THE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON THE ARCTIC
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, March 26, 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]
[Editor's Note: Some evidence was presented through an Inuktitut interpreter.]
[English]
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. My name is Dennis Patterson. I am a senator representing Nunavut and I am privileged to be the chair of this committee.
I wish to welcome everyone with us in this room and viewers from 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 please introduce themselves.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Eaton: Nicky Eaton, Ontario.
Senator Coyle: Mary Coyle, Nova Scotia.
Senator Bovey: Pat Bovey, Manitoba.
Senator Galvez: Rosa Galvez, Quebec.
The Chair: Tonight, I’m very pleased to welcome, from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, Aluki Kotierk, President, and from Makivik Corporation, the Honourable Charlie Watt, President, and former chair of this committee.
[Editor's Note: The Chair spoke in Inuntitut.]
And I’d also like to acknowledge MP Larry Bagnell from Yukon. Welcome, Larry.
Thank you for joining us. I understand, Senator Watt, you’re going to speak first. But before I invite you to proceed with your opening statements, I would like to mention to my colleagues and members of the public that we have interpretation in Inuktitut available for tonight’s meeting. I invite you both to proceed with your opening statements, after which we will go to a question and answer session, if that’s agreeable.
[Interpretation]
Hon. Charlie Watt, President, Makivik Corporation: I will be talking in Inuktitut. It won’t be long, but I will speak Inuktitut.
Senator Patterson, thank you. I was the chair at one time. You have taken on that role, and I know the committee will proceed well. I’m happy that it will continue and make progress about the North.
[English]
Honourable senators, it is my pleasure to be here today. I am from the region of Northern Quebec called Nunavik, which is Inuit territory. Our land mass is an area of 171,307.62 square miles north of the 55th parallel. We have 14 communities, which are called villages and which are all on the coastal areas. The western border of our land touches the Hudson Bay, the northern border Ungava Bay and the east is the Torngat Mountains, which divide Quebec from Newfoundland and Labrador.
Since I’m no longer a senator, honourable senators, I’m here in my capacity as President of Makivik Corporation. This is the organization that I started 40 years ago to manage the proceeds of The James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement.
When I started as a senator in 1984, it was permissible for me to hold both jobs at the same time, but, due to our new Senate rules, I retired from the Senate just over a week ago and have returned to my home in the village of Kuujjuaq to assume the leadership of Makivik Corporation once again.
I’m 73 years old, and I have returned to my community to help the younger leaders navigate through the challenges that they are facing and to set us on a course for economic success. The company name is Makivik, which means “to rise up.” I selected this name because it provides hope and positive vision to my people.
Makivik Corporation’s objectives are to receive, administer, distribute and invest the compensation money payable to Nunavik Inuit, as provided for in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement; to relieve poverty and to promote the welfare, advancement and education of the Inuit; to foster, promote, protect and assist in preserving the Inuit way of life, values and traditions; to exercise the functions vested in it by other acts or the agreement; and to develop and improve the Inuit communities and their means of action. These were the goals of the corporation when we created it and they still are today.
Tonight, in order to keep with the theme of the committee, I will start by addressing the issues that are most pressing for my community as identified during the Arctic Policy Framework regional roundtable discussion in Kuujjuaq last October, and then I will share my personal opinions, which are based on my personal experience with the government leaders and Indigenous leaders and elders.
In October of last year, my community leadership met with federal government officials to identify key priorities for the region. They identified the following as their most pressing and urgent needs:
Participants emphasized that the Arctic Policy Framework must be centred on pressing social issues such as suicide, mental health, alcoholism and addiction, the erosion of language and culture and the legacy of colonialism.
Our regional leaders have argued for the government to take into account the priorities and strategic direction provided by regional strategies, like the Parnasiamautik consultation report, the booklet I have circulated and that you probably have at your disposal.
The Inuit of Northern Quebec realize that this process must be done in partnership with the people of Nunavik and Quebec and Canada.
They need to look at outdated funding models. We know that per capita funding does not work in the North because our population is small but our land mass is tremendous.
We also know that intergovernmental transfer does not work. Instead of sending money to the Government of Quebec, the federal government should be sending the funds directly to the region. Thanks to the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples’ report on housing, this is now the case for housing funds.
Indigenous people also live in the cities, so we need to consider urban Inuit in our work on the Arctic Policy Framework.
Participants called for improved ports and icebreaking ships to extend Nunavik’s shipping season.
Broadband access and Internet connectivity need immediate improvement for education and health and business.
My community lacks emergency service in the region, and we must improve the collaboration between the governments on interjurisdictional issues like health care.
As the President of Makivik Corporation, I will agree with those things listed, but I must also bring to your attention some of the more complex and equally urgent needs of my people.
First, as a legislature, we need to change the way we see the Arctic. It is not an empty space to be preserved.
The Arctic is alive and inhabited by the people who live along the coastline, and the Inuit are the people who maintain occupancy of the land and who assure Canada of continued jurisdiction.
The Arctic is warming at twice the rate of the global average. This has changed our traditional transportation routes and the animal life, and the infrastructure is less secure in the villages with melting permafrost. We need an action plan and funding to relocate some of our communities and to stabilize the others.
We need economic opportunity.
Domestically, the Inuit need to be treated as partners, with sufficient resources to do our job well. Inuit are proud people, and we want to achieve success in all of our endeavours.
I worry about our front-line people. Who will respond to an oil spill or disaster at sea? Anyone in the community knows that we don’t have the training or resources to manage a crisis of large proportions. Yet, we will be criticized by the nation and by governments at all levels if we fail to meet outside standards. This makes us feel bad, but it is also destroying trust in our government. We need to have confidence in our government, and we need to believe that they are making policy decisions that will have a positive impact on us.
When Canada, or any other nation, puts a ban on economic activity, this has a direct impact on our economy and our ability to create wealth. This includes oil and gas moratoriums and limiting the fish quota.
Internationally, we have much work to do, and we need Canada’s support. We need Canada to stand up for us during the negotiations with other countries. Why aren’t Inuit handcrafts part of the NAFTA? Inuit-made seal products and ivory are not permitted to go to the United States.
We need Canada’s support and intervention on our behalf at the United Nations level. As one example, the United Nations has the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, but it applies only to new agreements. There is no mechanism to open up the old agreements to make space for the Inuit voice, and Canada must insist on Inuit participation at all levels of the international discussions that impact our land, ice, sea and water.
My favourite example is the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. Those talks were based on the assumption that nobody can live on the sea, so they decided to carve up the ocean waters for the use of different countries. But, clearly, Inuit have lived on the sea, ice, land and water for generations, and we have been shut out of the dialogue. My friend Peter Hutchins, in Montreal, has a very solid grasp of the legal issues on this, and I’m encouraged that you will hear him when the time comes.
Another international example is the High Arctic. This is our homeland and our traditional territory. Yet, we still have people talking about setting it aside for the common heritage of mankind. That is unacceptable to us.
The Arctic Council is a powerful organization, with a rotating chairmanship. Yet, Inuit have never been hosts yet. How is it that they can keep meeting to discuss our land and our resources, and we are still on the sidelines?
Honourable senators, the solutions to those issues are complex because the players at the table keep changing. Solutions require a deep and specialized knowledge of the treaties and Canada’s historic role in dealing with our people. They require thoughtful and respectful dialogue.
Too often, our political leaders are in the job for a short period of time, so they divide up an issue for which they don’t have the knowledge base needed to do the job right. Many senators and members have chosen to sit on the Aboriginal-specific committees without any expertise at all, and it is very frustrating at times. I’m talking about my past experience. I’m not talking about you people. For that reason, I’m glad to see this group of senators at the table tonight because I know you have done your homework, and you are going to do excellent work. I will continue to follow your work and be available to you whenever you need me.
As I conclude this presentation, I want to share my vision with you. My vision as president is for my people to rise up out of poverty and assume their place equal to other Canadians. My longer-term vision is for the Inuit to achieve financial success that exceeds that of the general Canadian public. We have lived in Canada beyond memory, and we have cared for the land and resources of the North. For this reason, we should also benefit from those resources, and we should not be treated as second-class citizens. Inuit are full taxpayers, and we have always tried to work with the governments in Canada and Quebec.
We want to have a viable Northern economy that is able to support our population, which is young and growing rapidly. I’m asking you to help me to achieve this vision. As you move forward with your study, I ask: How can we empower Inuit to ensure their long-term economic success? What do we need to do at the policy level to improve the health and the life expectancy of my people? What institutional barriers continue to keep Inuit out of the decision-making circles? How can the Senate of Canada be the catalyst for change?
Honourable senators, I thank you for allowing me to make my points.
The Chair: Senator Watt, it’s great to have you back. It’s just like you never left us.
Mr. Watt: I’m still the same. I still can’t read properly from the documents.
The Chair: We’ll go to Ms. Kotierk, reserving questions until after both presentationd.
Ms. Kotierk, welcome.
[Interpretation]
Aluki Kotierk, President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: Thank you. I am happy to be here, and thank you for asking me to speak to you and give a presentation and for your warm welcome here.
I will be speaking in English so you all understand.
[English]
I would like to begin by commending the Senate for creating the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. Its creation says a great deal, things that are both constructive and respectful, about the Senate’s understanding of the existence of and the growing importance of Arctic issues, both within Canada and across the circumpolar world.
I am here from Nunavut, the only jurisdiction in Canada where the Indigenous population is the majority. Spread over 25 communities, all fly-in communities, Inuit make up 85 per cent of the population. Roughly half of the Inuit are under the age of 25 years old. The first language of the majority of Inuit in Nunavut is Inuktitut. Both French and English are minority languages.
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated represents a little over 31,000 Inuit enrolled in the Nunavut Agreement. The Nunavut Agreement is a constitutionally protected land claims agreement between Inuit, represented by Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, and the Government of Canada, representing the Crown.
We are here to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and impacts on the original inhabitants. In Nunavut’s context, we’re talking about Inuit. This is an extremely broad area of consideration. As such, I have chosen to focus on three topics that are a priority for Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated: Inuktitut; Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement; and infrastructure.
Before turning to these three topics, though, I would like to pause and acknowledge that 2018 marks an important year for Nunavut Inuit. We will be celebrating 25 years since the finalization of the Nunavut Agreement. It is befitting for me to acknowledge my panel member, my panel mate, the former senator and current President of Makivik, Charlie Watt, for his important role at critical times and in critical ways towards the creation of the Nunavut territory and the government. His contributions are not forgotten by the Nunavut Inuit.
[Interpretation]
Thank you for helping us.
[English]
I want to speak to the significant and rapid changes in Nunavut with the use of Inuktitut. Inuktitut is the vehicle that conveys our culture, our philosophy and our wisdom. It is foundational for the sense of Inuit identity and it is crucial for our understanding of the world and how we fit into it.
As members of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic, I am sure that you are all very well versed on the legacy of colonialism and residential schools. You are aware of the concerted efforts through assimilation policies that tried to strip us away from our language and our culture. Part of the reason why Inuit worked so tirelessly to settle the Nunavut Agreement was so that, as Inuit, we could continue to assert our self-determination and we could continue to have our Inuit culture and language thrive.
When we entered into our Nunavut Agreement with Canada, we had a healthy Inuktitut language. Our language is dying at 1 per cent per year.
On July 14, 1998, the then Finance Minister Paul Martin and his officials informed a federally appointed interim commissioner for Nunavut that Inuit would not receive federal funding for Inuktitut as the working language of our territorial government. Instead, it was stated that Inuktitut would be addressed at a later date.
In 2001, the first data set was gathered after Canada decided to postpone funding Inuktitut for our government services. At that time, 85 per cent of Inuit in Nunavut still declared Inuktitut as their mother tongue, but more importantly, 68 per cent of Inuit said it was still the main language used in our homes. This, despite the efforts that were made to make us speak English.
As of 2016, these numbers have dropped about 20 per cent. Mother tongue Inuktitut is now 63 per cent. Home language Inuktitut is 49.7 per cent. It is 20 years since the Liberal government at the time said they would address Inuktitut as the working language of our government at a later date, and 20 per cent of our language is gone.
According to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all Canadians are entitled to essential public services of a reasonable quality. Inuit are not receiving essential public services of a reasonable quality because they are not being delivered in Inuktitut. Ottawa decided that English is Nunavut’s official majority language, even though Inuktitut was the majority language of our territory and continues to be. Imposing an official language on our territory and indicating that it’s the majority language is a very colonial position.
Inuit lives should not be put at risk because they are not able to receive appropriate health services in Inuktitut. Inuit should not be giving up who they are by entering the school system. Inuit are taxpayers, as my colleague stated, and should be afforded essential services of reasonable quality.
The federal government has committed to developing an Indigenous language legislation. This is a good initiative. In Nunavut, Inuktitut is already recognized as an official language territorially. What we need is for the federal government to recognize that Inuktitut is an official founding language of the Nunavut territory. Maybe only then would Nunavut Inuit be able to reasonably expect quality essential services delivered in Nunavut.
I now want to speak about how a proud, self-reliant people in living history have endured significant and rapid changes in their lifestyle. Living out on the land, Inuit would provide for themselves and their families from the land. It may not always have been easy, but Inuit had the skill set and means to be able to provide for themselves.
In recent history, with the shift from subsistence hunting to the wage economy, many of our people are being left behind. Now, it is common to hear of our high unemployment rates, our low completion of formal education, our high dependence on income assistance and our high rates of poverty. This is not right. This should not be the social reality of Canadians living in one fifth of Canada’s geography. We must do better.
Through the negotiations of the Nunavut Agreement, Inuit envisioned something better. I want to draw your attention to Article 23 of the Nunavut Agreement. This article, which was a key part of the project to create Nunavut, requires the federal government and territorial governments to take the hiring, training and other initiatives necessary to bring about a government workforce that fully reflects the Inuit presence in the Nunavut population, roughly 85 per cent. Implementation of Article 23 is of profound importance to Nunavut Inuit for a whole set of mutually reinforcing reasons.
Self-determination in the contemporary sense means access to bureaucratic and administrative powers, as well as legislative ones.
Current Inuit participation in government workforces has been stuck at around 50 per cent for many years, concentrated at the lower and less skilled levels. The economic costs to Inuit are enormous. Work done by PriceWaterhouseCoopers last year estimated that if Inuit had 85 per cent of the jobs, our collective employment income levels would be $1.283 billion higher over the next five years, and governments would save $519 million in recruitment, relocation and similar avoidable costs. These are political and economic costs.
In addition, there are very substantial cultural and linguistic costs. I like to think of these as more important. If we were able to achieve a representative workforce with 85 out of 100 employees being Inuit employees, not only would Inuit be in positions to influence the policies and design the programs in a manner that incorporated Inuit ways of being and understanding, but they would be able to deliver the services in Inuktitut so that Inuit could receive quality services in a language they understand.
At Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., we will continue to push for the full implementation of Article 23, and we would appreciate as wide support as we can generate, not only for this article but for every article in our modern treaty.
I’ve already mentioned the drastic social and cultural changes that have happened in Inuit lifestyle in living history. My father’s generation was born living on the land. Inuit were encouraged, coerced and relocated into communities where they were told that they would be provided with houses, schools and health centres. Today, we live in 25 communities across Nunavut.
Nunavut has an infrastructure deficit in every imaginable area, from housing to broadband, from small craft harbours to roads. Our needs are both large and small. They range from basic community infrastructure, housing, roads, wastewater treatment and recreational centres to large economically driven investments such as alternative energy solutions, Internet connectivity, ports, et cetera.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., through their board meetings and annual general meetings, have put forward a number of resolutions to support infrastructure initiatives such as the Grays Bay Road and Port Project, and the Kivalluq fibreoptics and hydro corridor. I would be happy to provide copies of the resolution to the chair, if that would be helpful.
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. has long advocated for our fair allocation from the nationally available federal funding programs. It is our view that Canada has not completed its nation-building exercise. It started off making massive infrastructure investments, connecting the East Coast to the West Coast, but has yet to appropriately invest in infrastructure needs to connect to the longest coastline, the Arctic. Without a strong and strategic infrastructure framework, our opportunities will continue to be limited.
If Canada is truly an Arctic nation, it needs to make the necessary and appropriate infrastructure investments in the Arctic to ensure that Inuit living in Nunavut are able to receive equitable services as other Canadians. Canada needs to continue with its nation-building exercise and develop a comprehensive infrastructure for the Arctic.
In closing, I want to comment about the optimism that Inuit had when Nunavut was being negotiated and when Nunavut was being created. This year, 2018, marks 25 years since the Nunavut Agreement was signed. There are still so many social inequities that Inuit in Nunavut face, even though they live in Canada. I hope that, in partnership, as Inuit organizations, as different levels of government, we are able to make positive impacts so that, over the next 25 years, we can make changes that have a positive social impact on Inuit lives and so that, as Inuit, we can stand proud again in our own homeland and thrive again as we once did.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you this evening. Like my colleague, we are open for questions. Qujannamiik.
The Chair: Thank you to both of you. Qujannamiik. We will go to senators’ questions.
Senator Bovey: I want to thank you both for deep, compelling and convincing presentations. I found them very moving, and I appreciate what you’ve said. You won’t be surprised to hear me say that I certainly underline the importance of language and culture for a community to be able to move forward.
I have two quick questions, and I’m going to make them with an apology, because I do have to slip away very shortly. One is on about the comment about NAFTA, senator. You talked about the artistic seal products and ivory, and I think it’s a UN convention that prohibits them from being able to be exported from Canada. I wonder if, maybe not today but at some point, your community could give some thought to what kind of discussions need to be taken to try to open that up a little bit. I appreciate those laws came into place because of elephant tusks and rhinoceros horns, and I think the Arctic was caught up in it. That’s probably a question for the future. As we look at NAFTA, I’d be very interested in thoughts about what we can do, because it’s a problem we faced trying to share exhibitions with different parts of the world.
My other question is about the Arctic Council and your question, “How is it they can keep meeting to discuss our land, our resources, and we’re still on the sidelines?” What steps need to be taken so that the Inuit can chair the Arctic Council?
Mr. Watt: I’m going to cover the second question that you put forward because I’m more familiar with that than the other issue you raised, even though I do have some knowledge about certain artifacts and items that cannot be exported to another country. That has tremendously impacted the Inuit’s ability to survive. I could go on and I would like to deal with that in much lengthier detail, but let me get back to the other issue.
Senator Bovey: We can come back to that first question in the months to come. I put it on the record for a future answer and deliberation, not for an answer today, because it’s too complex.
Mr. Watt: Okay. We need to have our government focus on what is workable and what is not workable when you are put on the sidelines right at the beginning of the discussion on a matter that relates to well-being in the Arctic and who has access to the resources, without even having any dialogue or input from the Inuit themselves — and that is still going on.
Let me get into the area of Arctic Council, as an example. The leadership of Arctic Council does change from time to time, and the chairmanship of that organization rotates; sometimes it’s the American side, sometimes the Canadian side, or Norway, Finland, Iceland and whatnot. But we don’t have the same access in terms of being part of those actors. It’s very important. When you are discussing the land from the international perspective, the way the information goes out into the international community, it seems that they’re talking about areas that have nobody in them. In other words, the Inuit are not there.
This is an area I have worked on over the last eight years while I was still a senator, as you are probably aware. I have furnished you with all kinds of information, where our rights stand and international rights stand and things of that nature. I hired a law firm to undertake to describe exactly what that is. I have made that information available not only to our Canadian government but also to the United Nations over the years, and you’re probably aware of that.
As long as we are not directly involved in the actual discussion, I don’t think we are getting to the point where we want to go. On being a host, they have not even considered, at least from what I heard over the years, allowing the Inuit people at least to take the chair from time to time. That is problematic. That needs to be fixed.
When you deal with the international community, especially the one that I’ve been dealing with, the ambassadors, they sit beside you, but at the same time, they agree with the point that you’re making. The problem is that our Canadian government will have to understand that if they want the Arctic to remain under the jurisdiction of Canada, they had better do something quickly. If they don’t, I think what will happen, and the way that the game is being played by the international community, especially the seven Arctic countries, more so on the Russian side, is their claim is going as far as Canada. As you are probably aware, the flag that has been put under the ocean is not an accident; it’s been deliberately put there.
We Inuit are right on the front line. Whatever might happen in the international community, fighting and squabbling over the resources, we are the allies of Canada. It’s our homeland, and they are better off recognizing the fact that the land, sea and ice have been occupied by the Inuit from time immemorial. When they started talking about the law of the sea in the early years, they completely forgot about the Inuit existing in the Arctic. How does that make us feel?
Senator Bovey: I think this is a really important issue that perhaps, as we think of our recommendations and report, we should really flag that we need to find ways for Inuit peoples to take leadership roles as we try to resolve some of these national and international questions. I really appreciate you bringing them up.
Mr. Watt: If you could allow me to take it a step further, one of the reasons I was so optimistic about what this committee could do was that this special committee can do a lot of things. When you don’t raise the issues, which are important, they don’t get debated in the House of Commons. If we could use the mechanics that we have established and even the idea of pushing for a private member’s bill just to generate the discussion in the House of Commons, it would go a long way. That’s what I’m hoping this committee will do from time to time, when need be.
It’s a perfect opportunity for both my friend and myself to be able to come in and out from time to time when you need us to address certain important stuff. We are not only two. There are a lot more people out there who would like to have access to something like this.
Ms. Kotierk: Not specific to the questions that were posed but following from the commentary that’s being made, as Inuit, we’ve made a commitment to Canada. We consider ourselves Canadian, and we expect that Canada will make a commitment to us as we live in our homeland in the Arctic.
What we’ve experienced throughout history has been that Canada swoops in when they need us for sovereignty reasons and various initiatives that serve the purpose of Canada. Whether it be resource extraction or sovereignty, Canada is present. But when there’s no use for Canada, then we feel forgotten.
When I spoke about the need for a comprehensive infrastructure strategy, that is the point I’m making. Canada needs to look at itself and say: Are we truly a northern, Arctic nation? If we truly are, we have to make investments and commit to the Arctic peoples of this country.
The Chair: Senator Watt, we will certainly have an opportunity to revisit the issue of the Arctic Council. The committee does plan to have Canada’s representative on the Arctic Council come and testify. You’ve given us some good questions that we can ask.
Senator Eaton: I think part of Southern Canada’s ignorance is that they have never been up North. There’s very little knowledge, and they don’t realize how beautiful and interesting the Arctic is. I think we could help in many respects.
I was stunned last week. We had David Scott from Polar Knowledge Canada here as a witness. He went on to the items he was interested in, and I went on to ask him about oil and gas and what he thought about the development for the North of oil and gas. I agree with you, Senator Watt; it’s made other countries, even as far south as Singapore, very interested in what’s going on in the North. I can’t believe it’s just because they want the passage of boats through the Northwest Territories.
What do you two think of the development of oil and gas in the North? Is this something you want or don’t want?
Mr. Watt: Since you've asked that question, it’s a bit of a delicate issue, but at the same time, it’s a matter that has to be discussed.
We, as the Inuit in the Arctic, just like anybody else, need our economy too. That’s important to us. At the same time, we also have to be very cautious of how fragile the Arctic is when it comes to extracting resources from the land, the sea or the bottom of the ocean. That’s one of the reasons why we keep on trying to emphasize to the general public of Canada and to our government that we have to be there. We have to be the central focus of that discussion. If we are not, they’re not going to get the necessary or proper information or knowledge that we can give as Inuit.
We have lived in the Arctic for many years; I probably can even get away with saying even before the Ice Age. We have learned how to live with the climate that exists in the Arctic. We are able to recognize, just by looking at nature, what is going to happen tomorrow, especially in the area of weather changes and things of that nature. That, today, is becoming impossible to read in the same way it’s becoming impossible to read the texture of the ice that you have to travel on. That’s our highway; that’s our means and way to get our food, clothing, our economy. Today, the economy is what’s out in the land that we have to go after and harvest for our benefit, to eat and to clothe ourselves. In a sense, it’s the economy.
If we are not a participant in those types of discussions that are taking place at the international level, I don’t think those matters will be understood very well by the international representatives that are acting as actors within the arena of the international issue.
Senator Eaton: Last week, senator, we had three witnesses who are scientists, and they were all talking about Innu inclusion and how important it was to use local knowledge as much as they can. I heard of something rather interesting this summer, and it would be interesting to see if you two had been asked or you knew anything about a housing round table bringing experts from various disciplines to discuss what kind of building codes there should be for housing in the North. Have you heard of this, either one of you?
Mr. Watt: Maybe this has been going on ever since I can remember. Whatever is designed from the South is what goes up North.
Senator Eaton: They say it will have representatives from the North, engineers and designers, people who will design it for the northern climate and for building on muskeg and tundra.
Mr. Watt: That can only work if the Inuit directly participate and are describing in such a way from their own knowledge, decisions and things of that nature. If they’re not going to be part of it, I’m afraid they’re not going to have the proper information they need to be able to make intellectual decisions.
Senator Eaton: I agree with you. They seem to insinuate, didn’t they, senator, that the Innu would be very much included?
The Chair: Maybe I can assist. The round table on northern housing did result from a recommendation of the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples study on housing in Inuit Nunangat, and Polar Knowledge reported that they are planning a round table in the coming months. We’ll have to see whether they carry through on their great statements about involving traditional knowledge. We’ll have to see. But it did result from a recommendation of this committee.
Senator Eaton: Ms. Kotierk, I’ve read a bit about what Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. does. Can you explain your relationship with the Nunavut territorial government to help us understand how that works?
Ms. Kotierk: Senator Eaton, before I delve into that question, I just want to make a comment in terms of the round table on housing. I’m not aware of that coming up myself.
In terms of the oil and gas question, as Inuit, our perspective is that we need to participate in the decision-making of what’s happening in our homeland. When there are moratoriums put on our lands without our involvement, that’s not appropriate. We settled our land claims in the Nunavut settlement area with the expectation that we would be involved in decisions regarding our homelands.
In terms of moving forward on any economic development initiatives within our homelands, I believe the expectation would be that there are benefits to Inuit and it makes life better for Inuit. Similar to Article 23, where I spoke about achieving a representative workforce in the public service at all levels of government, one would expect that, if there were economic development initiatives within our territory, there would be measures in place to ensure there is capacity building to ensure that Inuit could participate fully in that type of employment.
Moving to the question on Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. represents Inuit of Nunavut. It was the predecessor, Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, before Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., that negotiated the Nunavut agreement with government. Through that negotiation, Article 4 stipulates that there would be the creation of the territory of Nunavut and that there would be the creation of the legislative assembly and the creation of a public government. So Nunavut Inuit chose to have a public government. The territorial government that currently governs in the territory of Nunavut is a public government that serves all Nunavummiut, all people of Nunavut, regards of whether or not they are Inuit. Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. advocates on behalf of Inuit to ensure that the Nunavut agreement and the obligations laid out in the 42 articles are fully implemented, both by the Government of Nunavut as well as the Government of Canada.
The Chair: Maybe I’ll take the liberty of following up on the question of consultation.
Senator Watt, and I think President Kotierk as well, you talked about the importance of Inuit being no longer on the sidelines with regard to access to resources. I’d like to ask you a question about how the federal government should consult.
President Obama and Prime Minister Trudeau announced a joint Arctic leadership model that called for protecting 17 per cent of the land areas and 10 per cent of marine areas in the Arctic by 2020. That announcement was made in Washington. ITK President Natan Obed was there and he said that he was very pleased to have been involved in the preparation of the document and in fact actually in discussions with the drafters. The final language in this document really spoke to Inuit, he said.
Could you comment on how consultation should take place with Inuit when it comes to land and waters in the Inuit settlement area? Who should the Government of Canada consult with in regard to matters such as that?
Mr. Watt: I do believe this is, again, the responsibility of the general population of Inuit in one land, and those are the people who need to be consulted. At times, the government feels that all they have to do is consult with one instrument. That is not quite acceptable. Yes, it’s fine and dandy to consult with the organizations that we do represent, but don’t forget the people, ordinary Inuit, some of whom are unilingual. It’s our responsibility that they should also have a voice on that matter. But how you do that? It may be through some form of referendum, probably, which is an avenue we take from time to time when we are dealing with a large issue that is going to have an impact on a people forever to come.
How should they deal with that? The consultation is not acceptable if it only comes to us in writing, letting us know, without us taking time to think about those things. The time has to be given.
As far as I’m concerned, the way that decision was made in relation to putting a moratorium on the Arctic, I don’t think they even made an attempt to consult with the Inuit. Maybe it’s true that the President of ITK was involved and directly participating. Was he asked? I do not know. I wasn’t there. I do have a question with regard to whether that was the right decision.
As I mentioned earlier in my opening remarks, we have a right to economy. Economics is important to us. We are not rejecting outright in terms of what should be happening in the Arctic. What we’re really concerned with is are we equipped as Canadians to be able to start doing some drilling in the ocean where there is still a mass of ice to exist for a number of years to come, maybe forever. Who knows? Weather is not something you can really project what’s going to happen tomorrow. That’s what we’re dealing with at the moment because so-called climate change has taken a twist in certain ways and the Arctic is more fragile now than ever before.
Are we equipped to deal with a massive disaster that might take place, the same thing that happened in Mexico? No, I don’t think we are. Even the American government didn’t have the technology to deal with it. What happens on the American side? If things like that would happen in the Arctic, we will lose complete control because that oil coming from under the earth and starting to seep out at the top of the ocean under the very cold climate, what is that going to become? Are we going to be able to clean it up? I don’t think we have the technology.
Again, earlier we talked about the claims that the Russians have made all the way to Canada. Well, maybe they’re more equipped than we are. I think definitely they are more equipped than we are, at least from the information that I have gathered over the years. On the American and Canadian sides, I don’t think they have the equipment to move in quickly and reduce the amount of damage they will do to the Arctic. I don’t think they have the equipment. They don’t have the technology.
There’s not much more I can say on that aspect. I’m not sure whether I answered your question, senator.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for this very interesting and touching description of the situation in Nunavut with the Inuit people. I agree 100 per cent with what you have said in your vision and the way you see the development of your lands and your people through the language, through education, through training and through occupying posts and being invited around the big table when making decisions that concern you and your land. I fully agree with this vision of doing things.
Because I’m involved in the scientific sector, I can validate what you are talking about on the Russians being present. I took notes of the infrastructure points that you described. You need roads, housing, water, wastewater, renewable energy and interconnectivity. I can see that what you want is to become modernized. You want the commodities and the comforts that we have in the South, and rightfully so.
Do you agree with sustainable development and what is put out as a way of thinking about the future, minimizing the impact on your environment, including traditional knowledge in this development? How do we develop the North? Do the people from the South go with their technology to the North? Do you send people to the universities in the South so they go back? Right now we are discussing that at Laval University because it is a reconciliation implementation. We want to develop programs to bring people from the North to study with us, but we are thinking about how. Can you please help me?
Mr. Watt: Well, let me attempt to answer part of that. I can’t answer the whole thing. Maybe I will leave it to my colleague to answer.
Whenever people talk about sustainable development, do they know what they’re talking about?
Senator Galvez: Some, not everybody, but some, yes.
Mr. Watt: Well, at least there are some. My problem is whoever I run across talking about sustainable development, when I put that question forward to them, they have no answer for me because they don’t know what it means, at least looking at it from the Inuit perspective.
Do you want to cover the rest? I’ll do my best after if you feel that we’re not providing you the answers. I can come back later, but I think she has more expertise than I do in the other areas that you’re talking about.
Ms. Kotierk: That’s an interesting question about whether you bring people from the South to our homeland with the technologies. I find that an interesting question because I think that’s often the perspective. We have a very large transient workforce that comes into our communities, stays for a number of years, jacks up their pensions and then leaves. What I think is crucial is that we invest more in the capacity building of our own people because we are there and most of us will remain there.
I mentioned earlier the importance of being able to influence policies and program design with the way we understand where we fit in this world and being able to deliver it in our own language. I think those are immeasurable. It’s difficult to measure the benefit of that.
It’s important that people start questioning their perspectives when they come into our homeland. I’ll use an example. I know the federal government has a Nutrition North Canada program. We certainly do have a high cost of living. It subsidizes for the majority of processed products that are in retail stores across our communities. I have said to the federal government that it is great if you want to subsidize that, but I really want you provide us with $15 million. We’ve put $15 million towards a Nunavut Harvester Support Program, and if you provided us with $15 million, we would be in a much better position to be able to support our harvesters who are going off to get their own good, nutritious food for their families, not only for their immediate families but the family in the way that Inuit understand families. Not only would it be a source of good, nutritious food, but it would be a way to transfer cultural knowledge from older hunters to younger hunters. Not only would it also add the strength and foundation of Inuit identity when so many of our young people are feeling lost and don’t know how to fit into the world, it would give them purpose and value once again in how they contribute into the kinship and the social networks that we have as communities.
There are so many layers to thinking in the Inuit way to something that would be useful for us. When I think about economic development, I understand that resource development is the first square that most people will go to when they think of the Arctic. I get that. However, I’m aware of the small economic development initiatives that have happened, for instance, in Fogo Island where they’re taking their uniqueness and showcasing that and still expressing who they are. Is there not a way for us to get the Inuit to showcase who we are and have our traditional foods in a culinary experience available when people come to Iqaluit rather than having the regular hamburgers and french fries people can get anywhere?
I think we need to do a better job in creating those kinds of incubators. I think it would also create the confidence and realization that we are not — earlier this morning, I was here at another Senate committee, and one of the elders who was speaking was saying, “My father used to tell me that as Inuit, non-Inuit will never accept you, will never like you.” I think many Inuit still have that feeling. They’re feeling shameful of the food that they eat. They are feeling shameful of the smell of the sealskin boots or the smell of the caribou skin clothes. To me, it would be a revitalization of saying we’re proud to be Inuit and it is okay and this is the way we do it. There are many examples. We need to start sharing that amongst Inuit, so that, as Inuit, we can start taking part in economic development initiatives that build up who we are.
There was a question about consultation. My colleague spoke to many of them, but I think it’s very important that it be available in Inuktitut and that it not only be put on the website or an online survey. As we’ve mentioned, there are broadband issues and poor connectivity. People need to be able to understand what it is that they’re being consulted on, and there needs to be that time. I think that it is crucial to be able to understand the material. It’s not fair for anyone to get hundreds of pages of any technical document and expect them to be able to thoughtfully provide commentary on how it’s going to impact people in the community. Information needs to be provided in a way that is understandable. It needs to be in the language of people. There also needs to be funds available for community groups to be able to participate fully in the consultation because people may be aware that something is happening, but if they are unable to do their own research and they are unable to have their own meeting to talk about it prior to the consultation, there’s no way of having a cohesive message and saying this is our view as Inuit.
Those are the only additions I wanted to add to Charlie Watt’s comments.
Mr. Watt: I will go a bit further.
I guess we have witnessed many different scientists and specialists and whatnot. Normally they come in the springtime, just like when the geese from the South arrive. When the weather gets cold, they fly back South. We have seen many of them. At times, we wish that we could also get the same kind of information that they have collected. We have no way of accessing that information. After they have spent a few months in the North, when the weather gets cold, they leave. They don’t see the whole cycle of the universe, what’s happening in the area, what they undertake to study. I always feel that when they do come out, they only come out with partial information, not complete information. So how do we change that?
As a matter of fact, just a couple of days ago, we were discussing that at the first annual general meeting that I attended as the President of Makivik Corporation. This was discussed. How do we put a handle on the information that is coming in and out from the North to the South? One of the elders suggested that we take control of that. If we don’t, misleading information is going South. Hearing that from the elderly person, that they’re only getting partial information, I think that is pretty serious, which is true. If you don’t stay around for the whole year, summer and wintertime, what do you bring back? We know what they bring back. It comes for the summertime. But during the wintertime, they have no idea, no clue whatsoever what turns the weather and the climate.
Maybe this committee can help us. I think it’s very important for us to somehow put a mechanism in place where they do not just access information but they also leave the information behind. We need to do some work in that field. Maybe this is one area where you might want to create a discussion in the House of Commons. Think about what they debate in the House of Commons. This is coming from the North, basically saying to the general public of Canada, “You are not getting the proper information in the South from those scientific communities.”
Maybe a lot of them have been living in the Arctic for a number of years. It’s very noticeable that those are very different people when they come out with the information. At least you get to the point of understanding what they bring forward to the South. A lot of the people that come up North, they’re there for a few weeks, a couple of months or three months at the most, and then out again. We need to do something about that because our people in the North are calling upon us to do something and make sure that we understand what is being taken out of the Arctic, the proper information or only partial information? We need to come up with a mechanism in the system to make sure a dialogue remains and continues to remain between the North and the South.
Senator Coyle: Thank you both for your very important presentations. I have so many questions, but I’ll try to limit them. Senator Watt —
Mr. Watt: I’m not a senator anymore. You can’t really call me “senator.”
Senator Coyle: We are just so used to you being “Senator Watt.”
You spoke about the need and importance of treating Inuit people as respected, genuine partners of Canada as a nation and also in our international relations. You also spoke about the vulnerability and fragility of the natural environment that the Inuit peoples find themselves living in and how that is becoming more fragile over time. You also talked about the people themselves and some of the fragility that has come from colonialism and very bad interrelationships between the dominant settler population of Canada and the Inuit people historically. I think I got that part from you loud and clear, and I think that needs to be reinforced.
With that fragility of the natural environment, you talked about the risk if large oil spills were to happen, that type of thing. You also mentioned about melting permafrost. I have two questions for you.
One, I believe you said that a response to the melting permafrost in terms of human settlements where the Inuit people live — and they live all over the North. There are two things. One is to remediate housing in settlements within the area of permafrost; the other is to actually relocate people from certain areas. I’d like to hear a bit more about that.
I’d also like to hear from you some examples of alternative — you don’t need to call them sustainable development — ideas that are successful already or that people are proposing for pursuing economic development opportunities yourselves. What are your ideas? What are the people around you saying?
Those are my questions for you. I have questions for you after, Ms. Kotierk.
Mr. Watt: Let me see if I can put it together in such a way that makes it understandable.
When it comes down to changing the Arctic because of climate change, it has been with us for quite some time now. When I first came here, I used to try to make my point by saying it was coming. As a matter of fact, I went as far as to say that it was already here but you don’t feel it. Being in the Arctic and being on the front lines, we live with it on a daily basis already. To me, that is important.
When it comes to what’s happening to the infrastructure that has been put up in those individual communities, depending on the location, in some areas the permafrost is nowhere to be seen; in other areas there are still big valleys and so on, and there is still permanent frost. Some of the infrastructure is slowly getting damaged every year and eroding into the ocean. You see a lot more of that in Alaska than you do in Canada, but that does not mean it’s not coming to Canada. That’s one issue that is of concern to us now.
We have 14 runways that we’ve spent a huge amount of dollars on already in the last 10 years and they need to be redone again. To give you an example, in a community that I was in not too long ago, half of the runway collapsed. It was a lucky thing the plane was not landing. It happened naturally and the runway dropped because there was no permanent frost to hold it up.
We are facing a lot of those things today; that is, with houses, infrastructure, runways and things of that nature. We have to think about a mass of construction in every sector and try to find a way not to be on the same location and relocate it.
When it comes down to the engineers and understanding from the southern perspective, they feel that they have to put gravel on top of gravel every time they build a house. On the Nunavut side, I’m not quite sure that it’s different. In Iqaluit, they used steel bows and drove them down to the bottom. They’ll last longer than the ones that have gravel on top. That is a problem.
The other thing that you’ve sort of highlighted in your question is more related to a governing concept. In the North — at least in Nunavik, but I don’t think it’s happening in her area yet because she’s from Nunavut; I’m from Nunavik — we got our land claim settlement long before anybody else did. On that account, we adopted it because we didn’t have anything else to place it on because rights did not exist when we entered into negotiations.
We took legal action against the Quebec Hydro Corporation. There was a partial win in the court. We lost partially in the Court of Appeal. We lost the whole case before because rights did not exist at the time we took that legal action — that is, interlocutory injunctions — against the development. We didn't have constitutional rights at that time. So we’ve had an uphill battle all the way through, being told by government authorities, especially the Government of Quebec, that we had no rights to be there, that we had no land and were nobody and therefore we shouldn't attempt to negotiate with them because there wasn't anything in it for us. Nevertheless, we took the matter to court, and Judge Malouf was the judge at that time. He gave us the opportunity to see whether we could succeed in driving our question of rights and if, at the end of the day, we would have legal validity to advance our case.
On that issue, we ended up with the general laws of application of Quebec to apply on the rights that we negotiated. That same thing — whether it’s in the provincial government or the territorial government — the general laws of application is the day-to-day responsibility of the government. As long as the general laws of application overrides the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, what we got has been taken away by the other half. Do you follow on this issue?
On that account, I have a new task. That’s one of the reasons why I was elected by the people with a high margin, because I indicated that to the general public of Canada. I remember making a statement during the negotiation time that I would try to see whether we could cope with the general laws of application being over our heads.
Today, that’s not what we’re going for. I’m talking about Nunavik now. Now we are pushing for Inuit values, traditions and culture. Whatever that governing structure is going to be will be based on that. At least we have an opportunity to do so. I’m not saying it is a perfect solution, but at least we’ll have an opportunity to govern our own based on our values and traditions. A lot of modifications have to be done. Nevertheless, we are prepared to go down that avenue. In other words, renegotiations are going to be taking place. Where do we get this opportunity? I think the present government has laid out in their platform that they’re willing to discuss nation-to-nation, government-to-government issues. That’s where we’re coming from as a Nunavik people willing to enter into a new regime. If we do manage to succeed — and I think we will — this is the mandate I have now from the people. I took it very seriously and I’m going to push as much as I can to go in that direction. Thank you.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. Can I just ask my quick questions to you, Ms. Kotierk? Thank you also for your presentation. You spoke about investment in both people and infrastructure. We have heard from President Watt this very important idea of the Inuit people being masters of their own destiny. To be a master of your own destiny, you want to be in a position to exercise that right to be the master of your own destiny and the capacity to carry out the responsibilities that come with that right. I’m hearing that from both of you. You mentioned article 23 of the agreement. You’ve also mentioned the critical importance of the Inuktitut language and how it’s the carrier of both the culture and the people.
My question is bringing those two points that you made together about language and Article 23, and it’s a question about education. You also mentioned education. My daughter used to teach in Baker Lake, and I saw first-hand through her and through my grandson who went to school there how poor the education system is. You’ve described it: People coming in and out. I won’t name names, but there was a principal from a certain province, not mine, on the East Coast of Canada, who made it very clear he was there until he had enough money buy the red sports car and he was gone. You get some very dedicated teachers also; I’m not saying you don’t. And then you have a wonderful elder teaching kindergarten, and my grandson was in Inuktitut immersion — what a great opportunity for those kids. But there’s a huge gap, an enormous gap, in order to achieve the goals of Article 23, which have to be met, and you are saying it, and they have to be aggressively met.
My question to you is this: In the next 25 years, how will Nunavut accelerate its control of that education system and improve that education system with your kind of investment that you want to see happen there, with the kind of education that you want to see happen, so that 25 years from now, everybody will be able to fulfill on that article? My impression is it can’t stay on the same path. It needs the best education system in Canada, not one of the lowest education systems in Canada. How can we work together, with you driving the bus, so that that can be achieved?
Ms. Kotierk: I really appreciate that, Senator Coyle, because this is an area that, since I’ve been president of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, I’ve been talking about consistently and very passionately, because I see that the focal point between the Inuktitut language, abilities to achieve a representative workforce, the importance of the education system, and I see them all culminating in one area where we need to provide an aggressive, robust training program to ensure that there are more Inuktitut-speaking Inuit teachers in our communities. I’ve written letters from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to the then minister of education at the territorial government. I’ve written a letter to the Prime Minister, talking about the need to provide financial investments to ensure that there are teacher education programs at the community level.
I know that, federally speaking, the view has often been that education is a provincial-territorial jurisdiction. Yet, in my view, in Nunavut, there have been concerted efforts to try to eradicate our language and culture. Currently, there are 43 schools across our territory. One is a French school; the rest are English schools. Seventy per cent of the teachers in our territory are non-Inuit who do not speak Inuktitut. When a Grade 5 student in any of our communities goes into the school, regardless of whether Inuktitut is their mother tongue, they have to speak English. Whether they’re more comfortable in Inuktitut, they have to speak English. In my view, I think about that, and I think this is our homeland, this is what we’ve negotiated for, this is what we’ve always been, and yet now I have to change who I am and try to fit into speaking English, and the curriculum is not Inuit focused. I question: How different is this than sending our children off to residential school?
In our own communities, Inuit children are learning curriculum that does not relate to who we are and our realities in Nunavut. They are reverting to having to speak another language. They don’t see themselves as teachers because the majority of the people who stand in front of them — and they change consistently and constantly — are non-Inuit. Even growing up as a child in Igloolik, how many times did I have to explain this means yes, this means no. How many times as Inuit do we have to educate transient workers again and again, and we get questioned why our attitude is so negative towards outsiders. But it’s like I’m just tired of having to say this again, because how long are you going to last? It’s not a personal view on the person who has arrived, but that’s our reality. It’s the same when we go to the health centre. I have to tell you again that this part of me hurts, and no one has time to read the file so I have to repeat everything. Then next month when I go back, I have to repeat everything again. So the frustration levels are growing because we know we will not get the same level of service that other people expect.
In my view, making investments in teacher education at the community level is crucial to be the tipping point, the bottleneck, for us to make a school system that builds up who Inuit are, and we need to create curriculum so that it’s available with Inuit-centred curriculum. We need to create materials that are available in Inuktitut. When an Inuktitut-speaking teacher goes into the school, they get burned out, and no wonder, because every time they have to do a lesson, they have to create their own material, whereas if you’re an English-speaking teacher, there’s a great abundance of curricula and material and resources available that you can photocopy. There needs to be that concerted effort not only in the teacher training but also in resource and curriculum development, and I say at the community level because we have such a high housing crisis. If I, in my community, wanted to learn to become a teacher and I have to leave my community, that means I’m giving up the social housing unit.
Mr. Watt: And it might not be there when you come back.
Ms. Kotierk: Exactly. It will certainly not be there when you come back. So people have to make these choices, and government policies are, “Well, Inuit are not interested.” But the real question is how do we get the services? How do we get the training at the community level? Because Inuit are in fact interested. They need to become aware of these opportunities, and the opportunities need to be available at the community level so we don’t have to make choices about am I going to give up my house.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. It’s a huge topic and a central one, as you have said. I really appreciate your input. In the interim period, when there are outsiders, hopefully partnering in the educational effort, they too need education, those partners from the South. They need education to help them be better partners, at this point, in the Inuit education of the children of the North. I’ve seen that in the Yukon Territory, where my daughter is now teaching. In the Yukon Territory, they are better at preparing the southern teachers to be partners in education than what I saw in Nunavut. So I think there is exactly what you’re saying. In the interim period, there is this time of working together, and hopefully the acceleration of what you’re saying will happen. I think something important needs to happen also to prepare those southern teachers to be better partners in Inuit education.
The Chair: Just a quick supplementary question on that, Ms. Kotierk: Inuit sued Canada over failure to implement the land claim, and Article 23 was a big part of that, and there was a settlement fund established for training. Will teacher education training, accelerated like you mentioned, be a priority for the use of that training fund?
Ms. Kotierk: The training fund that you refer to, senator, came out of the May 2015 settlement agreement, and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated board, at the time, decided that of the settlement agreement funds, they would put $175 million towards Inuit training to help Inuit in their preparedness for employment. There’s a board that governs, the Makigiaqta Inuit Training Corporation. At this point there’s a strategic plan that identifies four priority areas. Early childhood development and training for careers are areas that teacher education will fall under. There are also opportunities to partner with governments.
I think that discussions need to take place. I’ve talked with the Minister of Education, and I’ve mentioned it to ministers federally, that if there was interest, I would be committed to looking into how we could do a tripartite partnership so that we could do a robust, far-reaching teacher education program in many of our communities. That kind of commitment needs to happen at both levels of government, along with Inuit organizations.
The Chair: Thank you. Senator Watt, on the education question? There are some other questions coming.
Mr. Watt: I will try to cut it down to the point of what I think is worthwhile to mention to you.
We do have a similar problem to what is highlighted and outlined by my colleague here, even though she’s in Nunavut. I’m on the Nunavik side. I mentioned to you earlier that we went through the set of negotiations before anyone else did, so we have a different agreement from the others, especially in the area of education, leading up to 1975, that’s when we signed the deals with the Government of Quebec, the Government of Canada, along with the other signatories, Hydro-Québec and things of that nature.
In regard to the education issue, we do have complete jurisdiction over education now. We have our own school board, in other words. That has helped a great deal because we teach our kids at a very young age only Inuktitut for the first three years to make sure their foundation becomes more solid before they start learning any other language. I never really was a strong supporter of that kind of an understanding before, but over time I learned to appreciate it and understand that if the foundation is not quite there, then that youngster will continue to have a problem down the road. So I learned that in a tough way.
One of our biggest problems is not enough money. Again, my colleague mentioned that. There is a recognition to a certain extent that the Inuit have to be taught in Inuktitut and things of that nature, but when it comes to the need for money to be able to carry out and implement that, it always comes up short.
I’m trying to cut this down. The minister doesn’t have a disallowing power, either, when it comes to the curricula development and things of that nature. At least that end of it, the responsibility for the Kativik School Board to develop their own curricula and things of that nature, that is in their hands.
That does not mean that we have no problems. We do have problems. As I mentioned to you, the financial need is always a problem. We are still going through a learning curve in terms of administering our own school board, for example, because we never had that opportunity before.
It was not easy to get an exemption from the Government of Quebec. How that came about was almost by accident. That was during the time when Bill 101 was being dealt with. I thought that was an opportunity, so we went for it and negotiated through the public media and things of that nature, and we were able to succeed in getting an exemption from the Government of Quebec. I still ask myself the question: How the hell did I manage to do that? Anyway, it’s there.
Ms. Kotierk: I was remiss in identifying in the settlement agreement of May 2015. There was also an agreement that there would be $50 million put aside, housed at the federal government, for training. How it is allocated would be decided at NIP, the Nunavut Implementation Panel. Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nunavut sit there and have regular meetings. I have been consistently saying to the Minister of Education and the Department of Education that if they put forward a proposal to use that money or a big portion of that money towards a teacher education program at the community level or to provide language specialist training, that Nunavut Tunngavik would be very supportive of that proposal.
Senator Oh: It’s nice to see you again, Senator Watt and President Kotierk.
You mentioned earlier about traditional knowledge, and I think that is very important. You have been up there for hundreds of years. You know the way to live and survive in the Arctic.
What gives you the signal? Because if you lose your traditional knowledge, you lose the survival of communities, your traditional food and culture. How do you see that? You are way ahead of modern science. You know the Arctic Circle well. What gives you the signal that suddenly you can’t read the ice anymore?
Mr. Watt: Not being able to read the texture of the ice with your own eyes, which we were able to in the past. We still do, but the thing is, from time to time, we take our chances. We put our lives on the line because we have to harvest a certain species for our food. As I mentioned to you, it’s our economy and our clothing; it’s everything to us. So, at times, we do take chances, even though what you see in front of you, most likely you’ll go down. We have no choice.
If you happen to go a certain distance away from the land and down to the ice edge, you have to return. You have to come back. You might be down there for a day or two. Even just an hour or so can make a big difference, that you may not be able to go to back to the land after you have been in the sea on a snow machine.
In the old days, our people used to travel by dogs. At least the dogs knew what to watch out for. If you ask me how those dogs were trained, they were not trained. Just like you said, we live in the Arctic, we understand the Arctic, and we know what to do. Our dogs used to be our saviours. They used to get us to where we wanted to go.
A snow machine is not the same. When you hit soft ice, the snow machine goes down pretty fast. When we do go down on a snow machine, a lot of our people just disappear and we never see them again. That’s happened quite often.
That’s our livelihood. It might be strange to some people who have never experienced something like this, but to us, it’s something that we live with on a daily basis.
I don’t know whether I answered your questions.
Senator Oh: Yes, but is it giving you a sense of what is the future like, the signal of coming down to surviving?
Mr. Watt: If climate change continues to happen the way it is now, I guess the people down in Florida will be able to go up to the same. It will be identical to Florida when they go to the Arctic at some point down the road. I can’t describe it any other way at the moment. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Watt.
I’d like to take the prerogative and ask a couple of questions.
First of all, Ms. Kotierk, you mentioned two infrastructure projects that NTI had endorsed at its annual general meeting. Could you just give us a little more detail? Are those projects on the ask list for Canada government support?
Ms. Kotierk: Nunavut is a vast territory and even though, as Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, our organization represents a little over 31,000 Inuit, there are three administrative regions in our territory. So there’s the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, the Kivalliq Inuit Association and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association. Each of their presidents and vice-presidents make up the board of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, so each regional Inuit association embarks on initiatives regionally based.
The Kitikmeot Inuit Association has taken the lead in promoting and advocating for Grays Bay port and road, which would result in a road in the Kitikmeot region, which would provide more access — it would be a port, so it would provide more coastal access. From what I understand, they’ve put in an ask to the federal government to help provide the funding, and the Kitikmeot Inuit Association has also committed to providing funds to see this realized. I know that that is one of the priority infrastructure projects for the Kitikmeot Inuit Association.
In the Kivalliq Inuit association, one of their priority infrastructure projects is the Kivalliq fibre optics hydro corridor, which would be a road from Manitoba up to the Kivalliq region. Similarly, the expectation would be that it would provide more access and, presumably for both projects, it would lower the cost of living because supplies could be more readily available for those regions.
Having mentioned them as infrastructure projects that we as the membership of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated have endorsed and provided a resolution, I can provide copies of those resolutions to the chair.
Having said that, as I’ve said consistently, there is a great need for infrastructure in every area, whether it’s schools, housing, broadband, ports, and I know that there are various projects that are at different levels that are being worked on, but I think it would be incumbent on Canada to look at it comprehensively and figure out all the infrastructure needs across our territory, not only in Nunavut, but I think it makes sense that they would look at it across the Arctic and figure out which priorities need to be addressed to ensure that we have equitable services similar to other Canadians.
The Chair: Senator Watt, you mentioned your goal of dealing with poverty in your region, and your Parnasimautik Consultation Report talks about Inuit in your region, three quarters of them learning less than $32,480 a year. In Nunavut, we have more than half our population in social housing and 80 per cent earn less than $23,000 a year. What can be done to alleviate poverty in your regions?
Mr. Watt: Well, it was a myriad. Over the years, when I was here at the Senate, I looked into the possibility to see whether this matter could be tackled at the taxation level, by taxation the way the regime is working for Canada at the moment. I’ve been having a great deal of difficulty in trying to make some mileage in that area, as you know. It’s very true that Inuit in Nunavik, and also in Nunavut too, are having a hard time to make ends meet due to the fact of the high cost of living, the high cost of transportation and taxes over taxes over taxes. Every time an item moves North or is delivered by airline companies or by ship, you’re paying taxes. When it gets on the shelf, you’re also paying another tax on top of that. This is an area that needs to be dealt with, and I don’t really have a solution for you to suggest on how to deal with that. At the same time, if we cannot deal with it through the taxation issue, is there another way we could deal with that?
I know that Laval University comes out with updated information from the studies they undertake from time to time in regard to people who are having a hard time making ends meet. Especially right now, the pensioners are the ones having the hardest time in my area. Those are the people who have to help their families. Let me say those are the only ones who are actually showing up and helping their families, their grandchildren and things of that nature. The few dollars that they receive is not enough to go around and help the people.
We definitely have to sit down and discuss the question of the high cost of living, lifting up the poverty. We need to establish the table and to discuss the matter, because it’s a very wide range in terms of areas that we have to visit.
The Chair: Senator Watt, you had proposed an increase in the northern resident tax deduction, I believe. Maybe it’s time to re-examine that.
Senator Eaton: Madam president, in the territory of Nunavut, are you in charge of your own education or is it something being imposed on you? In other words, if the territory and the government decided tomorrow that it was going to teach in Inuktitut and it was going to decide on the curriculum, could you do that or are you impeded by federal or other powers from doing that?
Ms. Kotierk: The department of education is part of the territorial government, so the territorial government would be in a position to make the changes that are required.
In terms of accreditation, from what I understand, in the 1980s, when there was the Nunavut teacher education program, at first it started off as a two-year program, but over the years it has expanded to a five-year program. One of the things I’ve been questioning is what are the reasons for this increase in how long it takes to become a teacher. Is this really necessary? Where is it coming from? Is it coming from our own territorial government?
In terms of curriculum, currently the territorial government, the department of education, uses curriculum from Alberta. It uses the departmental exams that are created through Alberta.
Senator Eaton: But it could?
Ms. Kotierk: But it could, and the thing is it could if people were developing the curriculum. I can’t speak to the details of why it’s not happening. I suspect it’s the resources that they don’t have to dedicate people to creating the curriculum.
Senator Eaton: You’ve come up with such common sense ideas, with the food idea and all those other ideas, I just wanted to make sure that it’s within the territory that it has to come to fruition.
Ms. Kotierk: If I may be so bold as to say, in my view, given that 50 per cent of the bureaucracy is non-Inuit transient workers who come up to our territory, there’s never been that environment where people are talking about how we can make this Inuit-specific and Inuit-centred. That’s why I’ve been advocating so strongly for the need to fully implement Article 23 and achieve a representative workforce so Inuit who are capable are able to question why policies are the way they are just because they’ve always been that way. Thinking about it in an Inuit way does not diminish the quality of how we can become educated. I think Inuit need to start talking about that and start expecting that.
Senator Eaton: You two are so articulate and full of common sense, why aren’t you using digital media like Twitter to get your message out?
Ms. Kotierk: Broadband.
Senator Eaton: Why aren’t we seeing you more often in the South going to newspapers, being on television and creating a fuss?
Ms. Kotierk: I’ve been in my role for a little over a year, and within our territory I’ve been making a fuss. I think people have noticed the fuss I’ve been making, if I may say so myself.
Senator Eaton: Good.
The Chair: Thank you both very much.
(The committee adjourned.)