THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ARCTIC
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, June 11, 2018
The Special Committee on the Arctic met this day at 6:30 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: Welcome to this special meeting of the Special Committee on the Arctic.
My name is Dennis Patterson. I’m the senator representing Nunavut. I’m privileged to be the chair of this committee. I would now ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, beginning on my right.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld from British Columbia.
Senator Bovey: Patricia Bovey from Manitoba.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Colleagues, tonight, as part of our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on original inhabitants, we continue with two specific topics: economic development and infrastructure.
For our first panel, we welcome three witnesses: first, by video conference, from the Government of Nunavut, in Iqaluit, Virginia Mearns, Associate Deputy Minister, Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs; and also by video conference, from Champagne and Aishihik First Nations, Chief Steve Smith. Finally, from Acasta Capital Indigenous, with us tonight is Mr. Clint Davis, Partner and Managing Director.
Thank you for joining us. I invite each of you to proceed with your opening statement, in the order you were introduced. We’d like to start with Ms. Mearns. We will hear from everyone, and then we will go to a question-and-answer session. Please go ahead.
Virginia Mearns, Associate Deputy Minister, Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs, Government of Nunavut: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
Thank you for the invitation to appear this evening. As the chair has indicated, I am the Associate Deputy Minister of the Department of Executive and Intergovernmental Affairs with the Government of Nunavut. I’m here to speak about the development of the Government of Nunavut’s workforce, with an emphasis on Inuit employment in the public service.
As a central agency, the department is accountable for developing and implementing the master Inuit employment plan for the Government of Nunavut, as well as providing government-wide Inuit employment programs. We also provide general training for all public service employees.
Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement calls on the Government of Nunavut to achieve a representative level of Inuit within our workforce. Nunavut’s population is approximately 38,000, of which 85 per cent are Inuit; and 30 per cent of Nunavummiut are under the age of 15. As of May 2018, Statistics Canada estimated the territory’s labour force at approximately 15,000, including 10,400 Inuit.
Although educational attainment is increasing among Inuit in Nunavut, 2016 census data indicated that 56 per cent of Inuit aged 20 and over have not completed high school and have no certificate, diploma or degree. This means when the Government of Nunavut plans for workforce development, we must plan for pre-employment training that prepares Nunavummiut for specific occupations in the public service, as well as planning for on-the-job training.
The Government of Nunavut currently has approximately 4,900 positions, with a vacancy rate at around 27 per cent. Currently 50 per cent of our employees are Inuit. There is no shortage of job opportunities in Nunavut’s public service. We sponsor increasing numbers of pre-employment education and training programs in a variety of occupations, ranging from nurses, to teachers, to environmental technicians and building maintainers, to information technology specialists. Our challenge is attracting and retaining students in these programs, and then further attracting graduates to employment within the Government of Nunavut.
We are beginning to address some of the factors that affect success for pre-employment programs and the transition to work that may follow graduation. Nunavut Arctic College is also looking at the factors that enable student retention as well as success, including offering more programs in communities or through distance education so students can study closer to home.
As a modern treaty, the Nunavut Agreement provides for self-determination of Inuit within the Nunavut Settlement Area through participation in public territorial government and various institutions of public government. We talk about enhancing Inuit employment within the Government of Nunavut, as well as increasing it, because the intent of the Nunavut Agreement is for Inuit to participate in ways that influence outcomes for culture, language, social well-being, territorial lands and waters, and resources.
Inuit employment must go beyond entry-level positions for this influence to be realized.
Since 1999, the Government of Nunavut has demonstrated an ongoing commitment to developing the capacity and professionalism of its workforce through mentorship, education leave, job-specific training, leadership development and general training programs. We have also provided career development programs specifically for Inuit employees such as the Sivuliqtiksat internship program.
The signing of the settlement agreement in May 2015 provided us with access to the funds needed for programs that enable Inuit to advance into professional, management and leadership roles in the public service.
These include the Amaaqtaarniq Education Leave, our Career Broadening program, the Hivuliqtikhanut Emerging Leaders program and Policy foundations programs.
The committee is here is to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on the original inhabitants. I would like to conclude by mentioning a challenge that is becoming more evident in Nunavut.
As our economy continues to diversify, Nunavummiut have increasing choices in employment. Inuit with skills and job experience are in high demand throughout the territory. This is a relatively new situation for Inuit, many of whom are not yet firmly established in the labour market. Some choose full-time employment, while others prefer casual work or a more traditional lifestyle. Some struggle to balance paid work with family responsibilities, or with health and mental health issues. Some are willing to leave their home communities for training and education as well as employment while others are not. Some set out in a career direction and then change it.
Canadians everywhere exercise choice in the work they do and the employment they seek. All employers must develop their workforces to deal with turnover. However, there is a key difference between Nunavut and much of the rest of Canada. Employers in the territory are dealing with a very small labour market in which the majority of the labour force is affected by long-standing social inequities that have an ongoing impact on employment preparation and choice.
As a public government, the Government of Nunavut is proud to continue developing a professional public service that will help to shape a positive future for Nunavummiut as well as meet our obligations within the Nunavut agreement.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you. I would be pleased to take your questions.
The Chair: Now I would like to turn to Chief Steve Smith, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations.
Steve Smith, Chief, Champagne and Aishihik First Nations: Thank you to the members of the Senate committee for inviting Champagne and Aishihik First Nations to share our thoughts on the changes to the Arctic policy and the impacts on the original peoples that make up our traditional territory.
Champagne and Aishihik First Nations is located in the southwestern part of Yukon. We have traditional territory, about 41,000 square kilometres with 2,400 square kilometres of settlement land representing 1,200 citizens. We also have unceded territory in the northwestern corner of British Columbia encompassing about 1 per cent of the total area of British Columbia.
The Arctic framework proposes a leadership model founded on partnership among governments in the Arctic. Partnership with other levels of government is fine, but CAFN must be the lead partner on critical cultural, social and economic matters affecting our citizens. This is our treaty arrangement and the only way to turn back the effects of colonialism. The proposed Arctic framework touches on many of these critical matters, including infrastructure, health, social conditions and economic development. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations are rebuilding a strong language and cultural strength as the foundation for improving social and economic conditions. This cultural strength is Dän K’e, our way, and signifies a tangible and real recovery from the devastating effects of past policy. Rebuilding cultural language strength is solely the purview of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations government.
The federal and territorial governments can invest financial resources and other capacity as appropriate, as long as Champagne and Aishihik First Nations remains the sole lead. This investment will contribute toward Canada’s treaty obligation and support the overall objectives of the CAFN final agreement.
We say that because many times we get policy derived from Ottawa, based on economic principles in the South. Many times, those economic principles or activities don’t readily effect or have a good impact on the Yukon. We have projects that aren’t supported but are the only real projects that can happen within the Yukon.
Relationship with the land is a key component of Dän K’e and our cultural strength. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations have always had a strong relationship with the land. This relationship continues despite climate change, development pressures, urbanization and other modern conditions. Champagne and Aishihik First Nations culture is alive and Champagne and Aishihik First Nations people are adaptable. However, the threat to our traditional territory, our lands, animals and fish are very real and ongoing.
To date, we have outdated policies, both provincial and territorial legislation, that are not moving as dynamically as the pressure coming from, in particular, climate change. It affects hunting and fishing rights. Sustainable food we rely on in the North is affected when we have outdated legislation that is seen to be less and less sustainable moving forward given the effects of climate change.
Champagne and Aishihik First Nations are taking a leadership role among governments to provide citizen services and this program is founded on Dän K’e, our way of doing things. We wanted to get rid of the policies and procedures that have affected us, given that they were imposed upon us by the federal government. We have undertaken this program to do away with those policies and create our own. We only did that because of the strength of our land claim and self-government agreements.
CAFN has undertaken the renovation of citizen services while still functioning with insufficient financial resources. One of the things we need is to have the financial resources to enable us to carry on a number of areas with regard to citizen services. In particular, housing infrastructure.
I want to draw your attention to a particular example of Champagne and Aishihik First Nations. We have applied for infrastructure to develop new subdivisions within our traditional territory and, in particular, the home village of Haines Junction. We were notified we will not get consideration until 2021 or as far away as 2023. This really hampers our ability to have attractive models to attract new citizens and workers into our traditional territory and to be able to work for Champagne and Aishihik First Nations continuing to build on the opportunities we have in front of us.
Housing in the Yukon is always under pressure. We’ve seen immense growth similar to places like Vancouver, Toronto and other big urban centres. We have seen a significant rise in housing costs. We feel this pinch because we’re trying to attract people to come here and work for us but we don’t have the housing available, in particular at Haines Junction. Those are two areas of note, namely that when we have no housing and we need the develop land, but the support to develop the land is five or six years down the road, then we suffer a real pinch.
With regards to economic development, we’ve always believed it’s better to have policy and programming developed within the community itself. It’s difficult when we have programs, in particular in the past, I’ve seen programs where Canada is only going to support through technology advancements or technological companies.
Those don’t hold true in the Yukon where we have a real lack of infrastructure. We have one pipeline down from the Yukon to the South, where we need the redundancy, because the collapse of the fibre-optic cables that feed us our Internet routinely gets put under pressure. There is a real need for us to invest more into infrastructure, both from the technological side and also from the simple land development side.
With that, I will close my comments. Thank you for taking the time. I’ll be happy to answer any questions you have.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Mr. Davis, please go ahead.
Clint Davis, Chief Executive Officer, North35 Capital Partners: I would like to add a clarification, first. I’m the CEO of North35 Capital Partners, which is the successor of Acasta Capital Indigenous. That happened over the last month. I should have identified that. North35 provides business and capital advisory services to Indigenous governments, development corporations as well as companies looking to do business in the Indigenous market.
I am an Inuk from Labrador and a beneficiary under the Labrador Inuit Land Claims Agreement.
I have the honour of serving my community as the chair of the board of directors for Nunatsiavut Group of Companies, which I have done for nearly eight years. NGC has 12 operating companies in such fields as marine transport, fixed and rotary wing aviation, construction, land development, property rentals and site services support. NGC employs close to 400 people, half of whom are Inuit. We are a major employer in our region. We want to be the employer of choice for our people.
Our government and our group of companies represent tremendous opportunity for the Inuit of Labrador. I believe the Arctic represents a tremendous opportunity for Canada. While foreign countries see the strategic value of the Arctic, it remains one of the greatest undervalued regions by our own citizens. At times, it’s viewed as a fiscal wasteland, which is not a surprise considering fewer than 15 per cent of Canadians have ever been to the Arctic.
The Canadian Arctic makes up 25 per cent of the circumpolar region, yet its economic production accounts for less than 2 per cent of the region’s aggregate economy of $230 billion per year. Why is that? Because it’s under-built.
The Arctic issues that impact this country are significant: sovereignty, national security, resource development, environmental health, and research and innovation. This region represents 40 per cent of the country’s landmass, with a population of over 120,000 people, of which 80 per cent are Indigenous. The majority of Canada’s Arctic Indigenous communities have settled their land claims, resulting in ownership and control of huge swaths of land and close to $3 billion of investable capital. Yet those communities experience major infrastructure gaps, substandard connectivity, limited transportation and aging public facilities.
The Arctic continues to receive a lot of attention. The UN, the World Economic Forum and the EU have placed a priority on this emerging region. In fact, the World Economic Forum released the Arctic Investment Protocol, which provides the framework for effective investment by taking into account the environmental, social, cultural and governance sensitivities of the region.
The international interest only continues to grow. Canada needs to catch up.
Two years ago, a report by the National Indigenous Economic Development Board stated the infrastructure deficit of the North is the most significant barrier to economic and business development.
There are two initiatives I believe will help knock down these barriers. I’ve been involved for the last year in an effort to create a platform that provides an opportunity for the six Inuit development corporations to collaborate on common opportunities and learn from one another. The Inuit business development committee has met multiple times and has identified four major areas of focus, which includes renewable energy, connectivity, infrastructure and new marine routes throughout the Northwest Passage.
There are many advantages to collaboration, but one that’s particularly important is any profitability generated stays in the North. When we partner with southern-based companies, nearly half of it, if not more, flows completely out of the Arctic. Inuit economic development corporations all work for our communities. Our net income either gets reinvested back into our business, or it goes to support programs that benefit our community members. By collaborating we are ensuring our financial capital remains in our homeland.
The second item is the creation of an Indigenous infrastructure fund. My company, North35, is in the process of raising a fund of primarily Indigenous community investors. I mean the trusts that manage Indigenous dollars that have come from the resolution of land claims, impact benefit agreements and so on. This fund will invest in infrastructure opportunities in Canada, with a focus on Indigenous communities and the North. I believe this fund will be a catalyst to attract infrastructure funding from conventional investors who are not otherwise considering an investment in the North. We believe private sector involvement will bring innovative financing and a commercial lens that will significantly assist in the screening of appropriate target projects.
We have been doing this for the last six months. What has become clear in our discussions with the infrastructure and Indigenous communities is a plan and commitment to the North will help drive investment by the private sector. Capital is available; in fact, there is so much capital available, the thing we hear is they don’t know where they will deploy it.
Capital is available, the need is there but a commitment needs to be made by the federal government to ensure it provides a level of certainty to those willing to take commercial risks, in particular those Indigenous trusts looking to invest in our fund.
So much can be achieved and so much can be learned if the Government of Canada commits to making the necessary investments in the Arctic. With that, I look forward to your questions.
The Chair: Thank you very much to all the witnesses. I now turn to our deputy chair, Senator Bovey.
Senator Bovey: Thank you all. This has been interesting and helpful in our deliberations.
Training seems to be one thread. I’m going to direct my question to Virginia. You talked a lot about the education available and the training programs — that you have increasing choices in employment and Inuit with skills and job experience are in high demand.
I’d be interested to know, what specific kinds of training programs or professional development programs would you find the most useful for your community to have the work skills to take on the jobs that are opening up?
Ms. Mearns: Thank you for that question. This is a difficult question to answer, because we have been endeavouring in multiple exercises in which we’re really trying to comprehend the complexity of our diversifying economy and what that means for diversification in our workforce.
We’ve looked at this in multiple ways, recognizing that either through previous college programs or direct programming, the Government of Nunavut has garnered some success in key professional areas. We have managed to deliver one full law program in which 11 lawyers graduated, all from Nunavut. We’re endeavouring into the second law program where we have over 20 students right now enrolled and are continuing their education over the next three years within Nunavut.
We also have long-standing programming that I mentioned in the health field for nurses and in the teaching field. Then we’ve gone from there to make some key determinations by looking internally within our public workforce to see what is missing and, recognizing our obligations under the Nunavut agreement, what else needs to be done.
We undertook a strategic workforce analysis and an analysis of our own administration over a span of almost 20 years and found and noted that we continue to have chronic under-representation of Inuit within policy in our administration. There is an ongoing desire to ensure Inuit have an opportunity to take on positions categorized as management, senior management or executive-level positions. To answer those needs, we’ve developed and continue to deliver both a leadership training program for our public servants, as well as a new policy development training opportunity for our public servants within the Government of Nunavut.
Senator Bovey: I really look forward to seeing how that develops in the community. I think it’s important.
You also talked about the need for infrastructure. Would you talk a little bit about what kind of infrastructure is needed to undertake some of these training and professional development programs?
Ms. Mearns: Certainly. One major infrastructure aspect that would really expedite our ability to provide continued training and development is telecommunications. This continues to be a barrier for Nunavut in which we can access information and disperse information to our public, but also increase training and developmental opportunities for the public, as well as our public servants who are located in all 25 communities, all of which are fly-in communities.
Being able to travel to access training is very expensive. If we can address telecommunications as an infrastructure need that reduces a substantial amount of our budget that we currently have to incur to ensure our public servants, as well as the general public, have access to training and development.
Senator Bovey: I assume that would be the same for the eastern Arctic and the western Arctic? The whole of the Arctic?
Ms. Mearns: Yes.
Senator Bovey: Thank you. Everybody is nodding.
The Chair: Did you have a supplementary comment, Mr. Davis?
Mr. Davis: The only thing I was going to comment on is the Arctic Economic Council put out a report looking at broadband and connectivity requirements around the world. My understanding of the report when you looked at those countries considered in the polar Arctic region, anywhere from Russia, Finland, Norway and across the board in the United States, every single one of those countries had a drop-dead date as to when they were going to connect all their communities except Canada. That’s a major gap in critical infrastructure, as we’ve heard.
Right now, it’s ubiquitous in our lives here in the South, and my kids who are 3, 6 and 8, have never had a life without the Internet. For them, it’s a normal part of their lives. In fact, when you look up in my own region in Nunatsiavut, the connectivity there is substandard. Unfortunately, from what I’ve heard, the investments that are being made, from our perspective, by the federal government will get the communities up to standard where you see for the rest of the country, but will quickly fall behind. Because of the evolution of technology, the gap will only widen if critical investment hasn’t been made. It will be interesting to hear the situation in the Yukon.
The Chair: In that connection, discussing communications infrastructure, I’d like to ask Chief Smith: You’ve said you’ve got fibre optics in the Yukon, as I understood it, but it’s bit working well for you. Could you elaborate?
Mr. Smith: We do have fibre-optic connectivity; however, we fall prey to it. The Yukon is an interesting situation where we have had over 100 years of road developments. Most of our communities are connected by road. One community that’s isolated is the northern community in Old Crow. However, we always fall prey to the one connection we have to the South. For us we need more redundancy in the system.
In particular Champagne and Aishihik, where we are positioned in the Yukon is that we’re exploring the possibility of creating a redundant connection through Alaska and having it connect into the American grid from the Yukon. We find as the economy is growing and becoming more diversified, there’s huge opportunity for business to have this connection remotely from a place like Haines Junction.
Yes, we have it, but it narrows into a small pipeline, and we go through probably six or seven times a year where a simple loader will tear out the line and we’re out of service for a number of days. Having the redundancy for us is something that is key.
The Chair: Thank you. What would tear out the line did you say, sir?
Mr. Smith: The constant roadwork. The Alaska Highway, as many of you would know, is always being developed. The American government and the Alaskan government are always putting investment into the road. We’re always seeing upgrades and we get a lot of disruption. It’s heavy equipment literally tearing the line out of the ground.
Senator Coyle: Thank you to all of the wonderful presenters tonight. I have a question for Associate Deputy Minister Mearns first, and then one for Mr. Davis.
I really appreciate the overview you gave us of the situation with the Government of Nunavut. It was very clear. I’m curious to hear from you, in your position and your opinion, what is working well for you? What are some of the bright spots in the work you’re doing in labour force development in Nunavut? The flip side is: What are the models you’re looking at in other places? What do those look like that you’re interested in perhaps applying to your own situation? I’ll start with that and then follow up with one from Mr. Davis.
Ms. Mearns: Going back a little bit in terms of where we started in 1993 with the ratification of the Nunavut Agreement, fast forwarding to 1999 where we saw the creation of the Nunavut Territory, and then jumping ahead to now, one of the areas of success in terms of strategic workforce analysis is the fact we are doing the analysis.
We are analyzing our own workforce. We’re able to establish a benchmark against which we can gauge success, in a relatively short period of time, in comparison to other Canadian jurisdictions, at the same time taking note of what the demands on the national labour force are and what kind of implications that could have on Nunavut as a territory. We’re still quite heavily dependent on bringing in professionals for a variety of occupations into the territory to provide services and programs as we try to transition and train more Inuit.
This is something we are becoming much more effective in establishing and confirming where the public service is at when it comes to Inuit employment, training and development opportunities, as well as either pre-employment or post-secondary educational opportunities we try to develop for Inuit within the territory.
That would be one marker or key performance indicator, I guess, that I’d be able to throw out there in terms of context of where we started in 1993 to where we are right now in 2018.
Senator Coyle: Mr. Davis, thank you very much for your presentation. It was very interesting getting the circumpolar view, as well as the view across the country, to the various Inuit development corporations, plus your own Nunatsiavut group of companies you’re associated with.
I have two questions. The first one is: Toward the end of your presentation, you were very clear about what you saw as priorities and priorities you’re working on, but then you mentioned, at the end, that capital is available. The need is there, but a commitment needs to be made by the Government of Canada, which isn’t in here, that will provide a level of certainty to those who take on those commercial risks.
What that’s commitment you’re actually looking for? Could you describe that to us? Then I’ll ask my second question.
Mr. Davis: Thank you, senator. It’s a great question. For instance, when you look at infrastructure investment, when you’re trying to attract private capital, either in debt or in equity, particularly when you’re looking at the equity side, you’re doing a P3 or renewable energy programs.
In the particular case of both of those instances, we’ve had a couple of P3s that have existed in Nunavut. I think there have been two specifically in Nunavut, the most recent being the Iqaluit airport. In the Northwest Territories, there is a P3 ongoing, that being the Stanton Territorial Hospital, if I understand correctly.
Under those circumstances, you’re talking about larger scalable projects. The challenge we’ve seen is there are very good, economically viable, feasible projects that may not necessarily have to be $250 million to $300 million but rather in the smaller levels, anywhere from $75 million to $100 million. In those instances, the equity requirement could be anywhere from $8 million to $10 million. The funding models generally coming from the Government of Canada tend to be short-term. We heard the chief earlier talking about how his community and other regions don’t qualify for funding, and the only time they’re going to qualify is for a number of years out.
I think in order to do this properly and to really attract that private capital to come in, is to simply say, “Look, we’re going to have to adjust our funding models so we can go over a period of time, anywhere from 20 to 25 years,” because you want that ongoing revenue stream to ensure you generate a decent return. It would be attractive for Indigenous trusts to invest in that because they’re going to generate a return of anywhere — and I’m speculating because no one will ever tell you, or they shouldn’t, where the market is going to go — from 6 to 8 to 10 per cent, which is a pretty attractive investment.
The other thing is to ensure the Government of Canada can be innovative around backstopping certain projects and acting as a guarantor. Hopefully, the Infrastructure Bank could be an opportunity around that. They will certainly be looking at innovative financing. The challenge, I think, with the infrastructure bank is it’s new, and I think it’s looking at large mega-scale projects, which are found in the South, which is fine. I think we’ll start to see some level of change when the rest of Canada truly views the North as a strategic asset because the capital requirements, the investment that’s needed, is significant.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. That was clear. You were kind of touching on my second question as well. You said that less than 2 per cent of the circumpolar region’s aggregate economy resides here in Canada. There’s the other 98 per cent in those other countries.
Mr. Davis: Including Iceland and —
Senator Coyle: What are they doing right, and what are the main sectors, I guess, that contribute to that 98 per cent?
Mr. Davis: What are they doing right? Well, when you look at Greenland, the entire population lives in the Arctic. Iceland, their entire population lives in the Arctic. Alaska, they’re being creative, and, certainly, their entire population is in the Arctic. They have a lot of military investment and private sector activity.
These are great questions. I think, for business, political leaders, first and foremost in the North, as well as business and political leaders here in the South, when I try to think about what can be done to do things differently, and you look at all of the communities in Inuit Nunangat, of which there are 53 or 54, virtually all of them are on diesel. You look at Greenland, and Greenland has done a phenomenal job to take most of its communities off of diesel. Now, they’re on hydropower and, I believe, some wind power.
What I would like to start with and what we’ve had discussions about at the committee with the rest of the Inuit development corporations, is to say we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. Somebody around the world is doing this better than us, and, if they’re doing it, why are they doing it better than us?
When you look at the use of microgrids and battery storage and the evolution of renewable technology, it’s happening in Iceland, Greenland, and other Scandinavian countries. To the extent we can try to invest in that in our regions across the Arctic, I think we critically have to look at that.
We don’t necessarily need to have another study, and we don’t need to necessarily have to think about how this is going to work. I think it can happen when we have a serious approach to how we can address renewable energy requirements that exist in the North and how that is happening in other parts of the world.
Senator Neufeld: My first question is to Ms. Mearns. You say educational attainment is increasing among Inuit in Nunavut. Can you tell me what you’re doing to increase it? You say, still, 56 per cent don’t have high school. What programs are you doing to encourage that? Something must be working because you say it’s on the upswing. Is there something that can be done to help it work better?
Ms. Mearns: Thank you for that question. There are a couple of aspects that contribute to the gradual increase in high school educational attainment. We have to keep in mind that, up until about 1996, students were still required to travel out of their home community to complete high school education. For a lot of students, that meant leaving home either in Grade 9 or 10 to go to a larger community centre where Grade 12 was available. With that, there were a lot of times, unfortunately, students who could not complete secondary school because of that factor.
Now that all of the secondary grades are available in all of our communities, that is contributing to a higher completion rate in graduating from high school or gaining their high school diploma.
Other contributing factors are in direct response to the fact we have chronically low graduation rates where we have targeted what we would consider mature students — young adults and those who are well into adulthood — having an opportunity to go back and get their high school diploma.
One of the programs designed to enable this to happen is one run by our Nunavut Arctic College, which is referred to as the PASS program. It is designed to cater to the needs of the individual and meet the individual where they had left off in their educational journey, whether in Grade 9 or they need five more credits in Grade 12 to graduate. The program meets the individual where they’re at to help them complete all of the requirements to receive their high school diploma.
As this program rolls out in several communities year over year, we’re seeing an increased number of individuals who finally do have their high school diploma, in addition to those who go through the traditional kindergarten to Grade 12 continuum. That is one aspect of what is contributing to more Inuit achieving high school completion.
As we target communities, look at the demographics and make some key decisions as to what the contributing factors are around those who may not achieved a high school diploma, we can address what can be put in place as services or programs to enable more people to complete their high school diploma.
Senator Neufeld: The other thing you had here is “Inuit with skills and job experience are in high demand throughout the territory.” Can you tell me, high demand in what? What is driving that demand?
Ms. Mearns: Back in 1999, if you were a young Inuk with a high school diploma, you were employable. That’s still true today. Employability against educational attainment is very much focused on and still not achieved to the same degree as we see in other jurisdictions.
We are also seeing an increased number of Inuit pursuing college programs, receiving diplomas, going to university, getting their undergrad. A trend we see and have noted is here is a high turnover rate amongst Inuit in a variety of occupations because of the fact that maybe they have a Bachelor of Education. With a Bachelor of Education, pretty much all employment opportunities within the territory open up just with that one piece of paper.
It’s not occupation specific. It’s the fact you’ve achieved a certain level of education. If you have an undergrad degree with whatever background, it’s a very attractive asset for employers.
Currently, the Government of Nunavut continues to be the largest employer within the territory. There is a growing and diversifying economy where we have industry playing a bigger role within the territory, that have a vested interest as well through impact and benefit agreements wherein they have to hire a certain number of Inuit, and not just for entry-level positions, positions that require technical backgrounds, positions that may require university-level education.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you very much.
The Chair: I know, Mr. Davis, you have to go. I wonder if, either now or later, you could give us a bit more information about the Inuit Business Development Committee — the six corporations — and perhaps some more about the areas of focus you’ve identified.
Mr. Davis: Sure. The six development corporations are Inuvialuit Development Corporation; Kitikmeot Corporation; Sakku Investments; Qikiqtani Corporation; Nuvviti Development Corporation, which is the new development corporation out of Quebec, out of Nunavik; and Nunatsiavut Group of Companies.
The reason we came together, first and foremost, is we started having a look at the suite of different operating companies we all have. When you look at it, out of six development corporations, we have 120 sub-operating companies, and there is so much overlap.
We thought we all have our respective agreements with different southern-based companies, which is fine, because you help to build capacity and so on. In some instances, there would be great opportunities for our development corporations to work together and bid on common contracts and, at the end of the day, hopefully build to a level of scale where we could build that company which provides exceptional service in the Arctic but even can compete for business in the South. That was the underlying premise.
Another area we started to think about, Mr. Chair, is what issues or areas touch all of us in a common way. It is usually focused on a certain relationship with the federal government and what we can do, as a collective voice, to say we think there is a need to focus on these particular priorities. If we do this, we have the capacity and capability to meet the business requirements while, at the same time, these priorities will have a positive impact in our communities. That’s when we came up with the infrastructure, renewable energy, marine transportation throughout the Northwest Passage, and connectivity. That’s how we’ve identified it.
We’ve just recently started to formalize our organization where we’re going to try and have a staff person based out of Ottawa, to have a presence here, where our development corporations can speak with a common voice, which would be completely new for the country.
Senator Neufeld: I have a couple of more questions. If you have to leave right away, Mr. Davis, I’ll ask you first.
I understand what you’re talking about, all the different organizations working together. I can understand what you’re saying there, but the one thing you said at the end was, “Capital is available, the need is there, but a commitment needs to be made that will provide a level of certainty to those that take the commercial risks.”
I gather what you’re saying is you want to take the commercial risk, but you want the federal government to back it up if, in fact, it doesn’t work out, it doesn’t make money. Is that what you’re telling me? Maybe you can explain it a little better.
Mr. Davis: No. That’s a great question, senator.
I don’t think anyone who gets into business thinks it’s going to be risk-free. That would make no sense. Actually, that would be wonderful if that happened.
Senator Neufeld: I’m familiar with that. I’ve been in business.
Mr. Davis: It doesn’t make any sense whatsoever.
What I’m saying is under the circumstances currently, there are no rules to the game. There are one-off infrastructure investments. I’m thinking of P3 or renewable energy. There are one-off initiatives or programs that exist. There are no common rules of the game for, frankly, fund managers and private capital from Bay Street in Toronto to invest in the North.
For all intents and purposes, you don’t have a Infrastructure Ontario or a common procurement process for medium- or large-scale infrastructure activity in the North. This is something that would lay out procurement requirements and the rules of the game that would create incentive for private capital to invest in the North. That’s all I’m saying.
If there are other risks that would exceed beyond what you would see for risks in the South, maybe there is a role for the federal government to play. I’m not talking about anything that’s risk-free at all.
Senator Neufeld: I misunderstood you, then. I appreciate that. Thank you.
I just have a couple of questions for Chief Smith.
The Chair: Yes. Please go ahead. We'll also hear from Senator Oh afterwards. Your question was asked. Okay.
Senator Neufeld: Chief Smith, I’m familiar with where you live.
I’ve lived in Fort Nelson. I live in Fort St. John. You’ll be familiar with those two places.
You talked at length about doing it your way. I appreciate that. I’m wondering how that works out with the federal government. The way they can be sometimes, it must be a little difficult. Has it been pretty successful working forward to that, doing it my way that actually reflects when you live and what you have to deal with, other than someone in Ottawa telling you how to do it? Please explain a little more to me how it’s going.
Mr. Smith: Over the past number of years it has started to take off for Champagne and Aishihik. We settled our land claim, similar to Nunavut. We signed in 1993. Our claim came into effect in 1995.
We’ve been doing this for just under 25 years. We’ve seen an immense increase in our citizens’ social indicators. It was interesting to hear the deputy premier’s comment about education and the success rates; they mirrored us in the Yukon.
We’ve seen a steady increase in success for both high school and post-secondary, and what I mean by us doing it our way is we’re building programs based on Champagne and Aishihik’s way of doing business. You can be successful in business, similar to the Japanese, but the Japanese people do not stop being Japanese. They still carry on doing business based on corporate principles that make them Japanese. That’s what I’m talking about. We still hold up to the principles of transparency and accountability. We also do it in a way that is Champagne and Aishihik’s and that is becoming more evident with regard to our education, language, cultural revitalization and social supports.
Champagne and Aishihik, since our land claim settlement took effect, we initially set aside $1 million to support post-secondary students while they go off to college, similar to Nunavut, similar to, I think, the rest of the Arctic. University and post-secondary education opportunities are limited in the particular region. Many of our students have to travel south. We increased the funding for them. It was probably about 75 per cent/25 per cent federal government funding versus Champagne and Aishihik funding, but funding today is now about 30 per cent federal government and about 70 per cent Champagne and Aishihik. We originally put, as I said, $1 million aside. This past year our chief and council, the government of Champagne and Aishihik, budgeted $750,000 for post-secondary funding.
For our language revitalization, we just embarked upon an adult immersion program that we are funding. The Champagne and Aishihik government, with the support of its people, has drawn down compensation dollars from our compensation, from the land claim compensation, to fund an adult immersion program because we found — and it’s not just indicative of the federal government; it’s also indicative of the territorial government — the territorial government spends about $6 million a year on Aboriginal languages. A third of that goes to Southern Tutchone speaking nations. We have not seen a speaker come out of those programs in the past 40 years that they’ve been operating. When we say we’re doing it our way, we’re also willing to cover the cost, so we are in control. We can dictate. With the adult immersion program, we’re funding it completely with Champagne and Aishihik funds, so Champagne and Aishihik is the only party that is going to dictate how this program is. It’s the only party that will set up the success and the benchmarks of what makes a successful student. That’s what I’m talking about when I speak about doing it our way. Any programming we take on, even from the federal and the territorial governments, has to suit how Champagne and Aishihik want to support our citizens with regard to that program funding. If the funding aligns with our vision, then we will pursue the funding and the support from the federal government, which we’re thankful for, but we need to be in control.
Senator Neufeld: Thank you. I’m aware of a similar program, and I am sure you are too, in Fort Nelson with the Fort Nelson Indigenous band that does a lot of its own education and is very successful also.
Maybe I can switch here. In a previous life, I worked with quite a few First Nations bands in British Columbia with regard to hydro projects. One was Atlin. I’m sure you’re familiar with what Atlin has done. They have totally gotten off of diesel. You talk about other hydro sites in your territory. Are they close to where a population is, or are they remote? Are they large or small? Maybe give me an idea of where. That’s my final question.
Mr. Smith: In Champagne and Aishihik, in particular, we have two hydro sites that we claimed as part of our land claim. We owned the land that is best suited to have the hydro site on. That was strategic from our standpoint. Again, we go back to this idea of doing it our way. When the project is being contemplated, Champagne and Aishihik is going to be the major proponent of any of those two projects.
Of particular note, though, the Yukon has hydro capacity needs and the territorial government is currently coming up against those.
One of the ways we’re studying now, in particular from my community and being able to feed into the grid, is the advent of biomass hydro electrical production. The territorial government has stated they’re going to need some diesel production because there is a lack of hydro capacity currently being able to come on line any time soon.
What we have proposed is to look at the idea of our providing biomass electrical generation, given the fact that in particular, there are huge amounts of the mountain pine beetle within British Columbia, while in our area we have the spruce bark beetle. The spruce bark beetle came through about 20 years ago into Champagne and Aishihik traditional territory. They consumed about 300 million cubic metres of wood. We have these standing dry logs in our traditional territory that would be suited for that production.
The two potential sites we have are very close. You would probably have a 20- or 30-kilometre line requirement for one, the larger, which runs anywhere from a 25-megawatt facility to a topping out at 35 megawatts. That is overlapped within another First Nations’ traditional territory, so it would take an agreement with the other First Nation. We have been in discussion about this particular project with the other First Nation and may be taking the lead on it.
In our very own traditional territory, we have a potential site that would produce anywhere from 10 to 15 megawatts, a slightly smaller version. That one is closer to the grid. The Yukon government a number of years ago commissioned a report and spent a lot of money on it. One of the things they failed to do, and this is a good lesson, is account for the social licence they would need. Their number one project was to dam a major river within the Yukon, the Pelly River. Well, you would have environmentalists and First Nations until rapture fighting that potential.
One of the things we talked about with regard to the one potential project we had, I asked this question, “If you had the social licence for this project, where would it list on this rating system?” The person said to me, without even hesitation, “It would go to number one.” We do have that potential, and we are interested.
In particular, one last note for Champagne and Aishihik, we have had a hydroelectric generation facility within our traditional territory for over 40 years, and it has produced some very devastating effects on a big portion of our traditional territory.
A number of our citizens, one half of our First Nation, the Aishihik people, have been living with the effects of this facility for 40 years. It is contextual to the time, and we’re going through that relicensing period now as we speak. We’re dealing with a situation where now we’re trying to fix the situation based on a 40-year mentality and bring it in line. It is something other First Nations have seen and are very skeptical about any kind of development.
Champagne and Aishihik don’t want to use that approach. We’re looking at all of our potential sites because we see a need, as Canadians, to be able to feed into a system because hydro power does have a fairly clean footprint once development has occurred. It’s fairly cheap power, it’s consistent power. It’s something that as much as we look at solar and wind energy, we just don’t have the technology to make it as economically viable. We are always open to looking and discussing the potential for us utilizing the resources we have.
First Nations people have always utilized the land for economic benefit. We have to look at it from that frame. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. Chief Smith, I wonder if you could briefly explain your experience with Infrastructure Canada and whether you have any recommendations about how that program, which has got billions in it over the next number of years, could be better suited to your needs.
Mr. Smith: In particular to us, it has to be more readily available. We’re ready to move on developing a number of our pieces of land, especially within the Haines Junction area. I haven’t had too much direct discussion with Infrastructure Canada and the program. I was recently told our project is going to have to take place at the earliest 2021, but potentially 2023. My recommendation is for the program to have enough dynamic ability so it can move on projects when communities are ready to move.
Yes, if the money has been allocated, we should be able to advance these projects when we’re ready to do them at that particular time and not have to wait several years and potentially past a current administration.
The Chair: And the Canadian Northern Economic Development Agency's policies haven’t worked for you. How should we be looking at changing that?
Mr. Smith: Again, the CANF program has been an evolution from ABC to ABDP. We have continually seen it being from Ottawa. We need to have it a little bit more fluid and contextual to our situation.
Given the immense diversity between the Arctic regions that make up Canada, Yukon has a lot more road infrastructure. We have certain capacity abilities, but that’s different from Nunavut and the N.W.T.
What we could suggest is to have a CANF program that is dynamic across the North and more suited to the particular regions they administer funds for.
The Chair: I would like to thank you and all the witnesses for your participation tonight.
We will welcome our next witness, Sheldon Nimchuk, Director, Project Development & Partnerships, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation.
Welcome, Mr. Nimchuk, from my hometown.
Sheldon Nimchuk, Director, Project Development & Partnerships, Qikiqtaaluk Corporation: Thank you, Senator Patterson, chair and distinguished senators of the committee. My name is Sheldon Nimchuk, Director, Project Development & Partnerships, with Qikiqtaaluk Corporation. I’m pleased to present to the committee tonight. Unfortunately, our president, who would have liked to have been able to speak with you this evening, had a precommitment with our board meetings commencing tomorrow. He asked I represent Qikiqtaaluk Corporation on his behalf.
Qikiqtaaluk Corporation is the regional development corporation for the Qikiqtani region in Nunavut. The corporation represents 13 communities within the region. This amounts to approximately 14,000 Inuit within 13 communities. As an organization, we strive to create meaningful economic diversity, employment and career development opportunities for Inuit.
We are here today to consider themes related to the Arctic policy framework discussion guide, specifically infrastructure and economic development. These themes are intrinsically linked and are two priority areas for the Qikiqtaaluk Corporation.
I will expand on some of these key initiatives QC is actively pursuing in alignment with infrastructure and economic development in Nunavut. More importantly today, I wish to convey the advancement across all themes raised in the framework discussion guide must consider the advancement of policies and procedures to support a new infrastructure delivery approach in partnership with the Inuit Development Corporations. Inuit organizations have long advocated for our fair allocation from the nationally available federal funding programs as a means to support nation building and reconciliation.
In linking the Government of Canada’s position under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who has prioritized reconciliation and Indigenous relations, to quote the Prime Minister:
We are determined to make a real difference in the lives of Indigenous Peoples – by closing socio-economic gaps, supporting greater self-determination, and establishing opportunities to work together on shared priorities.
This was captured in the Principles Respecting the Government of Canada’s Relationship with Indigenous Peoples, which stated:
The Government of Canada recognizes that reconciliation and self-government require a renewed fiscal relationship, developed in collaboration with Indigenous nations, that promotes a mutually supportive climate for economic partnership and resource development.
In our case, similarly the Government of Nunavut’s guiding principles Turaaqtavut, under the new government identifies a priority to “[establish] strategic partnerships with Inuit organizations, the federal government, and the private sector to meet the needs of our communities.”
Qikiqtaaluk Corporation is encouraged by the current mandates and commitments of the federal and territorial governments. This year we celebrate 25 years since the finalization of the Nunavut agreement. From that agreement, we celebrate the creation of the three regional Inuit associations and their respective development corporations. Over the past two decades, the capacity, capabilities and experience of the Inuit development corporations have grown. We are positioned to be leaders as we advance strong, sustainable and diversified Arctic economies. We are eager to see the commitments of the Government of Canada and Government of Nunavut realized into tangible actions.
As members of the Special Committee on the Arctic, I am sure you are all very well versed in the current infrastructure deficit in Nunavut. The deficit spans all categories, from water and sewer infrastructure, to communication, transportation, community and cultural infrastructure. Our deficit is such that the inadequate, unsafe and pure shortage of housing in our territory is a national crisis.
Basic infrastructure serves as the foundation for economic activity. Nunavut needs strategic, long-term, predictable investments in infrastructure to grow our economy. The lack of infrastructure in Nunavut has constrained Inuit economic growth and cultural prosperity. The result is economic leakage from our territory.
In our role as the Qikiqtani Corporation, we have spearheaded projects and efforts to close this infrastructure gap and bring economic opportunities to the Inuit of our region and Nunavut-wide. I will elaborate on a few of our current projects to highlight opportunities that exist for strategic long-term investments and partnership agreements with Nunavut’s Inuit development corporations.
The Qikiqtani Inuit organizations, for example, have collaboratively brought forward a partnership delivery approach for the long-awaited Nunavut Heritage Centre that naturally aligns with the Government of Canada and the Inuit organizations’ respective mandates dedicated to improving opportunities for Inuit. In fact, $10 million has been committed through the Inuit organizations for this project. A design-build team prioritizing Nunavut companies and expertise is positioned to advance, should multi-year funding be committed.
Additionally, we commenced development of a parcel of Inuit-owned land in the City of Iqaluit. Once completed, this development as a whole will support an estimated $300 to $400 million in infrastructure. Over the next 10 to 15 years, this development could serve as a unique training and career-building program.
Currently, land development in Iqaluit is stagnated due to an aging and overcapacity water and sewer infrastructure. We see this as a unique opportunity for strategic investment in water and sewer infrastructure, both to support the Inuit-owned land and municipal subdivisions that could be derived in efforts to bring opportunities for our community through economic and cultural infrastructure development. In this case, we would be eager to partner with the Government of Canada, Government of Nunavut and the City of Iqaluit to advance this opportunity.
We’ve also completed scoping studies for a deep-sea port in the community of Qikiqtarjuaq. The strategic marine infrastructure could promote Arctic sovereignty, Arctic security and countless economic opportunities while simultaneously supporting economic development at the community and regional levels.
Another item of interest is that Qikiqtaaluk Corporation recently created the Nunavut Nukkiksautiit Corporation to advance clean energy projects, and create employment and financial opportunities for Inuit in the Qikiqtani region. NNC will be Nunavut’s first Inuit-owned clean energy developer and will partner with each of the communities in our region to advance clean energy projects. Government investments in clean energy projects will reduce the reliance on fossil fuel and is a critical step toward energy security, reconciliation and self-determination for Inuit.
These are just a few of the select projects being advanced by Qikiqtaaluk Corporation to support infrastructure and economic development in our region. Through an economic partnership and new delivery approach, such projects would see greater gains under shorter timelines.
I have provided some background documents that may provide the committee with additional insights into these initiatives I’m speaking of. In closing, we certainly appreciate the clarity with which Mary Simon identified the need for inclusive action in the North, stating in her 2017 report:
I feel it is important at this point to remind ourselves of the long history of visions, action plans, strategies and initiatives being devised ‘for the North’ and not ‘with the North.’
We believe the Inuit organizations have pursued opportunities for delivery of infrastructure projects “with the North” through a renewed fiscal relationship with the Government of Canada and territorial government to deliver meaningful and impactful infrastructure projects and programs. The commitment of reconciliation through a renewed fiscal relationship should consider the delivery of these projects in partnership with Inuit organizations that can bring design-build teams together in a manner that truly reflects Inuit training and development.
In closing, I want to express my optimism as we celebrate 25 years since the signing of the Nunavut agreement, we can look forward to the future of the next 25 years with a new approach that supports reconciliation through tangible action.
I’d like to add in addition to the understanding this committee has struck — to look at informing the new Arctic policy framework. As someone who has been in Iqaluit for close to 23 years and has had the opportunity to get invited to a number of fact-finding missions and studies by successive governments, I can relay to this committee the North, in particular Nunavut, has really been studied to death on the issues, in my humble opinion. The need to move forward with tangible actions to deliver the infrastructure, which is essentially there to deliver programs, may truly benefit from creating an opportunity for those special types of projects to be considered at the basic Treasury Board allowance to allow innovation, outreach and working together as opposed to the typical year-to-year approval/disapproval process that makes it difficult to channel efforts to ensure these investments by the Government of Canada will be truly impactful. More importantly, allow for the private leveraging of funding Mr. Davis spoke to earlier, through such long-term commitments that may be derived in partnership with the Inuit organizations.
With that, I’d be pleased to answer any questions or provide any further clarity to the committee members.
Senator Bovey: I’m finding all this interesting. I think you’ll understand when I say in part I find it very inspiring, and in other part I find it a little concerning we’re not further along.
The relationship between culture and land is one that interests me. Chief Smith referred to that inherent link. Indeed, I’ve had many Indigenous students from the Arctic and from the South define the word culture as land.
You mentioned the Nunavut Heritage Centre, which I’ve been looking forward to for many years with my background, that $10 million has been committed through Inuit organizations for the project and that you have the design-build team prioritizing and Nunavut companies all set and ready to go. That excited me. That I found inspirational.
I’m really concerned with the end of your sentence, where you say, “all this is positioned to advance should multi-year funding being committed.” May I ask where and when you expect the multi-year funding, and what are your timelines?
Mr. Nimchuk: Yes. The Nunavut Agreement called on the creation of a heritage centre that ultimately would be delivered through either the Government of Nunavut with support of the Government of Canada or, potentially, if the opportunity arose in the consideration of the Government of Canada to discuss directly with the Inuit organizations recognizing the Government of Nunavut is very challenged on every level of infrastructure that’s required in the territory, even basic infrastructure at the community level.
With the $10 million that’s available, in one form or another, striking an arrangement with the levels of government, whether it’s the Government of Canada or the Government of Nunavut, perhaps in a 20-year agreement to support the servicing of that project, considering it is a heritage centre and perhaps doesn’t have the economics behind it that a clean energy initiative would have. In the uniqueness of Nunavut, the cultural component and the generation currently may lose that cultural linkage by not having the history at home and the tourism that could be derived on many fronts.
What I meant by the levels of government, because it is ultimately a government obligation in respect to the Nunavut agreement, is to work with the Inuit organizations who have put $10 million up now and to try and find a mechanism that would allow advancement of that project with the team we can bring together so it’s delivered sooner rather than later.
We believe that it is simply about getting around the table with like-minded objectives and delivering mandates and finding an avenue that we can work together to deliver that project.
I can advise the senator and this committee that we have had opportunities to speak and meet with the Nunavut government and present options they might consider, drawing upon some of the funds dedicated through the provincial-territorial allocations. We similarly have submitted to the Government of Canada a proposal that, in recognition of the scarcity of funding for Nunavut, this can be a direct arrangement with the Government of Canada and allow the Government of Nunavut to use its resources for supporting the delivery of the programs as opposed to the capital aspect of the project.
Senator Bovey: If I may, having worked in the sector for many decades, we know the strength and economic development that comes from cultural tourism. I appreciate that in your next bullet you talked about strategic investment in water and sewer infrastructure. I’m not going to contest any of that. I wonder if you agree with me that these come from different buckets. I was under the impression the federal support for the cultural heritage centre was well developed and well along.
Mr. Chair, I guess I was disappointed it seems to be nether-nether in the future when it’s something that’s essential for language, life, tourism and connects to every aspect of society. I don’t know whether you have any further thoughts.
Mr. Nimchuk: In this particular situation, it was the uniqueness of a parcel of land in Iqaluit that was Inuit-owned and recognizing that the City of Iqaluit is very fiscally challenged. Their ability to even consider opening new parcels of land, with the high cost of water and sewer infrastructure, created the opportunity for ourselves as Qikiqtaaluk Corporation to work with Inuit Heritage Trust, and not only can we work and offer an alternative delivery model than the typical Crown construct approach, but we can offer a parcel of land and, through that, the opportunity to introduce clean energy, the water and sewer and the actual building all have linkages.
I’ve tried to relay in the documents this one particular situation is in front of us today. The alignment of programs and discussions and everything on an application basis takes away from the opportunity to truly channel an effort, in this particular regard, on the heritage centre, because the water and sewer infrastructure will contribute to that particular land, moving forward with clean energy initiatives for which we have actual submissions in now and waiting upon, hopefully, approval. It can truly be a game changer by allowing, in this particular case, the initiative, which has a private business approach to being a complement to the governments in trying to deliver mandates respectively.
Senator Bovey: Thank you very much.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have a little less than 15 minutes left.
Senator Coyle: Thank you, Mr. Nimchuk, for your excellent presentation, and apologies we’re adding to the being-studied-to-death phenomenon. I’m hoping something very productive will come out of this. I think your submission tonight is important.
With one general question, I just want to tease out your last point from your presentation, which is we need things to be done differently. The old way isn’t frankly working now and it probably hasn’t been working for some time in terms of the partnership with the Government of Canada. Perhaps the one-size-fits-all doesn’t quite work either.
I would like to you tease that out in a little more detail for us.
My second question is far more specific. I’m very interested in these clean energy projects, if you could tell us more about the nature of those projects.
Mr. Nimchuk: Certainly, senator. Perhaps I could utilize the example of what I alluded to in the Qikiqtarjuaq report.
We know marine infrastructure is important. We know the Government of Nunavut was recently contracted to build what they refer to as a deep-water port in the city of Iqaluit and a small-craft harbour in Pond Inlet.
We also know, from a national and international perspective, particularly in respect to serving the offshore fishing industry that Iqaluit will never be used as a deep seaport for that purpose. Qikiqtarjuaq is strategically located.
I guess what I’m referring to is the ability to find a mechanism where initiatives can be brought forward to those government agencies and political efforts that may be broader than international-national requirements. The new approach is to be able to sit down as partners and try to channel the effort in which the federal government would make a commitment allowing the industry to also look at being innovative in terms of servicing the operations of the port.
Ultimately, in this particular case what are the geopolitical advantages of having a strategic location that might serve as the defence industry, Canada’s defence and its Coast Guard.
There may be the special nation-building initiatives that dialogue in partnership, if the levels of government recognize the capacity that can be brought forward in partnership together. I think the opportunity to move these types of initiatives sooner rather than later can be enhanced. I don’t expect that to be for every type of project out there.
May I segue into the clean energy projects? Currently we have submitted proposals of this parcel of Inuit-owned land, of which we are under construction with our hotel to demonstrate a net-zero ready energy under one of the funding streams. Similarly, another funding stream we’ve put in a proposal to be selected through the expression of interest calls to demonstrate a smart 21st-century energy grid with a utility-grade battery storage and a 1.5-megawatt solar farm within that development area.
In this particular case, we also have to work with the fact that the local utility does not have independent power production legislation. Its attempt at allowing net metering is at such a small scale that we don’t fit that. We have the federal government incentivizing and asking for proposals for communities that reduce their reliance on diesel generation. Iqaluit is the largest per capita, but we are faced with that challenge of navigating, on the one hand, the federal government that we’re hoping we’ll get responses soon in the affirmative to move to the due diligence stage, with a territorial government utility that aren’t quite there yet, and our own desire to be leaders in this initiative and contributing investment dollars towards it.
I think my comment about a new way of doing things is if the ultimate goal is to deliver programs and help a new generation change the way the last generation felt about government programs -- the time is now and there has to be some mechanism to consider the results rather than just a budget out there. I hope that answers your question.
Senator McCoy: That’s very helpful.
The Chair: Your firm would be involved with the Inuit business development committee. Would you tell us a bit about your expectations there, please?
Mr. Nimchuk: Certainly. I would be pleased to add to what Mr. Davis said, because he’s also involved. Part of the natural relationship with the Inuit and development corporations, at least from my experience got rechannelled through ITK. Last October we were invited as a group to go to Alaska to begin that dialogue of business-to-business opportunities under the emerging thoughts about east-west trade in the Arctic.
Through that, and while this committee now is moving into a formal agreement, it also had an international view with the Inuit development corporations from Alaska to Greenland. It is a little different because they’re essentially a government. From my perspective it was very interesting to participate because ultimately there is 140,000 to 160,000 Inuit in the world. When you looked at the land mass these land claims collectively have in their respective territories and believing that emerging opportunities will happen one way or the other in terms of Arctic interests, that the ability to have the Canadian development corporations potentially contemplate relationships with Inuit, both from Greenland to Alaska on not only nation building but larger east-west opportunities, maybe that’s piloting control through the Northwest Passage and moving from the Pacific to the Atlantic. Connectivity is an area that is just a dream at the moment, but could the Inuit have their own telecom in the future to make sure that the investments are channelled for the betterment of the people and representing the people? I think it’s contemplated.
Mr. Chair, it is very much in the initiation. I can share that as of Friday, representatives of the Danish embassy and there is consideration of the Arctic Infrastructure Alliance which is Greenland, Canada and potentially Alaska in the future. Ultimately there are a lot of dynamics that seem to be happening and this is just first steps of trying to get position for the future and seeing where the collective strength may be able to benefit Inuit of the respective regions.
The Chair: Mr. Nimchuk, thank you for the documents you have made available to the committee. One of them on the economic trends and policies talks about lost opportunities. There’s a reference to new mothers struggling to go back to work. I’d like you to comment a bit on how maybe economic opportunities have bypassed women.
The other one mentioned in the lost opportunities is inshore fisheries. I’d like you to talk a bit about those two points and anything you else you want to raise in the lost opportunities. I see you mention elders, seniors’ facilities, as well.
Mr. Nimchuk: Mr. Chair, in regard to lost opportunities with respect to daycares, many don’t have any daycare services. While people may be able to go out and work, the fact they don’t have the basic facilities to provide early childhood care in and of itself may neglect that individual from having a gainful career. I think we’re just making the point in a variety of infrastructure initiatives that this is really a basic, particularly if the senators consider that a small community like Grise Fiord that may have an opportunity for someone to work in one of the resource developments like Baffinland or whatever without the daycare or childhood services, that might make it difficult for them to actually consider a job. It ultimately comes back to the social side of funding going to social assistance or whatever the case.
In respect to daycares, we believe there is a lost opportunity by not having core investments available to provide those basic services at a small community level.
In respect to the lost opportunity of the inshore fishery development, that was as much perhaps as a future lost opportunity if we don’t channel the effort today. We’ve been doing work. When we look at the linkage between that future development of the inshore fishery, so 12 miles in from the adjacent waters, the real linkage to food security being addressed to trying to create a modular processing facility that could be scaleable if the export market is sought.
Qikiqtaaluk Fisheries is investing in a 40-foot research vessel to help move that research along in the communities so tangible results can be derived from the products that are available.
Then how do we get them to market?
When we looked at trying to solve this or at least get prepared, obviously the transportation links and adding fresh product, you’re already in a bit of a niche situation in finding that market, which is fair enough. The lost opportunity cost related to the inshore fishery is not so much what has been lost in the past but a channelling of the efforts to allow those products to come to market and be able to get innovative in finding solutions on value-added products getting to Canada. I think that’s what I was referring to in that particular document.
The elders’ facility, this document was promoting that we know elders’ facilities are a priority of the current Government of Nunavut. The lost opportunity costs we’re referring to is over the years since 1999 to today, how many programs were available and how much funding was available, but no one asked for it or went out and aligned the partners to truly deliver impactful infrastructure. If that continues, I guess we’re forecasting this is one of the reasons a new approach to channelling these efforts could be considered so that these opportunity costs aren’t lost and there is a partnership approach that can be considered so that the best of business, Inuit, and government could work collaboratively to address some of the challenges that are faced by the communities.
The Chair: Thank you very much. With that, we’ll wrap up this panel. Thank you very much, Mr. Nimchuk, for your presentation.
Colleagues, we will suspend to go in camera for a few minutes to discuss future business.
(The committee continued in camera.)