate homes and what kinds of housing we have.
Part of what we’re doing with the National Inuit Housing Strategy is working at all regions to look at what housing options we need in our communities and then finding ways to address those needs. We’re working together as Inuit Nunangat from across all regions in terms of the National Inuit Housing Strategy.
Then we are working in terms of our own strategy, which is Nunatsiavut-specific. In that strategy, we’re looking at the housing continuum currently available in our communities. There are pieces of that continuum we just don’t have existing in our communities. For example, in some we don’t have emergency shelters. If you’re homeless, we don’t have those in our communities, so is that a need? There are not a lot of public rental units or other private rental markets. That’s something that’s missing. It’s hard to entice employees to come, because we don’t have rental markets. How will you come and work in our communities if you don’t have anywhere to live?
We have basic things, but we’ve done an analysis of our own housing continuum. We will be looking at that. We are working with Canada and Newfoundland again to develop our next housing needs assessment. We’re trying to measure if we’ve made any improvements since 2012, when we knew what the situation was. We want to compare that to today. We have had some extra investments. Have we done anything? Are we seeing an improvement in the reduction of the overcrowding rates and in the number of people who are homeless?
That’s what we want to know, and we also want to check to see if we are doing the right things.
Senator Eaton: With the overcrowding, is TB an issue? It’s all very well for the minister to go up there to inoculate and test people, but if people are living in mouldy, overcrowded houses, it is not going to kill the disease.
Ms. Pain: Overcrowding is one of the social determinants of health that keeps TB coming back. We have people in some of our communities where there are 16 or 17 people living in a three-bedroom home — people are overcrowded.
Also, people are hungry. If your food security needs aren’t met, your body is naturally weaker.
We have to address the social determinants of health if we’re going to get rid of TB. There are a bunch of things that have to be met as well.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you for being here. It was a great presentation.
I want to ask a little bit about TB. Why is it so prevalent? I know you talked about a few things — overcrowding and mould. Are those the only reasons? What other reasons are there for it being prevalent?
Ms. Pain: We think there are a number of reasons. In terms of TB, it’s there; it’s in our communities, and people have to take treatment. The treatments are very long; it’s a nine-month course. They are very harsh and hard on the body. People have to agree to take treatment.
We have a lot of latent TB in our communities. If you have latent TB, you’re not required to take medication, although you can and should as a prophylactic so that you kill the sleeping bugs. It’s in you, but it’s not active — you’re not spreading it — but it could become active at any point. Until we find out everyone who has latent or active TB, and ensuring 100 per cent compliance in terms of medication, it will be hard to eradicate.
Part of it is ending the stigma around TB. People feel a lot of stigma and judgment if you have TB. They think it has to do with not looking after yourself and things like that. None of that is necessarily true, if you’re living in an overcrowded home and you’re in contact with somebody.
We know TB is spread by smoking devices. People are sharing cigarettes or using other devices that you breathe directly into your lungs. That can cause a spread of TB. We’re seeing that in some of our younger populations who may be doing some of those activities.
It is about educational awareness and making sure people don’t feel the stigma. It’s about coming forward to be tested and supporting people if you have TB. When you’re taking TB medication, you have to be observed taking your medication. You have to go to public health to get your medication. Whatever that is and however many times a week, you have to go there. That means we have to help people make sure that if it’s in the middle of winter and minus 50, someone will pick them up and drive them so they don’t have to walk.
It’s also about the type of treatment. There are some new treatments that are not the nine-month course or as physically hard on the body. It’s about hopefully finding access to those drugs. More people might take them if it’s not such a long course of treatment.
Senator Neufeld: You talked about the problems in Newfoundland and Labrador. They’re responsible for the ferries and the freight service. How does this split out? Where does the federal government come in? Is the federal government responsible? What are they responsible for compared to Newfoundland and Labrador in those kinds of things?
Ms. Pain: The federal government was responsible at one point in relation to marine shipping. Transfers were made to the province, but — and I can’t remember the year — an agreement was reached between Canada and Newfoundland. There was a sum of money transferred to Newfoundland to improve the transportation infrastructure. It was used for roads mostly. At that point, it became Newfoundland’s responsibility for the marine service.
As far as we are aware, Newfoundland is responsible for the marine services in the province.
Senator Neufeld: Has it been a worse service since Newfoundland and Labrador took it over than there was when the federal government was responsible?
Ms. Pain: I think it’s still being administered by the province. The worst part is there has been no new investment into the vessels. Vessels have a lifetime, and even with all of the ongoing monitoring, maintenance and mechanical upgrades, there comes a point when you can’t do that anymore; you need a new vessel, and they’re not cheap.
Senator Neufeld: I wouldn’t think they would be. Is it the federal government responsible for the service and replacement of vessels, or is that a responsibility of Newfoundland and Labrador? Did somebody make a bad deal?
Ms. Pain: As far as we know, Newfoundland is now responsible. As you are probably aware, the province doesn’t have a lot of money at the moment. We’re stuck in the bind that the province is supposed to provide the service based upon an agreement they had with Canada a number of years ago. We have a vessel that’s not adequate to provide the services necessary.
Senator Neufeld: Is air service all private? How is the air service provided into the communities?
Ms. Pain: It’s a private service. There is a company now called Air Borealis, a partnership between provincial airlines and a Nunatsiavut Group of Companies — our business line and the Inuit nation business line. We have a three-way partnership to provide air service to the Inuit communities and also to Natuashish, an Innu community between two of our Inuit communities.
They provide a commercial service. On a contract to the province, they also provide the medevac and Skedevac services for hospital patients. They also provide the freight service by air; they do cargo and shipping to the communities year-round but especially more so in winter.
Senator Neufeld: Building a new airstrip in Nain, you say, is about $60 million, but a good part is because of a road. Is the airstrip a long way away from the community?
What is the road portion of it just so I understand the geography?
Ms. Pain: Currently, the airstrip is right in the community of Nain. When you come in you can see it. You land next to some houses and ocean. It’s right there, but it gets a lot of wind from a down draft because you’re next to a mountain. It’s not safe. The way it’s oriented, you’re not landing into the prevailing winds for the most part. The weather study was done by the province and looked at areas you could possibly build a new airstrip. They looked at it from a topography perspective at first and once they identified three areas, they then did the weather studies to say which would be best based on weather, wind and fog studies. We have that data. The preferred location is quite a long way outside of Nain. If you have never been the Nain, we are surrounded by mountains. We’re a little valley surrounded by hills and mountains. It will take a lot to build a road to get there. That is the cost of building a road because we don’t have a lot of roads in our communities to get to that new location.
Senator Neufeld: Regarding housing and building houses in the permafrost. Melting permafrost is not new to me. I live in northern B.C. and have worked in the northern part of Canada and the Northwest Territories. You said there are houses built 10 years ago that you might not be able to occupy now. How was it decided to build those houses in that fashion so that they started moving that bad? Who made that decision? Was it the federal government or CMHC? Who decided that? We’ve known since I was a young man what happens with permafrost. By the way, that was a long time ago.
Ms. Pain: Unfortunately, in our communities, we have water and sewer services dug into the ground. They’re down in the ground. We start by developing the land and then putting in the water and sewer service. You sometimes go through discontinuous permafrost and it starts to melt. The cost of putting in those serviced lots is expensive. Once you get a lot and it’s serviced, whether it’s a good piece of land or not, the town will give you a permit to build because there aren’t a lot of options in terms of land development. We don’t have land developed and sitting there waiting. In one of our communities right now, Hopedale, they have an allocation to build four houses this year but only have three lots of land developed. Land is precious and having developed land is at a premium.
Our question really is how can you maybe design a different foundation for that particular lot? Is there something else you should do? Should you prepare the land differently? Should you take out all the melting material and fill it with something else? Should you use stilts, for example, as a different building type? We have done geophysical assessments of the land in our communities in various places. We finished the last three communities this last building season. We have a good picture of what the land is like in various areas. If we are going to build in one place, we have a good sense of the land and we can develop the building structure appropriately. That might vary from lot to lot.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for being here. I want to ask a question about protecting the environment and preserving Arctic’s biodiversity. Canada’s Arctic Policy Framework: Discussion Guide mentions the joint management of the environment with Indigenous people as providing a strong foundation for a range of economic employment benefits to Arctic residents.
What are the main challenges related to environmental emergency response in the Arctic?
The Chair: Emergency response.
Ms. Pain: I think we have lots of challenges in relation to emergency response. Some of them are just the fact we don’t have a lot of places or infrastructure that emergency response can get to all the time. We need to ensure they have access to things like fuel. If they’re going outside of some of our communities, for example, they might not have enough fuel. Labrador is really big. There’s lots to space where you might not have the necessary infrastructure to support some of the emergency response.
We are concerned if there are issues such as a marine disaster or an oil spill. We don’t have oil spill cleanup kits around our communities. Those things aren’t just there, they have to be brought there. Some of these pieces need to be considered. Right now, we’re working on something in relation to conservation areas and looking at Imappivut — we call it “our waters” — but we’re looking at the ocean adjacent to Labrador as to how we can ensure it is protected. We need to have development so we’re trying to come up with a plan that makes sense to meet all of those things. We do see extra activity out there. We know there is oil and gas off the coast. We expect people will be interested — maybe not tomorrow, but in the next few years that’s very likely. We need to be ready to deal with increased shipping, exploration and use of those areas, understanding that we continue to live and rely on the food and the fish in the water. That’s where we harvest.
Senator Oh: If a real emergency happens up there, what is the closest lifeline to you? How quickly can they come to you?
Ms. Pain: I guess it depends on the issue. There are some aircraft in Goose Bay, which isn’t that far away. Most of them are out of Gander, which is on the island. There was a medical emergency a couple of weeks ago and it took them over five hours to get there. By the time they got there and got set up, it was getting late. A twin otter could have landed in that amount of time. It takes time to employ the emergency ground search and rescue or the aircraft that would have to come from another place.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Lampe and Ms. Pain, for your presentations. I have a series of short questions.
I know a bit about the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies because my son-in-law Adam Brown works there and works with both of you. I know a bit, but when you talk about the economy, the challenges and the opportunities, obviously Labrador has incredible natural resources. It has an incredible people base and wonderful culture which has already been mentioned. It would be good if all of us could hear more about the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, what they are and what the relationship is between revenues — or profits hopefully — generated by some of those companies that then can cross over and self-finance some of the things you’re talking about. That’s my first question.
Ms. Pain: In terms of Nunatsiavut government, we established a business arm. We established a trust first to look after the economic development activities. It was a conscious decision to try to separate the business from the politics. Government can’t tell them what to do. The only control is they could change the trustees. Our assembly can say we will change the trustees if we don’t like the direction this is going. The Labrador-Inuit Capital Strategy Trust established the Nunatsiavut Group of Companies as a for-profit business. They own a number of entities, including their partnership in Air Borealis, which is the airline. We own Universal Helicopters — I’m saying “we” because I’m on the board of NGC. We also do things like Nunatsiavut housing construction, so building the homes in our communities by hiring and training our own people so that we are keeping those dollars in our communities.
We also run the marine service contract. We have a number of different entities. We have a corporate social responsibility plan which we give back to our communities. Part of our operating principle is we need to be giving back in terms of social development, so financial contributions. We take very seriously hiring and training our own people; that is, helping people get the training they need and hiring them to do these jobs. We take that very seriously and we report on it annually. We have an annual report where we make public the number of Inuit we are employing, the dollars we have earned, and the investments we’re making back into communities. We take those things very seriously and we expect people to hold us accountable to some of those measurements.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. It’s an important element and a very unique and special part of what you’re accomplishing.
Energy is an issue you have raised, and of course that is related to everything; economics, housing, everything.
Muskrat Falls is right there. I know that there’s an issue. First of all, there is some political resistance and concern about Muskrat Falls. I’m curious — I plead ignorance here — I’m not sure what the recent history has been and why Muskrat Falls wouldn’t be serving its own back yard.
Ms. Pain: I guess when Muskrat Falls was developed, it was not conceived of servicing the north coast, putting in a transmission line to any of our communities.
There had been some discussions at various points about possibly building a transmission line to help a mine site go underground, so helping provide that, and then possibly servicing two communities. That didn’t work out. I guess the cost of transmission lines is fairly expensive. We are looking for alternative sources of energy.
In our energy security strategy, we’re not looking at one development that might service all of our needs; we’re actually trying to look at smaller projects around each community that can help supplement diesel. We don’t expect we’re going to be off of diesel any time soon, but if we can get funding for things like the microgrid study we want to do, we will have wind supplementing our diesel.
In some of our other communities we think we have the opportunity for a small-scale run of river hydro. That could supplement that particular community. Instead of looking for one mega project that will service everyone, we’re much more focused on doing the smaller pieces that can service a community.
Senator Coyle: The immediate area?
Ms. Pain: Yes.
Senator Coyle: Thank you. Final question. You mentioned — I know it’s not an Inuit community, it’s an Innu community — Natuashish, which is famous, or infamous, as was its predecessor. We know you are representing the Inuit of the region.
I’m just curious, for our benefit, to know whether some of the very severe youth substance abuse and other severe social problems we see in communities such as Natuashish are also shared in some of your communities? Or how you would distinguish them?
Ms. Pain: I think we do have some substance issues with youth. I don’t think they’re the same sort of substances. We don’t see the same degrees of gas sniffing. It’s not a major issue in our communities. That’s not to say we don’t have issues with underage drinking and/or underage use of drugs. There are some other drugs in use.
We take an active program in terms of educating people about substance abuse. It’s one of the things our department of health and social development does, is work with youth to try to minimize any of that. As you know, with lots of young people, sometimes they do experiment. We don’t see the same high levels of certain types of substance abuse as we do see in other places.
Senator Coyle: That’s good to hear. Thank you.
The Chair: I think the committee would be very interested, through the clerk, in getting the Nunatsiavut energy security strategy, please.
Senator Gold: Welcome, president and deputy minister.
I want to pick up on the marine theme that has run through your presentations. President, you mentioned the sea is your highway and expressed concern about the rise in tourism traffic, exploration and the possibility of disasters for which you’re not prepared, for all the reasons you set out.
I want to ask you about the more day-to-day issues around marine search and rescue. Another committee of the Senate is engaged in a study, and will be travelling North, but unfortunately not to visit your community.
Perhaps you can help us understand how you currently handle search and rescue operations in the waters around your various communities. How many volunteers do you have? What kind of training are they provided with? What kind of collaboration, if any, do you have from the Coast Guard or other organizations. Help us understand how you handle this very important dimension of keeping your people safe.
Ms. Pain: I think there is a difference in terms of the marine component when it’s frozen and when it’s not frozen.
We have a different response capability when it’s sea ice and you can actually get out on a snowmobile. We do have active ground search and rescue communities, volunteers in all our communities, and they are all very well populated. There is a lot of interest and a lot of people who serve their time to do that. I think they do receive some training. They are all members of the provincial search and rescue committees and go to annual meetings with the provincial search and rescue agencies.
I think more training is always good, but as I say, in the wintertime, if there is an emergency and somebody is lost on the sea ice, they will respond and they will go.
If it’s marine and it’s ocean, when it’s not frozen it’s very different. I think, and I could be wrong, we have some vessels that are Coast Guard Auxiliary and they are the people who get contacted. It’s not our local search and rescue communities as the individuals just going out to do the search. It would have to be a vessel registered as Coast Guard Auxiliary.
I’m not sure we have very many of those. I think we have a couple of those in Nain, as an example, but it’s not the same as when it’s frozen where everybody has a Ski-Doo so if you need to get out there, we have lots of ability to do that.
Senator Gold: There are never enough assets anywhere in this country, frankly, to address the search and rescue demands. When it is at sea, do you have a sense of how adequate or inadequate the resources are or whether you have made requests, whether to the Coast Guard Auxiliary or others for additional support?
Ms. Pain: I’m not aware that we have actually asked for additional resources for Coast Guard Auxiliary. I think we do have some vessels in our communities that go out which are longline, a bit larger vessel size than a pleasure craft.
I think we have been fairly lucky we haven’t had a lot of those needs, as an example. We have had a few, but we haven’t had a whole lot of that, at the moment, in terms of the need to have our Coast Guard Auxiliary or our members go out to respond to emergencies at sea.
The Chair: I’d like to, in closing, ask a question about the Voisey’s Bay nickel mine run by the Vale Corporation. There were benefits negotiated with your land claim. Could you tell us how that is working out for Labrador Inuit?
I’d also be interested in whether your communities have been able to benefit from the offshore oil and gas activity under way in Labrador waters, please.
Ms. Pain: In relation to the Voisey’s Bay impact and benefit agreement, we did sign an impact and benefit agreement in 2002. The mine became operational in terms of a producing mine in 2005.
Some of the commitments outlined in the impact and benefit agreement include commitment to training, commitment to hiring, commitment to procurement services that would take into account Inuit ownership and also Innu ownership. I’m speaking here about Inuit, but the Innu have a similar IBA as well.
We also have things such as environmental monitoring. We have monitors on site who get full access to see what’s going on at the site and can report directly back to us.
In terms of training, we did have a good training program initially that was funded partially through Canada that provided some training in our communities for some of the required skills. We did mill operator training, as an example, in the Inuit communities and also in Natuashish to train people how to be a mill operator in Voisey’s Bay. There is also an on-site component to bring people into the site to see what the site is like and actually experience it before you take a job. It’s a two-in, two-out, which is a different kind of lifestyle, so that’s not for everybody but we have been fairly successful. In terms of hiring and training, over 50 per cent of the workforce is Inuit or Innu, so we have a good representation.
The Chair: Better than anywhere in Nunavut.
Ms. Pain: It is. We have a good workforce over there and we’re starting to see people in some of the senior management positions. Some of our beneficiaries are in charge of the blasting. They are the bosses there. They’re in charge of the mine site. We are in charge in the mill, so we’re at the highest level of the mill operations. People have progressed up through.
The one area we have seen as a challenge is those career types that you need to have a post-secondary degree in, so a metallurgist; we aren’t there. Chemists; we aren’t there. Some of the nursing staff; we aren’t there. It’s the things you can train in your community or at the mine site or to do shorter, diploma-type programs. But in terms of the full four year or longer degree programs, we haven’t been as successful.
Overall, we think the project has been a good project. We’ve seen a number of benefits come from it, including financial benefits to one of the other trusts we established as a result of the impact and benefit agreement. At this point, we’re waiting for them to decide whether or not they’re going to go underground. That’s still an uncertainty.
The Chair: Could you speak a bit about the offshore?
Ms. Pain: In terms of the offshore, we haven’t had a lot of engagement or seen a lot of benefit. They have been doing some seismic operations off the coast for the last number of years. We’ve had marine mammal observers on those vessels. We’ve had other observers be part of the crew. Really, they don’t come ashore in Labrador, so we don’t see them much. They’re offshore and, as I say, up to this point we haven’t seen a lot of benefit or engagement with them.
The Chair: Does the Arctic oil and gas moratorium apply to your waters?
Ms. Pain: No.
The Chair: Only north of 60?
Ms. Pain: Yes.
Senator Eaton: You talked about and we’ve heard a lot about language and education in previous testimony. I’m just wondering, since 1985, when you became your own government, have you managed to make the progress you’ve wanted in keeping your language and organizing your own educational system?
Mr. Lampe: Inuktitut is very important to Labrador Inuit, and most certainly we take it very seriously, who we are and where we come from. We have developed some programs to enhance Inuktitut, but at the same time, we have challenges in terms of funding to have programs.
Senator Eaton: Do you get funding per child from the province?
Mr. Lampe: No. For culture or language, we do not receive any funding from the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, but we are continually working with ITK and Inuit Nunangat, the regions together to look at how we can get Inuktitut back.
It’s real. The reality is that Inuktitut is decreasing day by day, but we need to work harder, and most certainly we believe that legislation is important and to have Inuktitut looked at by Canada and the provinces. It is also a language that is as important as English or French. Until then, we will start to move forward in terms of Inuktitut, not just in Labrador but across Nunavut.
The Chair: I would like to thank the witnesses very much for being here and for your presentations. That draws this panel to a close.
For the second segment, I’m pleased to welcome, from the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, someone whom I worked with years ago, quite a few decades ago, Mr. Bob Simpson, Director of Government Affairs for the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Thank you for joining us. I believe you have an opening statement. Then, as you know, you can expect some thoughtful questions from my colleagues. Welcome.
Bob Simpson, Director, Government Affairs, Inuvialuit Regional Corporation: Thanks for the invitation. It’s certainly welcome. I apologize that our chair and CEO couldn’t make it. Preoccupied.
I gave you a handout in terms of an overview of the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. It’s at the other end of the country from Nunatsiavut.
The Inuvialuit Final Agreement was negotiated and concluded in 1984. It was the third comprehensive land claim agreement in Canada. In 1984, the three major goals — I’ll probably come back to these goals fairly regularly as you ask questions — in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement were to preserve the Inuvialuit cultural identity and values within a changing northern society; to enable Inuvialuit to be equal and meaningful participants in the northern and national economy and society; and to protect and preserve Arctic wildlife, the environment and biological productivity.
These are central to why the Inuvialuit negotiated the agreement. In the 1970s and 1980s, there was a great deal of pressure in terms of change with oil and gas companies. They were looking and found very large reserves of oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and the Mackenzie Delta areas.
In the handout, there are a few diagrams, particularly the private lands and national parks. There are four national parks in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region, significantly large parks. There are two marine-protected areas, five major bird sanctuaries, a territorial park in the Yukon and a national historic site as well.
There are also conservation areas. The North Slope, in particular, not only has a national park, but the eastern side of the North Slope is a no-development zone. It’s managed by the Wildlife Management Advisory Committee. Each community has their own conservation plans, and the Inuvialuit also own 7.1.a, surface and subsurface, and 7.1.b, lands.
Significantly, the Inuvialuit concentrated on as much land as they could get. I could honestly say the hunters and trappers were the negotiators.
There are a lot of institutions in the agreement, which is also somewhat unusual. There is a game council and six hunter and trapper committees. They monitor and manage their harvesting and provide advice in terms of managing wildlife. There is an environmental screening and review boards within the settlement region. The screening, in particular, screens everything; every development project proposed or requires a permit has to go through this screening committee. In the event the project gives significant concerns to the Inuvialuit or the public, the review board will do a comprehensive environmental impact review.
This is a duplication in terms of CEEA. They can do their own review. Typically, we have managed to get agreements on having only one review for several projects that have gotten to that stage. Again, there are Wildlife Management Advisory Councils in the Yukon and one in the Northwest Territories. There is a joint fisheries management committee.
Those are the basics of the IFA. I should also say we’re undertaking a great project, I think. We’re creating an e-learning platform of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. We’re into about the second or third generation in terms of the youth, and they don’t know too much about what their rights are and the various processes that have been built up. We hope to begin delivering that in June. We are pushing the Department of Education to have this as a mandatory course, as well, in the settlement region at least.
I’d like to just give you a bit of background in terms of the IRC’s efforts, because not only do they look after their settlement region in terms of the environment and wildlife, but they also want to look after their people. They have spent a lot of time in thinking about those things in terms of health and housing. We have undertaken quite a few research projects on our own — mental health in particular and a housing needs study.
We did an interesting project. We went to every household in the settlement region to try and get an idea of the economics of each Inuvialuit household. That gave us a real view of how food security issues are being handled. We actually gathered harvesting information, as well, to see how much that contributes to putting meat on the table. It was quite an exhaustive exercise, but it did tell us a story.
We did education. As you hear, there is an Inuit Health Survey in the budget. We are also one the cofounders to a Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research project in the Northwest Territories funded by one of the tri-councils, the Canadian Institute of Health Research. We just managed to get it started, but we are undertaking to do some health data that would reinforce or complement the Inuit Health Survey. We’re undertaking to set up a data platform so that the Inuvialuit can look at the figures as well and analyze them and say, “Here are the areas we are having problems in health and what we should do about that.”
We have done quite extensive work on statistics with the two bureaus, as well as the regional education council. We feel data and evidence are very powerful tools, not only for lobbying governments but also for the Inuvialuit to lobby and eventually make their decisions about how to look after themselves, instead of having the Government of the Northwest Territories or the federal government finding solutions to some of these very poor social and economic indicators.
The education one was a very interesting project, because we wanted to do an assessment of children on a regular basis to monitor the child from early childhood all the way up to Grade 12. We found it was a very useful tool for teachers, because we have a huge turnover in teachers. About a third of the teachers come and leave. It’s good for a teacher to come in September and know where each of the students is at and what difficulties they may be having. We also get very accurate data about the school system.
Going back to the environment, we have undertaken since 2004 various research projects in relationship to Beaufort Sea development. That was earlier on when the Mackenzie Gas Project was a going concern. We were concerned that after the Mackenzie Gas Project is done, there would be more exploration, and oil and gas development in the Beaufort Sea. People were concerned, especially about the potential impacts if there were to be an oil spill and a number of other issues.
The first thing was try to come up with a to-do list with the government and produce a Beaufort regional strategic plan of action. That gave us some good recommendations in terms of the regulatory system and how it can improve. We also did an extensive research project for about four years funded by Canada. That came out shortly after the Macondo Well in the Gulf of Mexico blew. Where there was a great deal of interest was for exploration in the deep water in similar circumstances to Macondo.
Now, we’re in a third iteration of our regional strategy environmental assessment, which is doing a broad overview of the regional Beaufort Sea, pulling in all the research and looking for an overall assessment to look at the impacts of oil and gas; the environment; wildlife; and cultural, social and economic impacts as well.
That pretty well sums it up. I’ll give just a little bit more background on the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation. Because it was one of the first comprehensive land claims agreements, there were a lot of things that were not built into the agreement. One example that is becoming more and more pressing as the economy is in a big downturn is the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation does not get any core funding or implementation funding for the agreement.
We did a recent analysis of the funding. Between $4 million and $5 million comes out of IRC’s pocket to implement their obligations in the agreement, as well as core funding, because we do a lot of program delivery as well. It is thanks to the federal government, because the bulk of the money comes from the federal government, not the territorial government.
That’s a bit of a drag on the economy. That can be $4 million or $5 million that the Inuvialuit can invest in jobs and employment in the region.
As another factor, last week, as negotiators — that’s another one of my duties, namely, to negotiate a self-government agreement — we have pretty well put to bed the final agreement. We’re going through the difficult process now to get approvals. That may take another couple of years, but it will be very much like the Nunatsiavut. They have a land claim and self-government agreement and have lawmaking authority over a lot of the areas I indicated, where we feel there is a better way of doing things or ways of improving upon things — not that everything the government of the Northwest Territories or the federal government does is wrong but sometimes it is not suited to the circumstances of the Inuvialuit.
The Chair: Thank you very much. I will now turn to Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much. It’s nice to get the perspective of the western end of the country, of the Arctic.
I have two quite different questions, and I guess they both relate to the consultations on the Arctic policy framework. The first has to do with the impacts on wildlife. My concern increasingly is the protected marine areas and the ocean. We all know that Canada has a goal of reaching 10 per cent of ocean areas being protected by the year 2020 in accordance with international agreements. I understand we’re now at 7.7 per cent. Are any of those marine protected areas or ocean protected areas in this particular part of the Arctic?
Mr. Simpson: Inuvialuit were the first ones to have marine protected areas in the Arctic or maybe even in Canada. I would have to check on that. We have two marine protected areas?
Senator Bovey: You’ve got two.
Mr. Simpson: Yes. I think last year the DFO minister approved the one around Paulatuk Darnley Bay. We’re trying to work with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans about other potential marine protected areas. We have done some initial investigation into that or looking at the knowledge, besides traditional knowledge, to see if there is scientific knowledge about cod and whales, and those marine mammals are of concern as well.
There are perhaps some sites that could be established. We did lobby government to start this strategic regional environmental assessment, and all of a sudden these international obligations or moratorium on development in the Beaufort Sea came along, which were unilateral decisions without any consultation with the Inuvialuit. We were starting on a strategic environmental assessment that would hopefully provide a balanced approach to development and protecting the environment. You can’t say the Inuvialuit are not conservationists. That’s why I spent a bit of time saying there are a lot of national parks and significant areas. They have established their own conservation plans around each of the communities. They’re very environmentally conscious people, of course, because that’s where their livelihood is. But we want to do it right. A strategic environmental assessment will allow for economic development as well as continuing to conserve the Arctic wildlife, as I stated, with the goals of the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Those are obligations that the Inuvialuit feel strongly about.
Senator Bovey: I appreciate that. Thank you for clarifying that. I was intrigued when you said you had a turnover of about a third of the teachers a year, which makes access to education a greater challenge, I would think.
I’d like you to talk a bit about how protecting or teaching the Indigenous languages and cultures are accommodated in that changing dynamic with changing teachers. I’m presuming most of the teachers come from away.
Mr. Simpson: Well, most of them don’t have the language or an understanding of the culture.
Senator Bovey: That’s what I wanted to get on the record, yes.
Mr. Simpson: We do hire Inuvialuit teachers for the language component and we do have some cultural programs. We have actually done some curriculum forTaimani, as we call it. It’s basically a culturally based history. This is the history of the Inuvialuit. It’s important the children understand that as well because they do their own northern studies, about the explorers, and so forth, but they don’t really know too much about Indigenous people in the North. We created that ourselves. We did the in-servicing of teachers for that program. We’d like to expand it.
To give credit where it’s due, the government of the Northwest Territories did produce curriculum on residential schools. It’s an important impact to pass along to students, but there have been others.
The Inuvialuit have gone through a great deal of struggle. About 90 per cent of their population was wiped out because of diseases. They had no place to go. They couldn’t go to their shamans. They weren’t producing anything, so they ended up with the priests. Then there was another great damage upon this culture: They lost their spirituality and a whole range of different things. That’s but one example. Then there were the residential schools, government, and oil and gas.
In some ways, it’s amazing how a group of people could be so resilient and still stand up and say enough is enough when oil and gas development was happening, and we’re going to have something to say about this.
It’s important for people to know. That’s one reason why we’re doing this orientation in the Inuvialuit Final Agreement. Where did it come from? Why did you do this?
I think it’s important for youth, too, but it’s also useful for a third of the population of teachers coming in. We hope to have various reiterations of the learning. One is for children; the other is for staff that aren’t familiar with it, and so on. Hopefully, we can get it back in the schools as well.
Senator Eaton: Yes, I agree with you. By your presentation, I was thrilled to see your four national parks, one marine protected area, five major bird sanctuaries and the fact you have a very balanced approach to developing your natural resources.
Does all this work with the federal government? Are you in agreement? Are you in accordance? Are you on the same page with the federal government? Do you have hurdles to overcome in that direction?
Mr. Simpson: Well, the final agreement was only signed by the federal government and the Inuvialuit. The territorial government was not —
Senator Eaton: They’re fine with your environmental goals, as well as you developing your offshore gas and oil?
Mr. Simpson: That’s Government of Canada jurisdiction. Offshore is federal jurisdiction, and so we don’t deal with the territorial government relationship. We deal with the territorial government mainly for terrestrial wildlife.
Senator Eaton: You’re on the same page in terms of federal environmental goals? I’m just interested because I think —
Mr. Simpson: I think Inuvialuit had very strong provisions and were the first Indigenous group to come up with a co-management model. So they have a lot of co-management boards that are on that list. Fisheries is done in a co-management manner.
Senator Eaton: Say the people wanted to develop the oil and gas up there. Could they do that, or would they have to get permission from the federal government?
Mr. Simpson: Yes, you’d have to because they’re the regulatory agency.
Senator Eaton: That’s what I want on the record. So they can’t just go ahead and develop it without the federal government’s input.
Mr. Simpson: Or without, I would be bold to say, the Inuvialuit permission as well.
The Chair: In that connection, if I may, Senator Eaton, you spoke about the Beaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action, and you talked about research that had been done on the Beaufort after the Macondo. I think you mentioned four years of research.
Senator Eaton: I guess this is what I’m trying to figure out because we know right now that Alberta and B.C. are at an impasse. The rest of Canada wants the pipeline. The federal government says it wants the pipeline, but we don’t seem to be getting the pipeline. I guess what I’m saying to you is that, if the inhabitants up there wanted to develop it, could they do so if one of the big oil companies came in?
Mr. Simpson: The Mackenzie gas project would have been the largest infrastructure project in Canada, somewhat driven by the Inuvialuit because the anchor fields were in the Inuvialuit Settlement Region. That doesn’t mean they weren’t concerned about impacts on their people or impacts on the wildlife.
Senator Eaton: No, I’m not insinuating that.
Mr. Simpson: That was part of the large review.
Senator Eaton: I think some Indigenous people are furious the federal government has banned tanker traffic down the West Coast because they see that as taking away jobs and potential for them. So I’m just saying.
The Chair: There is a moratorium in the Arctic that was put in place two years ago for five years. Will the Beaufort Sea Strategic Regional Plan of Action help to prepare for the review that was promised at the end of that moratorium?
Mr. Simpson: We do have an understanding about that. Since our strategic environmental assessment finishes within that five years, it could be part of that review. We would think so because, otherwise, we’re spending $9.5 million from the federal government on this strategic environmental assessment for nothing.
The Chair: Could you share information about that strategic review with the committee through the clerk, where it’s at? Could you share the work that has been done by the Inuvialuit with the committee?
Mr. Simpson: We’re getting into our third year of it now, and we’ll probably produce a report shortly. It’s not a bad process because it’s sort of co-managed. We’re doing the assessment together with the federal department. You have little bumps in the road but it seems our work plan is pretty straightforward now, and we should be able to meet all of our targets. I think so; yes, I could.
The Chair: Thank you.
Mr. Simpson: It should be public knowledge anyway.
The Chair: Very good.
In that connection, you spoke about co-management and having been the first co-management regime established under a comprehensive land claim agreement. There is a new federal bill, Bill C-69, that’s going to change the environmental assessment process. Are you going to be able to avoid having that apply in your region? Do you know how that’s looking?
Mr. Simpson: One of the premises of CEAA was that there would be no duplication of environmental assessment. Well, the Inuvialuit Final Agreement is a constitutionally protected document, so you have an obligation to do a screening and review. There’s no way you can avoid it. Otherwise, the Inuvialuit will probably take the federal government to court. Our argument with CEAA was, “There is no use in you conducting any environmental assessment in the Beaufort Sea.” The IFA process would do that.
Senator Gold: Welcome. As you know, this committee, which is relatively recently created, is looking at all issues in the Arctic and trying to benefit from testimony like yours to zero in on the issues we should focus on most.
Given your long-standing experience in your region in the North, what recommendations would you make to us, as a committee, for the issues you think are most important for the Arctic generally and, in particular, for your region?
Mr. Simpson: I feel, personally, very strongly about education. Our system of education is not the best in the world. In five of the six Inuvialuit communities, you do not get any academic instruction. If you want to be a biologist and are in one of our small communities, you would not have Biology 20 or 30. You will have to repeat to get those. We have been trying to work very closely with our regional education council, and, again, we try to help them wherever we can. So we started doing e-learning, and we had three graduates, just this past year, in Ulukhaktok, a small community. They’re off to university this fall. It’s really something that proves — The territorial government has stepped in and said, “We’re going to expand it.” So the e-learning is going to be a territorial-wide thing, delivered out of Inuvik. There are innovative ways of improving on education. It’s important because, maybe as a result of residential schools, parents are not as involved with the child’s education, or their attendance is really poor. We used some of our resource revenue monies from the devolution agreement to fund student and family support workers. These are little things you can do, but, fundamentally, I think we’ve approached, in the Arctic policy framework, as well as the Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, for an investment from the federal government in education, amongst other areas. If you’re going to have a strong economic base, you need strong, educated children who are very strong in their culture as well.
Senator Pate: Thank you very much for that Mr. Simpson. My question actually builds on Senator Gold’s, which is: As you know, there has been much documentation of the Canadian Inuit being amongst the poorest, hungriest, coldest and sickest in the circumpolar region, other than Siberia. You mentioned that you’re looking at the educational achievement, and it sounds like you have a snapshot every year. Is that correct? Have you been able to map out, forecast? I think it’s great the example you gave of e-learning being used, but I understand bandwidth can be an issue with e-learning.
I’m curious as to what you see as forecasting for how you’re going to address particularly the first two objectives of the IFA in light of what you’re saying in terms of lack of education, lack of language and lack of culture. What are the plans? What potentially might this committee recommend that might be helpful for the work you’re trying to do in those areas?
Mr. Simpson: The bandwidth has improved because we have fibre optics that goes to Inuvik and will be extended to another community, Tuktoyaktuk. It helps to have that fibre optic going through microwave or satellite. That’s why we’re able to deliver in Ulukhaktok, for instance. It’s quite remote, probably our most remote community. The other communities can plug into it and, in fact, we’re delivering in other places like Fort Liard, Tlicho communities, and Fort Resolution right out of Inuvik.
It’s really helpful because you have to have a pool of qualified teachers. We’re trying to concentrate on the lack of delivery in terms of academic programs, 20 and 30, so those are all being put onto the learning platform that was started themselves. The regional education council took some money out of their budget and did it, and the department of education slowly was drawn in. With our support, it became more of an issue to do more and more.
Bandwidth is becoming less and less of a problem, but it’s the maintenance of it and it would really help. There are other areas in terms of education. Like I said, attendance is not very good, so we hire student-family support workers to be truancy officers but also to make connections with the community, such as teachers coming into the community cold, making them feel part of the community.
We’re trying to do little interventions. We don’t have a lot of money. This is money we could devote to other programs. We do have a hunters and trappers assistance program. That’s why I mentioned the economics of the Inuvialuit household. One third of the population has no disposable income. I don’t even know how they make it. There are no jobs for them, but they still get on the land and try to make some effort in terms of putting meat on the table. That’s something that is hard to find in a statistical manner, the social cohesion and their tradition of sharing. There would be some serious problems with some of the Inuvialuit community, and the cost of living is crazy.
The Chair: We’d be very interested in the household economics work that the IRC did. If that could be shared with the committee, that would be of great interest.
Mr. Simpson: That can be shared. I should qualify we haven’t really verified with the communities the data except for one, which is a Paulatuk. I could share the whole works. There are six separate reports.
Senator Pate: Would it be possible to also share the educational achievement surveys you were talking about that you do each year? It sounds like it’s for the teachers, but it might also be useful for us to have.
Mr. Simpson: I did an overview of social, cultural and economic statistical conditions. I could send you that report. The last time I did it was 2017, just last year. We’re doing a major upgrade of that. You can get it on the Web at inuvialuitindicators.com. You will find mainly public statistical information that we get from Stats Canada or the NWT Bureau of Statistics.
The uniqueness is it’s not the general public that you’re measuring; you’re zooming in on the Inuvialuit population community by community. Sometimes we have to suppress the information because of privacy, but we generally follow the rules. We’re actually wanting to do more, and we’re really happy about the Inuit Health Survey because it’s hell to get data from the department.
The Chair: Thank you. We’re told your website is quite impressive in the data that can be gathered. I sense some real interest in the e-learning success you have had in that remote community. It may point the way for other Arctic regions.
Could I ask you if there’s any information we could have about that project?
Mr. Simpson: Yes. The only thing I can think of is the Beaufort Delta Education Council was doing a lot of fundraising because they were having a hard time getting money as well. Maybe I could dig out that proposal and send it to you because it gives you their vision. They pretty well have accomplished it now.
The Chair: That would be of most interest to us. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much, Mr. Simpson. The people in Inuvialuit have been real pioneers in terms of land claim agreements in Canada. You mentioned the three major goals and you have spoken a little about where you stand on those goals. I would like to hear more about where the people feel they stand against these goals that were established with the IFA, and I’d also like to know what the ambitions are for the new, next generation self-government agreement. What are the people looking for?
The Chair: Could you give us the highlights of the self-government agreement, what powers it looks like will be transferred, devolved?
Mr. Simpson: We started in 1996, quite a few years ago. We had a joint partnership with the regional First Nation group, the Gwich’in Tribal Council. We had an agreement-in-principle stage, which is quite detailed, but they eventually pulled out, so the Inuvialuit started negotiating, I think, in 2007.
Essentially, probably the best way to describe the powers is we concentrated more on all social programming. We exhausted it and probably invented some education jurisdictions as well. This is law-making authority. It has paramountcy over territorial legislation in the event there are conflicts and federal legislation, and it also dealt with some of the other areas of concern to the Inuvialuit, such as child and family services, which we’re hearing a lot about today. There are income support and housing, which we are starting to get a little bit of traction. Now that we’ve finished the final agreement, we’re starting to look at how we are going to fund this.
The financial process is again a bit of a co-drafting of a fiscal policy for self-government. It’s looking pretty good. You can argue forever and a day, but apparently it may be going to cabinet as a policy framework.
One of the things they’re using there as well as an Arctic policy is kind of a new language within the federal government. It’s more closing the socio-economic gap. Based on our statistics, it’s perhaps a good model to show the gap and how it may be decreased if you are going to be doing programming that’s different or if you’re doing the programming yourself. I don’t know if that was the full extent of the explanation.
It is only Inuvialuit populations. It’s not a public government that we ended up with because a significant population in two of the communities are First Nations. We had to go to a more Indigenous-only government. It was not the Inuvialuit’s preference to do that, though.
Senator Coyle: That was the Gwich’in in the Yukon territory?
Mr. Simpson: There are Gwich’in in the N.W.T. and Yukon, and Alaska.
Senator Coyle: Just one follow-up question on this. You haven’t mentioned that much about economic development and the role of this community, this group, in its own economic development. Could you speak to that?
Mr. Simpson: Well, it’s a very robust corporation, after 35-odd years, it’s worth $450 million. That’s the net worth of it. It does own an airline, Canadian North. It’s still involved, somewhat, in the oil and gas industry. These are more for the southern market, mind you.
We did hook up gas and we do have a petroleum corporation as well. That gas field is running out, so we’re pursuing some other option here because we do have, out of the Mackenzie gas project, three major anchor fields. We’re looking at maybe doing some arrangement with the leaseholders and looking at a regional gasification for everybody. We know it’s not completely clean energy, but gas is a lot better than diesel fuel.
The big thing we’re doing now is housing, which is a bit of a shock. Our chair and CEO was wondering why in Nunatsiavut and Nunavik they were doing their own construction. They got the money direct. Right? He put the plug in. Well, what about us?
The Chair: With the support of the Senate.
Mr. Simpson: Well, thank you very much for that. I didn’t know that.
The Chair: The Aboriginal Peoples Committee worked with your president to get a $15 million allocation in the 2016 budget. Maybe you can tell us a bit about how that went?
Mr. Simpson: Just terrific. Really great.
It was a bit of a shock with the territorial government. You build a bunch of — what you do with the units after they are constructed, do you hand it back to the housing corporation to maintain and collect the rent? They did have a meeting when the $15 million was announced and they were very angry, saying “You’re taking our money,” but we met with them recently and they’re talking about partnerships now, which is better.
It’s really great, because you’re seeing that we’re starting to get into taking this initiative and using some of the training dollars to really beef up skills and so forth, do a lot more apprenticeships, et cetera. We’re starting, hopefully, in the next few months to get some of that rolling out.
We did invest in — how would I say this — an apprenticeship in a broad sense to have a unit going into the other communities where we can have a classroom on wheels. It cost us about $1 million, but hopefully it will be well welcomed by smaller communities as well.
It has really spurred us on. We’re not making a lot of profit from it, but that is not the intent.
The Chair: Are there better quality houses, I’ve heard?
Mr. Simpson: Yes.
The Chair: Okay. Thank you.
Senator Neufeld: The questions I wanted to ask have mostly been asked, but just as a note of interesting, if the feds tell you that you have no money, just tell them recently that in one of our finance meetings we were informed that their first year of infrastructure spending was just over $14 billion that they promised but they only spent half of it. The other half is laying there. It’s being transferred forward into the next year, which they already have money scheduled for that and they’re not sure how that will be spent.
There is a lot of money and if it went wonderful when you got the money directly for doing your housing, it’s something maybe you can talk to them about. That’s just an extra little note. They do have a lot of loot in the back room that they’re not sure what to do with. I’m sure you could figure some of that out.
The e-learning, I was interested in that too. Did I hear you right about broadband access, fibre optic? You said Inuvik is fibre optic, right? And then you said Fort Liard? Did I understand you to say Fort Liard?
Mr. Simpson: Yes. We can deliver because we have fibre-optic connection. We can connect up to other smaller communities.
Senator Neufeld: You deliver to Fort Liard, but unless there is more than one Fort Liard, it’s not your region, is it?
Mr. Simpson: I’m not sure about the connection with Fort Liard. It may be microwave or by satellite or along with the fibre optic. Tlicho communities are hooked up that way.
Senator Neufeld: I know Fort Liard. I’ve been there a few times. I’m a little confused.
Mr. Simpson: You can deliver e-learning by satellite or we have microwave through Northwestel and now we can do fibre optic, so we have three choices coming out of Inuvik.
Senator Neufeld: You can give all the same service wireless that would otherwise be done with fibre-optic cable. Is that correct?
Mr. Simpson: Yes.
Senator Neufeld: That’s something we just heard from the other forks here in the eastern Arctic that they were not having any connectivity. I was surprised that wasn’t there.
The last question I have is on education, because you have focused on that a lot. What are the graduation rates? Do you keep track of the graduation rates?
Mr. Simpson: Yes, for sure.
Senator Neufeld: Are they on the upswing, which we would all hope.
Mr. Simpson: They are, but it’s kind of interesting. Our database is over a 20-year period. I think it goes back to the early 1990s. Yes, they’re improving, but so is Canada-wide and so is the Northwest Territories.
If you look back into 1991, the gap was pretty small, maybe a 15 per cent difference. But now it’s widened 25 to 30 per cent under the Canadian average or the Northwest Territories’ average. Things are getting worse.
As you may know, because of residential school, people wanted grade 12 back in their community. They wanted their kids back. They didn’t want them to go through what they went through. But the promise was, “Yes, we’ll deliver high school to you,” and they do. The N.W.T. does, but it’s a general program and it doesn’t provide the full suite of programming you would get in Yellowknife or any place in Southern Canada, I guess, or Inuvik. Inuvik does provide academic programming.
The gap is widening and that should be a concern, too.
Senator Neufeld: It should be. Thank you.
Senator Jaffer: Earlier on you spoke about languages and the teachers don’t know the culture or the language. How do you go about it in this area to preserve language? It’s very difficult. I get that.
Mr. Simpson: There are less and less speakers, so there are less and less people that could teach. We did try and set up with Aurora College, because sometimes you can speak the language but you don’t have the teaching skills. We did offer a year program for the language instructors to help them, but it’s still tough.
Senator Jaffer: Do you get any help from the federal government?
Mr. Simpson: Yes. I will try to quote my chair and CEO when it was announced we had our first Inuit partnership meeting: “a good idea poorly executed.” It goes back to this whole question, “Why do you have the money going through the territorial government?” When it comes to culture and language, put them in the hands of the language holders.
It was not a huge leap in terms of funding; it was an extra $80,000. It was poor before, because the language, statistically, is dying out.
Senator Jaffer: I have a difficult question, and if I word it improperly, I don’t want you to get offended. When I listen to you and all the challenges being faced — I know the area where you are — do people in that region feel we’ve forgotten them?
Mr. Simpson: Maybe. One thing we are seeing quite a bit, and it is a bit of a concern, is that 40 per cent of the beneficiaries have moved out; they’ve moved down South. They’re looking for promising careers or a good job. There’s not too much within the region to do except for maybe harvesting, which I think a lot of them appreciate. It’s very difficult to live in poverty, I suppose.
The Chair: Colleagues, that brings our meeting to a close. I’ll just mention we have asked the President of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami to come to a future meeting, and I think that’s going to happen. He’s spearheading the language initiative that all Inuit regions are involved with. Hopefully, we can get more information.
With that, I would like to thank you very much for your presentations, the helpful answers to our questions and for the information you’re going to provide.
(The committee adjourned.)