THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, November 28, 2022
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to security and defence in the Arctic.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs. I am Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee.
I am joined today by my fellow committee members, deputy chair Senator Jean-Guy Dagenais representing Quebec, Senator Dawn Anderson representing Northwest Territories, Senator Peter Boehm representing Ontario, Senator Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu representing Quebec, Senator Donna Dasko representing Ontario, Senator Marty Deacon representing Ontario, Senator Clément Gignac representing Quebec, Senator Victor Oh representing Ontario, Senator David Richards representing New Brunswick and Senator Hassan Yussuff representing Ontario.
For those watching today’s session, we are continuing our study on security and defence in the Arctic, including military infrastructure and security capabilities. The topic we will explore today is Arctic governance and northern perspectives.
Joining us in our first panel, we welcome to the committee by video conference Bridget Larocque, Chair of the Northern Advisory Board, North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network, and policy advisor with the Arctic Athabaskan Council; and Devlin Fernandes, Executive Director of the Gwich’in Council International.
Thank you for joining us today. We will begin the session by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our members.
Bridget Larocque, Chair, Northern Advisory Board, North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network, as an individual: Thank you for the invitation. I will provide some opening comments and then welcome any questions you may have.
From an Arctic governance and northern perspective, as part of my own assertion of self-determination and governance, my engagement with the North American and Arctic Defence Security Network as network co-lead and chair, Northern Advisory Board, allows for my commitment to advance gender-based analysis plus, Indigenous reconciliation, Indigenous knowledge and to ensure that youth considerations inform our research and activities.
Our mission statement at NAADSN places emphasis on the emerging leaders node that strives to inspire, foster and empower the next generation of North American and Arctic defence and security leaders by offering a Skills Development Series, an Emerging Leaders Ideas Series and Networking Nights. We also endeavour to support and provide timely, relevant and quality research on key policy challenges clearly affecting the Arctic. The significance of NAADSN for me is represented by our three core policy challenges: defence in the Arctic, securing North America and enhancing continental defence, and significantly, climate change and the environment.
Of course, it is most preferable that Canada and the circumpolar Arctic remain as a zone of peace, but global politics is not always peaceful as we witness once again with Russia’s war on Ukraine. There is heightened importance for Arctic cooperation between Canada and the U.S., taking into consideration the needs of the Indigenous Peoples’ preparedness. This preparedness requires enhanced skills development for Ranger intelligence and security, human security, gendered perspectives, food security, self-determination, nation-to-nation collaboration on Arctic security issues, free, prior, and informed consent, modern-day treaties and self-government, enhanced communication with Indigenous peoples and stewardship of lands and the environment.
I make special note that in 1994, the UN’s human development report expanded the notion of security to include food, health, community, environment, economic, personal political security and to protect the environment for future generations. That’s where the majority of our work with NAADSN and the Arctic Athabascan Council comes in. The work we do clearly is for and about future generations.
I’ll leave it at that, and thank you once again.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Ms. Larocque.
Devlin Fernandes, Executive Director, Gwich’in Council International: Thank you for inviting Gwich’in Council International to speak with you on Arctic governance and northern perspectives. We understand you met with leadership and staff from Gwich’in Tribal Council in Inuvik in October, and we are pleased you travelled to Gwich’in lands to hear their perspective. I hope everyone was feeling okay by the end of that trip as well.
My name is Devlin Fernandes and I serve as the executive director for Gwich’in Council International. We represent 9,000 Gwich’in in the Northwest Territories, the Yukon and Alaska at the international level to support resilient and healthy communities, and we have Permanent Participant status at the Arctic Council. Our membership consists of two representative bodies in Canada and one in Alaska: Gwich’in Tribal Council, who represent the beneficiaries of the Gwich’in Land Claim Settlement Act in the Northwest Territories, the Vuntut Gwichin First Nation, which is a self-governing First Nation in Old Crow Yukon, and the Council of Athabascan Tribal Governments made up of 10 chiefs of Gwich’in communities in Alaska. We operate as a not-for-profit organization with an office in Yellowknife and a volunteer board of directors nominated by our membership organizations.
We appreciate that, in exercising its responsibilities, the Government of Canada has obligations to define its boundaries, ensure the safety and security of Canadians and maintain operational readiness of the Armed Forces. However, there are also responsibilities and considerations to Indigenous peoples, and today I’m going to share some of our priorities and some considerations and questions for you as you continue your work on this study.
The Gwich’in Nation has been and will continue to be involved in the building out of Arctic governance. This is our North, our land and our people, and we are committed to peace, security and safety in our homelands and across the Arctic. The Gwich’in Nation has long advocated for respect and recognition of our sovereignty and right to self-determination. In Canada, all Gwich’in are covered by settled land claims, and the Vuntut Gwichin are currently self-governing, while Gwich’in in the Northwest Territories are in the process of negotiating a self-government agreement. The land claims cover many areas which intersect with Canadian interests around planning, security and defence, and Canada’s responsibilities under land claim agreements have direct relevance for decision makers and how work gets carried forward.
Our vision for the role of Indigenous peoples is that we are essential in governing the Arctic and must be included in discussions on governance and leadership in the Arctic. We are collaborative and want to work in cooperation for our homelands. We are partners in decision-making, and there can be no decisions about the Arctic without us. We recognize that we are in an unprecedented time, but there is no greater time for valuing and embracing the importance of Indigenous leadership in Arctic governance. We joined the Arctic Council in 2000 and have over 20 years of demonstrated participation and contributions that we’ve seen by Indigenous peoples, states, relationship building, knowledge exchange and mobilization.
The Gwich’in nation generally has a bi-annual gathering although, because of COVID, it has been postponed a few years. This summer, we met in Old Crow, Yukon, and there were eight key priorities affirmed across the nation. These included nation connection, cross-border mobility, climate change, language revitalization, healing, addressing lateral violence, the Porcupine caribou herd and salmon. Each community and region may have its own priorities, but these are shared across Gwich’in in Alaska, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
As this committee looks at Arctic governance and northern perspectives, we want to leave you with some considerations. First, what are the responsibilities of Canada to rights holders and in respect of land claims as it pursues its security and defence goals, and what do those responsibilities look like in terms of engagement, consultation and activities on their land? Second, what are the implications of working with and alongside a transboundary nation on health care, food security, harvesting rights and connectivity? Third, how can investments in the North, which are meant to advance security and defence goals, also be complementary and contribute to building local and regional economies, addressing and supporting nation goals of connectivity, good health care and good infrastructure in communities?
We believe that governance cannot be siloed into the different geopolitical regions — Alaska, Yukon and the Northwest Territories. What happens on an international scale is very much connected and related to what happens nationally, regionally and locally. We believe that investments into the North have great potential to benefit those in the North.
Thank you very much for your time today. As Ms. Larocque said, I look forward to answering any questions and the discussion we may have. Mahsi’cho.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Fernandes.
Before we proceed to questions, I will say that we heard, Ms. Fernandes, as we crossed the North, repeated references to “nothing about us without us,” and not excluding other things you’ve mentioned, certainly, but also the connection between investments and defence and security and those investments that would improve social and economic infrastructure. So you are not alone, but it’s important to hear your voices here today as well.
We will now proceed to questions. I wish to ask members in the room to please refrain from leaning too closely to their microphone or please to remove your earpiece when doing so. This will avoid any sound feedback that could negatively impact committee staff in the room. I would also ask you to keep your questions short and indicate which witness you would like to answer your question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Larocque. There is what can be called the political angle when talking about Arctic defence. Obviously, there’s the angle of the peoples who occupied these territories long before Canadians and Americans. Is there a difference between what the representatives of your organizations are asking for and what the peoples are willing to accept?
[English]
Ms. Larocque: I’m not quite sure if I understand the question properly, but I’m making the assumption that with respect to Athabascans in the Arctic being a distinct nation — or is there more to expand upon that?
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: What I mean is that your organizations still have expectations about the Arctic territory. Do these expectations in line with what the peoples are demanding? There may be differences between the peoples in the territory. Obviously, they have been there for a long time. Do the expectations correspond with the will of the peoples, or are there sometimes differences of opinion?
[English]
Ms. Larocque: Thank you for the question.
I think we have to be very aware that there are distinct Aboriginal peoples in Canada, so the Métis, the First Nations and the Inuit. All of those will have distinct demands or requirements or assertions for their self-determination.
In the Arctic Athabascan Council, the leadership serves the people, so it is the people that are the decision makers. The people will bring their concerns to the leadership, and then the leadership, in any ethical organization, will uphold the needs and desires of the people they represent. Clearly, the Arctic Athabascan Council represents its membership. However, they do not speak on behalf of any other participant of the Arctic Council, and they do not speak on behalf of the Inuit or Métis within Canada.
Clearly, when they’re looking at their distinct needs with respect to self-determination, there may be some overlaps because of treaty relationships and because of nation-to-nation relationships. However, they are a very distinct group, and they’ll make that perfectly clear when they are in various different venues.
I hope that answered your question.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Yes, thank you very much.
I also have a question for Ms. Fernandes. Ms. Fernandes, in your opening remarks, you talked more about your language problems, which you just mentioned. Could you tell us a little bit more about your language problems?
[English]
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you very much for the question, senator.
Language has been identified as a key priority across the Gwich’in region, across the Gwich’in Nation. Gwich’in language is Dinjii Zhu’ Ginjik, and there are a number of dialects as part of that language. There are efforts towards language revitalization happening in areas across the nation. These include having language nests where kids as young as two years old are going to daycares and preschools and learning languages, language classes for youth, young adults, adult learners and university classes set through the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
As with many Indigenous languages around the world, it is an endangered language. There are not many fluent speakers left. The year 2022 was the beginning of the United Nations International Decade of Indigenous Languages. As a priority area, there are activities happening at the local level. There are activities and events happening at regional levels, and we have some events planned for next year, transboundary, so at the international level.
I can point to one more example of languages. If you were part of the travelling group that went up to Inuvik, the Gwich’in Tribal Council based in Inuvik runs some pretty amazing language lessons and programming. They have just developed an app for your phone on how to interpret Dinjii Zhu’ Ginjik.
In terms of Arctic governance, language contains knowledge. Language is not easily necessarily translated into English, but language is a knowledge system.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Ms. Fernandes.
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you to both our witnesses for the information they have given us.
My question is for Ms. Larocque. Are you aware of the Auditor General’s report tabled with the government on November 15 regarding the monitoring of Arctic waters?
[English]
Ms. Larocque: No, I’m sorry, I’m not.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I understand that you are a member of the Northern Advisory Board, North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network, and that you have not seen a very important report to the federal minister on this issue. I find that somewhat worrisome. We have just returned from a tour of the Arctic, and we have a relatively narrow view of what we have seen.
Where do you think Canada stands in terms of respecting its authority over sovereignty and security in the North? How do we compare with other northern countries, including Russia, Scandinavia, Norway, in terms of performance?
[English]
Ms. Larocque: Thank you for that question.
There are a number of reports and consultations that are happening out there that don’t necessarily get back to the various Arctic organizations. Arctic Athabaskan is directly connected to the Arctic Council, so if the reports don’t get to the Arctic Council, then we clearly may not know about it. With respect to NAADSN, clearly, it wasn’t presented to us. It may have been provided, but I haven’t had an opportunity to read it.
There are a lot of concerns with Arctic security, with state and non-state Arctic actors. There is concern about Russia’s activities and militaristic interest in the Arctic, and yet I don’t personally feel that Canada as a state is in a position to defend its Arctic peoples. We have bilateral agreements with the United States. We have the work of the Arctic Council, however, on pause, so there are various different interests out there.
Canada, as a state, has a national responsibility to protect its citizens. How does that resonate for the protection of Indigenous peoples in the Arctic when, at this point in time, we have limited spending from the Canadian government on Arctic security? As I indicated in my initial comments, Arctic security for us is not only from the military perspective but also from the human rights and Indigenous rights perspective.
It’s a huge undertaking, but there has to be direct linkages with the Indigenous peoples as northern Arctic peoples. Although there is communication with land claim organizations, there still has to be citizen consultation. We need to know in the North that the government of the day is being responsible and is ensuring that the voices of the Arctic and northerners are being heard.
Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Fernandes, during our Arctic tour, we heard from many Indigenous leaders about their interest in or expectations of taking greater political, economic, and even security responsibility in the North. What is your vision for the role that communities should play in Arctic politics and security?
[English]
Ms. Fernandes: Mahsi’cho for the question, senator.
It’s a two-part answer. One is because each region has its own governance structures, depending on whether you’re in the Yukon or in the Northwest Territories. As Bridget said, the communities are where the decision-making and the power holds.
In the Yukon, the Vuntut Gwitchin are a self-governing nation, so it is the community that is making decisions politically, economically and for security in that region. I’m not sure if you took Air North, but Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation owns 49% of the Air North stake. That was a decision by them to engage economically, to bring continued benefits to the community, but also to be able to serve as a hub for air resources and bring benefits to Old Crow, Whitehorse and Inuvik.
In the Northwest Territories, I understand you met with Gwich’in Tribal Council as a land claim organization. There are designated Gwich’in organizations in four Gwich’in communities in the Northwest Territories. They elect leadership to serve on the Gwich’in boards, and they also elect their leadership, Grand Chief Kyikavichik. The communities work together at a regional level to identify their priorities and make decisions around economic development, politics and security. Each elected body also has responsibilities in its own community, but those are all worked out and discussed through the land claim organization.
In terms of the second part of your question around responsibilities and security in the Arctic or the vision for security in the Arctic, I think there are opportunities for engagement in training and capacity building. How do you support health care infrastructure that can manage and mitigate through crises that also support ongoing health and well-being in communities? How can we think about infrastructure that is able to mitigate the impacts of climate change, yet also be responsive and be set up in a way that will be sustainable over time?
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much. I have a question for the second round, if I may.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you for those questions and answers. We can affirm that we did indeed travel on Air North from Iqaluit with many stops along the way to Yellowknife, and it was a most enjoyable trip.
Senator Anderson: Quyanainni and mahsi’cho to the witnesses for your presentations.
The Arctic has many connections. Ms. Larocque was my first supervisor with the Government of Northwest Territories in the Department of Health and Social Services, so it’s good to see you.
I’m going to switch the question on Ms. Fernandes. She asked how we see Canada’s responsibility to rights holders. My question is, in your opinion, what do you see as Canada’s responsibilities to the rights holders in the North as pertains to national security and defence?
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you, Senator Anderson.
That is a two-part answer, because part of those responsibilities are laid out in the land claim agreements. I myself am not an expert on the land claim agreements, but with the agreement with the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and with the Gwich’in Tribal Council’s comprehensive land claim, many of those responsibilities are set out in terms of lands and resources, in terms of consultation and engagement and in terms of governance. That is one part.
Particularly around security, it is an ongoing discussion, and I believe it requires ongoing collaboration and engagement. Gwich’in Council International sits at the Arctic Council, and events of the Arctic Council have changed significantly in the last year as Russia has the chairmanship of the Arctic Council. At the beginning of March, seven of the Arctic states paused their activities in the Arctic Council. That had implications on Indigenous peoples’ organizations serving as Permanent Participants at the Arctic Council, and it paused project work.
At the beginning of that pause, we were very supportive because of what we were seeing happen with Russia’s actions in Ukraine. We were very concerned with it, and, again, we were supportive of putting our activities on hold. As that pause increased, we became increasingly concerned that the long-term activities that are required to address climate change, mental health and well-being in communities and other important work that the Arctic Council does still needed to be addressed. So we have called for — and have had good response from states — ongoing dialogue on how to get some of those projects back up and running.
In terms of the responsibilities of the Indigenous peoples of Canada, for the Gwich’in, I would say we are a strategic partner in problem solving and solution building. Where Canada has ideas for investments and security in the North and a vision of building sovereignty in the North, they should first be having conversations with the rights holders and land claim holders in those territories.
Again, I know you were part of that tour that joined Gwich’in Tribal Council in Inuvik.
Thank you.
Senator Anderson: You mentioned ongoing collaboration and agreement. What does that look like for you or for the Gwich’in?
Ms. Fernandes: It happens at all scales. Gwich’in Council International works particularly with Global Affairs Canada and through the Arctic Cooperation Advisory Committee, with numerous federal and subnational governments in Canada to talk about priorities, share information and identify where shared cooperation can be.
Senator Boehm: I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today and for their very interesting statements and, of course, answers to questions from my colleagues.
I would like to begin with Ms. Fernandes. My experience with the Gwich’in Nation began about 20 years ago when I served in our embassy in Washington. The issue was drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. In your comments, you talked about the challenge of transboundary governance. There is another challenge there — and I guess it is related to that — and that is transboundary lobbying. The prospect of drilling in ANWR has gone up, down and sideways depending on who is in power in the United States and who the influential Alaskan politicians are at any given time. Through that period, I had noticed that the Gwich’in Nation — now, of course, the Gwich’in Council International — had really developed into a very effective group in terms of putting advocacy forward for peoples who essentially cross these geographic boundaries that, of course, have no meaning to Indigenous peoples who have been there since long before the boundaries were first established.
My question is whether you are finding it easier or more difficult to get your voice heard in Washington or in Ottawa on these sorts of issues that are sovereign transboundary. Are you able to ensure that the two federal governments are working in concert in terms of your interest?
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you very much, Senator Boehm, for the question. It is great to hear your history with the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and I’m sure you were a great partner for the Gwich’in Nation.
I always seem to have two answers to every question. First, there are a number of transboundary organizations that serve the Gwich’in, and we are just one of them. We sit with Permanent Participant status at the Arctic Council, so a lot of our advocacy and work to bring Gwich’in voices forward is at the Arctic Council and through international fora coming out of that. That is separate from, though related to, the work of the Gwich’in Steering Committee, which does a lot of advocacy work, particularly in Washington, and really advocates for the Porcupine caribou herd. For those potentially not familiar with the story, one of the Gwich’in creation stories involves a man and a caribou and the trading of half of the heart, so the man has half of a caribou heart and is forever connected with caribou. The Porcupine caribou calving grounds are located in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, and the Porcupine caribou migratory route goes through Gwich’in territory. Therefore, there is a very strong cultural, language, food and economic connection with caribou, and work on behalf of the caribou and the Gwich’in is advocated at many levels — internationally, nationally and regionally.
In terms of whether we can bring our voice to the table to advocate for good Canadian-American partnerships, I would say that sometimes it is hard to measure and see where those impacts come forward. We have seen positive responses in the last joint statement from the Canada-U.S. partnership dialogues, and the Porcupine caribou herd was mentioned specifically in relation to stewarding it and food security. We were very pleased to see that. We raised the issue when we last met with the Minister of Foreign Affairs from Canada in 2021 and the U.S. Secretary of State at the Arctic Council Ministerial meeting.
I would say a lot of it is based on relationships as well as a respect for the position of Canada to the Gwich’in Nation. Thank you.
Senator Boehm: Thank you for that.
This question is for Ms. Larocque. Ms. Larocque, in November of 2020, you were among a number of people who participated in an event called “Voices from the Arctic: Diverse Views on Canadian Arctic Security.” In looking over your presentation, I was struck by your outlining, when it comes to security, of the hard power approach of the state and the soft power approach associated with Indigenous peoples. At the moment, with the world view centred on holism and the idea of everything being connected, you state that, from a soft power way of thinking, we need to talk about social well-being, co-management regimes and governance — and then, of course, the big question is how military security fits into that conversation.
Two years on since your presentation, I would like to ask what your thoughts are on how military security fits into the soft-power approach or paradigm. Also, have you seen any developments — positive or negative — in the hard power versus soft power debate? Have your own views evolved?
Ms. Larocque: Of course, when I presented back then, there was a different context given to me as to what to concentrate on or speak about. I really do struggle with a hard power concept because we are trying to look at the circumpolar Arctic as a zone of peace. The Arctic Council was created on the premise that this was going to be a zone of peace with a spirit of cooperation and scientific research. However, now the concern is with Russia’s increased military spending and a non-Arctic state — China — asserting its near-Arctic state. Those two powers asserting some type of authority or increased presence in the Arctic is of great concern.
From that perspective, I do have to think about what it is for Arctic Indigenous peoples that requires our attention, and if we are moving towards hard power, then, for sure, we have to make sure that our Indigenous peoples, our northerners and our Canadian Rangers — who are the eyes and ears of the North and of the Arctic — that their skills, both intelligence and militaristic, are enhanced. We can’t ask our own people to defend this vast region without adequate skills and training.
I wouldn’t necessarily say I have changed my positioning. However, external global and geopolitical situations have brought me to thinking about a more advanced holistic perspective, because when we talk about holism — and I mentioned this earlier — it is about the health, the food security, the human security, the personal security, the sovereignty and our environment and stewardship of the land. All of those dimensions of security have to come into play as we continue to monitor the actions of Arctic states and non-Arctic states.
Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for joining us for today’s committee work.
My question is for either or both of you. What are some of the most significant threats to the security of the Canadian Arctic? Are these threats perceived differently across different territories and northern Quebec?
Ms. Larocque: You are asking whether or not issues of Arctic importance —
Senator Oh: Security and threats, yes.
Ms. Larocque: — are different than what would happen in Quebec?
Senator Oh: We can talk about the Arctic first and then the other territories.
Ms. Larocque: I’ll try to take a first stab at this.
Arctic threats, for sure, are climate change continued industrial development. With climate change, then, of course, we are looking at sub-impacts like food security, permafrost thaw, infrastructure, economic development, stewardship capabilities and also the gendered perspective. Impacts in the North impact all of us, not just certain sectors of a nation. It impacts all of us. We have to look at not only impacts on the male and female but the gendered members of our community. These threats are circular. They are going to be interconnected, and they are going to demand multidisciplinary approaches. We talked earlier about lobbyists or activists and allyships, who are our partners and who are the influential voices that a state may pay more attention to as opposed to sometimes the rights holders, and for sure, the stakeholders have a stake in this as well. The biggest threats are the global threats. As Indigenous peoples in the High Arctic and in the North, we may not have all of the human and financial capacity that is required to undertake some of the mitigation and negotiation of the issues.
I’ll hand it over to you, Devlin.
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you, Bridget, and thank you, Senator Oh, for the question.
Bridget did a great job highlighting those pieces, and I’m going to pick up on part of Senator Oh’s question around the differences felt in different regions because I think where you are does impact how you experience your personal security, as Bridget said, and what resources you might have access to.
When we think about significant threats to the security of the Canadian Arctic, it also requires us to think about what the types of responses are and what the implications of those responses are. If there is a response of increased building in the Arctic, an increased construction of airports, runways, et cetera, to have a base somewhere, what are the impacts of that on the reallocation of resources away from housing developments, or conversely, investments in training, if we are going to be putting economic development into that region? What happens when attention and spending goes to security? What are the implications on other spending, either short and long term?
There is an identified mental health crisis and high suicide rates in the Canadian North, and for many people, that is a prime concern. You can’t think about security, and you can’t think about national security, if you don’t have a safe place for yourself or a safe place for your family. How are we thinking about security broadly, yet making sure we are taking care of the needs of the people for whom the Arctic is home?
Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you.
Just as a quick question regarding Canada’s defence infrastructure, what do you think is our biggest deficiency?
Ms. Larocque: Human capacity. I’m from Inuvik, Northwest Territories. I live in Yellowknife, but we grew up with the Canadian Forces Base in our hometown, and it is a government-made community. We always had that exposure. I think we had probably 300 single military service people, and then we had so many families. We had that presence there. We did not, perhaps, necessarily feel a threat, but we felt, I think, somewhat secure that if there was an international conflict, then we were there. I think our airports, too, were built to handle multiple aircraft landings, et cetera. If we are totally speaking about Arctic defence or security with respect to the Rangers, then, clearly, we don’t have the capacity, because they are not properly militarized. There is training that goes on, for sure, within the Arctic, but they are not an army or navy, per se. Those are, I think, the needs, for sure, human capacity but also adequate infrastructure.
I don’t want to sound like I’m promoting — and maybe I am — military hard power demands, but I think that the way things are evolving right now, there has to be more attention from our state in really understanding strategically what is happening in the Arctic. How are we prepared or how are we going to prepare? What type of spending and where does the spending have to be filtered to to ensure that there is Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty?
Senator Oh: Thank you.
The Chair: This is a question that is fundamental to the work of this committee and this study. Ms. Fernandes, do you have anything to add at this point to that question?
Ms. Fernandes: There is a lot of continued work on this topic. Last week, I sat in on the Arctic Security Working Group, which had two days of presentations and over 100 people joining both virtually and in person in Yellowknife to address this question and to think about where were some of the deficiencies and challenges. As Bridget mentioned, human capacity came up a lot, as well as issues of how infrastructure responds to climate change. How do plans that might be five or ten years in the making respond to new circumstances that require adaptations, whether they be human, geopolitical, economic or physical? That’s all I have to add for now. Thank you.
The Chair: That is a very important addition. Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for your interesting perspectives. We do appreciate that this afternoon.
I want to come back to something that was brought up by my colleague earlier, and I want to take it one step further. This was the conversation around the Arctic Council. Yes, there is a bit of a time-out right now, and yes, there is the concern about the impact of the Russian invasion, but how might it look moving forward? I would like to hear from both of you on what you think the health of this council is at the moment. With what you know right now, do you think it will continue to pick up and perhaps flourish in time, or might it slow down or stop in its present structure? I want to take one more kick at this, if I could.
Ms. Fernandes: What we have heard is that there remains a commitment from all states on the enduring value of the Arctic Council. There is a recognition that the pause has impacted some works. It has impacted relationships. But there is a desire and optimism — which some days is better than others — that we can way find back to a forum where there is cooperation and collaboration, that there is a forum that has Indigenous peoples at the table with state actors and that security matters can remain off the table.
While a number of participants have paused their participation in the Arctic states, there are actually a number of projects that are still active and that are still working as they don’t have Russian Federation participation in them. We are involved in some of those projects. We hosted very successful discussions in March and April in Inuvik on mental health and wellness. There was a documentary as well as some additional films coming out of that.
I think there is a hope that the Arctic Council will endure. Plans are under way and discussions are ongoing on how to make a transition to a space where states and Indigenous peoples’ organizations can continue discussions on the priorities. In 2021, the first ever Arctic Council Strategic Plan that was co-developed with all states and Indigenous Permanent Participant representatives was tabled and approved, so right now we are all taking our cues from that. There continues to be a commitment that we have heard and that comes up in every conversation that we have with our state partners that we are trying to make the Arctic Council work.
I’ll pass it to Bridget to add on anything I have missed here.
Ms. Larocque: Thank you, Devlin.
The health of the council — and these are my views — is a bit tenuous at this point in time. I think where we will be able to salvage the Arctic Council is if we continue to look at the Arctic as a zone of peace and if we continue to delve into scientific research, one of the main processes of the Arctic Council.
The Arctic Council is, as most of you know, the states, firm participants and the observers. We stated clearly in the terms of reference and the Ottawa Declaration that military interests will not permeate through the Arctic Council. However, we know now that’s not the case.
We can only hope that the Arctic Council stays intact because it is the only international forum that has the engagement of Indigenous peoples. Especially in the Arctic Council with the circumpolar nature of scientific research, as we all know, there are transboundary issues. There are global impacts on our food security and with air pollution and climate change and many other factors and facets from the climate change impact, so there has to be real serious interest in maintaining the Arctic Council.
However, I do believe that there has to be a thorough review of what can happen or what should happen if future conflicts impact the Arctic, because a pause is not pertinent to all the good scientific research that is happening out there and all the good work that the Indigenous peoples in the circumpolar Arctic are doing as well. That’s my recommendation. There has to be a review of the Ottawa Declaration and all states have to figure out, if there are no military security conversations to be had, then what happens should this happen again?
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the witnesses for sharing their perspective, but also representing their organization.
My question is to both witnesses. NORAD renewal is a priority for both Canada and the United States. There are significant investments to be made by both governments in regard to this effort. In a direct way, what is your expectation in regard to the investment Canada would make? More importantly, how can they partner with each one of your organizations given your direct interest in NORAD renewal and, of course, the investment that our respective governments will be making in this regard? I invite both witnesses to comment.
Ms. Larocque: Thank you for the question.
I think that the NORAD renewal has to, as indicated earlier, strategically look at what is happening globally with the Arctic states and non-Arctic states interest, and that there is this need for nation-to-nation collaboration, relationship and conversation. The discussion has to look at the treaty obligations Canada has with its distinct Aboriginal peoples and how the Aboriginal peoples can be a part of the solutions. Also, what are some other main points of contention when it comes to Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty? It is a whole host of issues. If we’re looking to be sovereign, what do we want or what does zone of peace mean for us when there are geopolitical and global impacts? Those are issues of concern that I think the states, both the U.S. and Canada, have to have with their Indigenous/Aboriginal peoples because they have distinct nation-to-nation relationship commitments with them.
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you, Senator Yussuff, for the question.
In Canada, our membership organizations are the Vuntut Gwitchin First Nation and Gwich’in Tribal Council, and both have economic development corporations which work to take on contracts, which work to build local and regional economies, and can and have been partners on building infrastructure, building programming and advancing working communities. So in terms of how can they partner, I believe it’s conversations with these organizations and these entities that can advance that.
In Inuvik, the Gwich’in Tribal Council and the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation have developed a joint venture partnership together. For any building that is going to happen in Inuvik or any investments around NORAD in Inuvik, there is a ready and willing partner to do that.
Further, as you mentioned, there is significant investment going into NORAD, so we would encourage it to be holistic in thinking about that investment can also contribute to the goals and the needs in the North, whether that is around connectivity that others in the North can access, whether that is providing infrastructure that is long-lasting and has multiple purposes, and investing in the human capacity so that the skills stay in the region after the initial work is done. Those are all pieces that would contribute to a more successful venture.
Senator Yussuff: My second question would be in regard to climate change. The North is experiencing rapid change as a result of climate change, and this is going to change the North permanently. Certainly with access to the Northwest Passage, economic activity is going to be far more pronounced than it has been in the past, and this brings, of course, great challenges to manage. Obviously, economic activity could improve the community in a significant way but equally can have far-reaching implications. Given this reality and, of course, the climate change challenge we all face, what are some of the things that you would recommend that Canada should be looking at that would be of primary importance to you in regard to climate change and, of course, recognizing the point that’s been made earlier regarding the sovereignty of the people and respect, of course, for nation-to nation agreement that needs to be strengthened and continue to be built?
Ms. Fernandes: I think of individualized responses. Climate change will impact people and regions differently. The North will be significantly impacted by it, and it will be very hard to have a Canada-wide strategy on climate change without looking at how to make local solutions. For example, in Old Crow, Yukon, they have one of the largest solar farms now in the North, and they are able to turn off their diesel generators for most of the summer. It creates quiet in the community. It shares the area with berry pickers. It is a model that is being looked at across the Arctic region, and it is changing how business is done in that community. It took them years to get that project up and running. Canada gave a lot of investment to that project, but it was a lot of work. I think as we look at how climate change is impacting local communities, we have to have a willingness to listen. We have to have a willingness to try solutions that might be far-fetched now, but they will pay great dividends 5, 10, and 25 years down the road. Thank you.
Ms. Larocque: Thank you for the question.
I think any time we introduce new infrastructure or new opportunities, we have to measure those. The measurement has to be ongoing so that we know the positive impacts of any future solutions and remedies.
The one thing that resonated with me from Devlin’s comments was that there is no one size fits all. Certain regions in the Arctic are coastal, and people rely heavily on the sea ice. Then we have the inner environment where a lot of us are dependent on the water systems but also with the healthy environment.
There is a lot of work that’s getting done in the North with food sovereignty from community gardens to local harvesters and local farmers or gardeners, I should say. Those are some of the solutions that can benefit the Arctic, but we also have to worry about the quality and health of the soils that we are using as they are most often transported from the south into the north. So there again, we have to worry about contamination and different controls in place for quality and nutrition.
The solutions for food security are still heavily dependent on southern transportation, southern production, and a lot of our foods in the Arctic are provided via ground transportation. We just had a huge issue here because we had a huge snowstorm and ground transportation came to halt.
The other thing is we’re still heavily dependent on diesel, and that’s more prevalent in the higher Arctic, but we’re still dependent on it here in the Mackenzie Valley as well.
So any solutions have to be really multifaceted, as Devlin said, and could be really innovative, but also how do we measure that so we can look at these as best practices for other regions that may be experiencing similar impacts that we are?
Senator Dasko: Thanks to the witnesses for being here.
I want to get back to the Arctic Council for a minute, just to seek clarification. This time it’s not about the future, but about how it has run in normal times, and especially about the participation of Indigenous peoples in the council.
First of all, are there Indigenous communities from other Arctic nations that also participate in the council? Do they participate on the same basis as, let’s say, the Indigenous communities in Canada? The Arctic Council obviously consists of several of the Arctic nations. Did Russia have any participation from Indigenous people in that country? I’ve never heard anything about that, and I wonder if there has been such a thing.
Second, I am looking for a little bit of clarification, Ms. Fernandes. You talked about your involvement with the council with respect to climate change issues and infrastructure, but when it comes to sovereignty and security, do I understand that Indigenous communities have decided not to engage in those discussions, or have you engaged in those discussions? If so, what views have you taken on those issues?
I’m going to ask both witnesses to clarify those points. Thank you.
The Chair: Ms. Larocque, I would suggest you start on the Arctic Council and Russia, and then Ms. Fernandes can add anything and also talk about security.
Ms. Larocque: Thank you.
At the Arctic Council, there are six permanent participants. We have three distinct Permanent Participants with Canadian Indigenous peoples organizations, and they’re connected to Alaska, and through ICC they’re connected to Russia.
With respect to Russian Indigenous peoples, there’s the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. However, there is some uncertainty as to who this group is or how this group has evolved because there’s some concern that the representatives may be employees of Putin’s government, so then the Indigenous peoples within Russia may not have a legitimate body representing their distinct interests. Devlin can correct anything I may have stated out of error, but that’s my understanding of the political arena right now.
With respect to the voices at the table, whatever issue is being addressed, be it climate change, mental health, languages or pandemics, Indigenous peoples known as permanent participants have a voice and they can share their concerns. We also engage in the research of the Arctic Council, we sit on various different working groups of the Arctic Council, and we share our knowledge, both academic and Indigenous, wherever possible.
Devlin, I will hand it over to you.
Ms. Fernandes: Thank you, Bridget, for the great explanation, and thank you, Senator Dasko, for the question. I will add a bit to what Bridget shared.
When the Ottawa Declaration was signed in 1996, it created the Arctic Council and it created this category called “permanent participants.” In order to be a permanent participant organization and have permanent participant status at the Arctic Council, you had to have one of two things. You either had to be a nation that was trans-boundary, or you had to have multiple nations under your organization’s umbrella.
As Bridget said, there are six Indigenous people’s organizations with Permanent Participant status at the Arctic Council now. Three of those have Canadian membership: the Arctic Athabaskan Council, Gwich’in Council International and the Inuit Circumpolar Council. The Saami Council represents and works on behalf of the Saami peoples in Nordic countries, and the Aleut International Association works on behalf of the Aleut who are situated in Russia and Alaska. So, yes, there are Indigenous people in Russia who sit at the Arctic Council and who are represented by the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North. Within the Arctic Council, there were application processes in order to get that Permanent Participant status, and I believe that the last Permanent Participant status was granted in 2000.
As to your question around security issues and discussions, within the Arctic Council, security is expressly off the table, but the implications of security discussions impact Indigenous communities and Indigenous peoples of the North. Whether that is around borders and crossing borders, whether that is who we’re having our bilateral discussions with, whether we have a project that involves both Canada and the United States but we can only deal with one of them at the time instead of working in a multilateral context, those are all implications of the security discussions.
We are having conversations about Arctic governance and what it means or how we can continue to have Indigenous leadership involved in Arctic governance despite the security discussions that are ongoing. Those discussions are ongoing. Our belief is that, in these times, there is an even greater need for cooperation and an even greater need for cooperation between states and Indigenous peoples. Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
Senator Gignac: Thank you, witnesses.
Just to continue with Senator Dasko’s discussion about the Arctic Council, each of the states have different strategies and policies. Putting Russia aside, I’m curious to know if any of these seven states have been a role model for Canada in terms of governance or in terms of consultation mechanisms with local communities. I’m curious if any one of these states has been a role model. More specifically, I’m curious to know your opinion about the relationship between Denmark’s central government with Greenland.
Ms. Fernandes: I’ll answer the second part of your question first.
In our experience within the Arctic Council, the Kingdom of Denmark has a seat at the Arctic Council, but they bring to the table with them representatives from Greenland and from the Faroe Islands. In the decision-making that happens at the Arctic Council, whether that’s at the ministerial level, at the level of senior Arctic officials or within any of the working groups, Denmark works with Greenland and the Faroe Islands. There was just a recent election, so the implications of that election remain to be seen on participation and leadership in global affairs.
Around the question of whether there are best practices or examples in terms of governance from any of the Arctic Council states, I think there are lessons to be learned from everyone, including Canada. The governance mechanisms can be so different across the Arctic. The recognition of rights is different across the Arctic, and funding to Indigenous people’s organizations and to Indigenous communities is different across the Arctic. I would say Canada takes a leadership role in funding the Indigenous participation in the Arctic Council, so we’re often sitting with pride with Canada around the table on that. Their Global Arctic Leadership Initiative is providing much support for the organizations with Permanent Participant status.
There are other countries, I think, that almost have a devolution of power into northern communities or that establish infrastructure and establish decision-making power in the North that Canada can take a leading example in. I grew up in southern Ontario. I know that a lot of decision-making power is concentrated in Ottawa, and we don’t have a Canadian embassy in Inuvik. We don’t have a Canadian embassy in Old Crow. When there are people coming to visit the Arctic, they are generally staying in Southern Canada. I think that is one practice that we have seen.
In Norway, Tromsø is at 70 degrees latitude. It has a university and is a booming metropolis. There has been a significant investment there despite the fact of the polar night and despite the fact that it may be more expensive to get there than to get to Oslo. There have been significant investments in infrastructure there. That has resulted in the creation of more economies and academic centres of excellence, and there is now quite vibrant Saami programming at the university and Saami exhibitions at the museum there as a practice that I think we can look at.
I’ll pass it off to Bridget to pick up what I’m missing and add on.
Ms. Larocque: You did very well, but I will add a few things.
I think regardless that there are modern day treaties, that there is a home rule, that there is self-government, all of those still come with some control by the state. How does the state with the nation-to-nation relationship then encourage autonomy, or what does that autonomy look like when there is still state control? All that has to be considered.
Recognition of rights extends to the sustainable development goals. How we fare as a state in making sure our people have access to health care, clean water and mental health services all depends on, once again, how a state values its Indigenous peoples and its Indigenous populations.
Funding is huge, but it should not always be the deciding factor. Solutions from community autonomy and from community Indigenous perspectives should come into play here because some of those solutions may be from land-based healing, which may not be as expensive and extravagant as a southern institution health-based system.
The inclusion of the Indigenous peoples utilizing their own capacity, their Indigenous world views and how they have a relationship and reciprocity relationship with the land is also incumbent in how we can move forward in our own cooperation and collaboration with our state.
Once again, with nation-to-nation consultation with Arctic peoples and northerners, these same types of conversations have to happen so that everyone knows or a majority of the people in the Arctic know the issues, what’s at stake and where they can assert their qualifications. Their knowledge is to not only develop research but also to come up with solutions that are going to be a community-based and relevant. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you very much. This tidily brings us to the end of this panel with all of our members here having had an opportunity to ask questions.
Thank you, Ms. Larocque and Ms. Fernandes, on behalf of the committee. We appreciate the time that you’ve spent with us today and your generosity in sharing your knowledge and advice. It’s very helpful to us. These meetings tend to work best when we have conversations, and this surely felt to me like a conversation today. I want to thank my colleagues around the table for their insightful questions, but more so for your very substantive answers to some of those complex questions. You’ve helped us enormously, and we’re grateful to you. Thank you for joining us today.
For the second panel this afternoon, we welcome by video conference Chief Roberta Joseph, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation, and Yukon Regional Chief Kluane Adamek, Yukon Assembly of First Nations. Thank you both for joining us today. We will begin by inviting you to provide your opening remarks, to be followed by questions from committee members.
Roberta Joseph, Chief, Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in First Nation: It is a real honour to be providing testimony to the committee, and I would like to thank you for your invitation to participate in this important forum.
Today I speak to you on behalf of my neighbour nations to the north and east, the Vuntut Gwitchin Government, the Na-Cho Nyak Dun and myself on behalf of Tr’ondëk Hwëchin Government and citizens. Together, we form the north Yukon First Nations.
Land sovereignty and security are not new subjects for our First Nations in northern Yukon or throughout the world. The challenges of Arctic sovereignty and security are also not new subjects for our communities.
We cannot predict the future; however, we can acknowledge that the Arctic Circle is a site of conflict, potential international unrest and may become, without foresight and preparedness, a major shipping thoroughfare and an area of civil conflict. All of these aforementioned concerns will have a significant and lasting impact on us, the First Nations who live on and cared for these lands since time immemorial, and our people will do so in perpetuity.
As First Nations in northern Yukon, we are also very close to the Arctic Circle and the border of Alaska, as this is where we live and reside. We live in close proximity to the waterways and roadway compared to many of our residents in northern Canada. Both Arctic sovereignty and security will have the potential for the greatest impact on our ways of life and the lives of our nations.
At the last Arctic security meeting in Alberta in August of 2022, the First Nation chiefs were neither informed nor consulted regarding the meeting. It is imperative to be working together with a united voice and do further work to bring together the First Nations in northern Yukon. It is important to our approach to maintain our voices and sovereignty in international discussions about Arctic sovereignty and security.
Moving forward, we are now making the formal request that these relationships change. We ask that the First Nations in the northern Yukon are included in all discussions. We ask that the Canadian and American governments recognize the key role First Nations in the northern Yukon play in Arctic sovereignty and security. We request inclusion and transparency with the Canadian and American governments. Our lack of inclusion to date has been an oversight, and we ask for this to be rectified.
Given the civil unrest in Russia, the possibility of the Northwest Passage of Canadian internal water routes opening due to ice melting and climate change and the ongoing contested sovereignty claims over the waters, it remains imperative that First Nations in the northern Yukon are included in any discussions or meetings involving Arctic sovereignty and security. It is not acceptable that we may face military and/or other security forces coming into our communities without input from us as First Nation governments. We have seen in the past what can occur when there is military intervention and a security presence on our lands and in our community without our implicit permission. We would be remiss not to acknowledge the possibility of this occurring again. I’m making reference to the Alaska Highway that was built in the 1950s.
In short, we have time to organize together, ensure we are part of all future conversations and guarantee we remain equal participants in consultations, considerations and actions around Arctic sovereignty that will have direct impact on our ways of life, our people, our communities and the natural world.
To be prepared, to speak with one united voice and to stand firm in our right to sit at the table of discussion about Arctic sovereignty and security, our treaty outlines provisions for collaboration and benefits from projects and activities within our respective traditional territories.
Moreover, I have previously presented concerns about Arctic sovereignty with Minister Vandal at the Northern Policy Framework meeting that was held in Yellowknife at the end of September. Therefore, it is our request that, while proceeding forward, there will be greater consultation for First Nations on any Arctic sovereignty and security discussions, particularly given possible threats from Russia and the accelerated ice erosion in the northwest waterways.
The committee’s time and consideration are greatly appreciated. We remain preemptive in reviewing the legislation as it applies to our legal rights and that our northern First Nations will benefit from any infrastructure development within our traditional territories. In general, it is our intention to collaborate with the First Nations of the Yukon, the Yukon government and Canada on these important matters.
Mahsi’cho.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Joseph, for those important opening messages to us today.
Kluane Adamek, Regional Chief, Yukon, Assembly of First Nations: Dänch’ea. Good afternoon. It is an honour to join you with Chief Joseph.
I certainly wanted to first begin by acknowledging the territory of the Ta’an and Kwanlin Dün here in Whitehorse, Yukon, and, of course, it is important to acknowledge Chief Joseph as an incredibly strong voice for the region and as our national lead on climate.
I will be touching on a few of the reflections Chief Joseph shared. In terms of context, we’ll be focusing on sovereignty and partnership, security, safety and infrastructure.
Over the last year, I have heard Yukon First Nation chiefs and leaders express growing concerns about the new and emerging military threats around the world. Our proximity geographically to Russia, in particular, is increasing anxieties around the protection of our people, territories and resources.
As you know, the history of the Alaska Highway and the connection to the U.S. Army and the feat that created the connection between Alaska and south of the forty-ninth parallel has deep impacts to this region and specifically Yukon First Nation people. The eightieth year celebration of the Alaska Highway in many First Nations’ views is not so much an anniversary celebration but, rather, a time for reflection.
Here we are in 2022 with international challenges at our doorstep, and we need to get this right. Yukon First Nations rights holders need to be fully engaged — as you heard from Chief Joseph — properly consulted and partners in any work pertaining to Arctic security and planning.
I also wanted to acknowledge that I understand the committee has had the chance to visit both the Northwest Territories and Iqaluit in person, recognizing that some of the older infrastructure in the Yukon is currently not active as it relates to defence spaces. I would encourage the committee in the future to make the effort to come to the Yukon. I wanted to acknowledge Senator Duncan, in particular — a senator colleague of yours — who continues to push to ensure that Yukon First Nations’ voices and rights are respected in any federal process.
The Yukon has 14 nations and 8 distinct language groups. As Chief Joseph mentioned, through our modern treaties, 11 of these nations have self-government and land claim agreements. We have, and have always had, the ability and right to make laws on our land and territories and to be part of any laws and activities that would impact our lands and our people.
We need to uphold existing agreements and rights as part of sovereignty and partnership. We need to respect free, prior and informed consent and uphold the existing agreements, the Umbrella Final Agreement, the self-government agreements and the nation-to-nation relationship enshrined in the Constitution. Agreements must be respected and upheld.
Canada cannot unilaterally continue to make decisions about land and activity in the North without the North. We continue to hear this concept of “nothing for us without us.” As I’ve shared in the past, given the history with respect to ways in which we looked at protecting the North, we didn’t get it right as a country. This is an opportunity now for us to change that journey moving forward.
UNDRIP is critical, and those principles must apply as Canada moves forward on NORAD modernization. Canada needs to bring direct outreach to First Nations to safely address their security and safety concerns for both the land and people that come with an increased military presence. It is also critical that we look through our agreements at Yukon’s transportation infrastructure, which runs entirely through the traditional territory of Yukon First Nations.
As you heard from Chief Joseph, one of our main relationships as it relates to some of that history with respect to defence has been, of course, the Alaska Highway. On a personal note, that highway goes right through my traditional territory, Kluane First Nation. That highway, at the time it was constructed, relinquished the ability for my grandparents and great-grandparents to hunt as they would. In fact, U.S. soldiers and the military were overhunting in those spaces, and our people could not eat food like sheep, caribou and moose like we used to. In fact, some of our people were left starving because the military was prioritized over our own people. Leading up to where we are now in 2022, through our agreements, we do have provisions. We co-manage Kluane National Park, but certainly, the sensitivity around the hunting of sheep and the treatment of women, specifically First Nations women along the highway, is something that cannot be overlooked.
Yukon First Nations were not involved, made aware or consulted on the massive project that was going to happen on or lands. Bulldozers and soldiers came without warning and with no regard for our lands, livelihoods, culture and people. The Alaska Highway fundamentally impacted the fabric of our community. Some would compare this to what is known as Yukon’s first contact as we also look at the Gold Rush of the late 1800s. The construction of the Alaska Highway left our people starving, and it is something that the elders in my community, Burwash Landing and Kluane First Nation, continue to reflect upon.
We must think about ways in which we move forward, the relationship and ensuring that the safety of our communities is always number one, which Chief Joseph also talked about. It is critical, senators, that the engagement that you have with respect to the next steps with NORAD include First Nations as true partners in that process. We need to learn from our history. We must do better, and we must apply those lessons from our past in moving forward.
Thinking about the infrastructure, First Nations in the Yukon have continued to press for the inequities that exist for northerners and the erroneous acts that have not allowed for northerners to grow at the rapid pace of southerners, for example, in broadband infrastructure, housing and health. As we look to advance Arctic sovereignty and continue to push for solutions moving ahead, we certainly need to think about the ways in which Canada contemplates improving defence infrastructure in the North, and we really should be considering how these projects will benefit people and address urgent civilian infrastructure needs. Dual or multipurpose projects could include radar station projects, telecommunications improvements, building or retrofitting stations and bases, multipurpose buildings with civil entrance sections, looking at housing opportunities in partnership and building defence and transportation infrastructure and permanent roads in places that need it at the direction of Yukon First Nations.
With infrastructure, we must involve First Nations peoples in businesses. Many First Nations in the Yukon have our own development corporations that have construction companies that could assist with DND’s plans. Here in the Yukon Territory, there is the Yukon First Nations Procurement Policy that sets a new standard for doing business in the Yukon. It ensures wide-ranging benefits for Yukon First Nation businesses by facilitating opportunities for partnerships between Yukon First Nations and the broader community. At this juncture, federally, there isn’t that same type of policy, so this could be an opportunity for DND to consider how this type of policy could be considered as it advances its priorities.
With that, I want to say thank you, mahsi’cho, gùnáłchîsh. Again, it was an honour to join you today.
The Chair: Thank you, Chief Adamek, for another powerful statement to get us started today. We regret that we did not have the opportunity to get as far as Yukon, but we are working very hard to catch up with Yukon voices. Both this week and next week, we’ll continue to do that.
We will now proceed to questions, beginning with our deputy chair, Senator Dagenais.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My first question is for Ms. Joseph.
In principle, your geographic location is strategic for Canada’s defence program. The Minister of Defence recently announced a $40 billion investment over 20 years for the NORAD program.
What do you take from this? How will this announcement affect the development of your region? Are you satisfied with this announcement?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: Thank you for that question.
In regard to NORAD, we have not been informed of the announcement directly and how we can be inclusive into some of the infrastructure that we may be able to incorporate within our respective traditional territories, as well as working with others in regard to security.
We do have some programs here in Dawson. The Dawson City rangers, who have provided a northern perspective on security, have just celebrated their 75-year anniversary in August. They began in World War II. We work with them closely. They provide a lot of support to our First Nation community.
I think it would be important and imperative to be part of the planning for needed infrastructure in the North in terms of where they are located. For my First Nation, we are located an hour and 15 minutes from the Alaska border by road. Vuntut Gwitchin is not very far from the Arctic Ocean. They are about an hour and a half plane ride from where we are located. They are the most northerly community in the Yukon. I think it would be important for the federal government to include us in some of those discussions when the budget is being provided to various communities. Mahsi’cho.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: If I understand your answer correctly, Ms. Joseph, the government did not notify you of this announcement, which is unfortunate. As you mentioned, I hope that in the future the government will keep you informed of its announcements or intentions.
Can you draw a parallel between what you know about the American approach in Alaska and the Canadian government’s approach in the neighbouring Yukon Territory?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: I did say that I appreciated the announcement of the funds to NORAD, but I think that we would have appreciated being informed of the budget announcement beforehand in regard to the Alaska approach as opposed to the Yukon approach. In Alaska, they have a high level of security in their state, but over here in the Yukon, our security is quite minimal considering that we are in somewhat of a critical situation in terms of being so close to the Alaska border, as well as being so close to the Arctic Ocean, especially when the Arctic Ocean is quite vulnerable now in terms of not freezing with global warming.
I think, moving forward, we should be a part of the discussion so that we’re able to inform our community and our citizens on how Canada is working with the United States on security so that we can assure our citizens that they don’t have too much to worry about and that we are addressing this matter. Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: I have a quick question for Ms. Adamek. Based on what we heard from the first panel, on a scale of 1 to 10 — 10 being a good score — how would you rate the government’s responsiveness to your representations on Arctic governance?
Ms. Adamek: That’s a really good question. Thank you. Honestly, in terms of modern treaties, we would certainly give it a 10 out of 10, since we’re completely included in the governance of the North. When we think about the implementation of modern treaties, however, the score would be 3 or 4. Is there an opportunity to be full partners in northern governance? Yes, there certainly is. Perhaps Chief Joseph will be able to give some specific examples, from a Nation leader’s perspective.
When we think about the implementation of our modern treaty, the score would be 3 or 4. There are certainly situations where I think the federal government sees our modern treaty as a book on a shelf. That’s not the case. The elders developed these treaties for the future of Yukon First Nations. Chances are it will be honoured and implemented. However, the challenge is great. I think it would be prudent for Chief Joseph to talk about those examples.
Senator Dagenais: Thank you very much, Ms. Adamek.
[English]
The Chair: Chief Joseph, if you have additional comments, perhaps you could add them to your response to the next question.
Senator Anderson: Thank you to the witnesses.
My question is about how the government balances the input and participation of various right holders, specifically when the right holders’ geographic proximity is not viewed as on the front lines, if you will. I’ll give you an example just in regard to the Inuvialuit Gwich’in, which have a closer proximity to the Arctic Ocean, and the Yukon maybe not being viewed as close to the Arctic Ocean. Do you think that has an impact on the engagement of you as right holders?
Ms. Joseph: Yes, there is a real impact on us as right holders. At the meeting in August 2022 in Alberta, the premiers of the North attended the meeting on behalf of the Yukoners and on behalf of N.W.T.ers. I’m not sure if Nunavut was there. The Government of Yukon to this day has still not really had a discussion with Yukon First Nations on this important initiative. Even though we’ve discussed the Arctic Policy Framework, it wasn’t raised in there with us. In terms of having a modern-day treaty with our partners, the Government of Canada and the Government of Yukon, in this day and age, that collaboration through our agreements would be able to provide a more sound partnership. On this important matter, there was insufficient engagement.
I had raised it — because I heard about the August meeting through the media — with Minister Vandal when he had a meeting with our First Nation in August. I raised it because I thought it was important with our northern First Nations chiefs who supported working collaboratively on it. I raised it at the Arctic and northern meeting that was held in Yellowknife with Minister Vandal again and requested that there be consultations with our respective First Nations on this matter and that, in terms of our modern treaties, t we also needed to be ensuring that we would be benefiting and actively involved on this important matter to our people here in the North.
As well, in terms of the engagement on these matters, we are actively engaged with the federal government in regard to the family and children services tribunal. There is more engagement on that, but with these other matters when it comes to Arctic sovereignty, security and other foreign affairs matters regarding security, we’re not so much engaged with it, but on other issues like climate change, we are.
In terms of implementation of our agreements, it has been quite slow. Last year we were celebrating the 25th anniversary of signing of our agreement but probably have not implemented 25% of it. The partnership has not been as strong in terms of implementing our agreements. Here in the Yukon, we see ourselves as mapping the way for First Nations independence, but we can only move forward further with our partners in implementing our agreements with the federal government as well as the Yukon government.
Thank you.
Senator Anderson: Thank you. Just as a follow-up, have there been any concrete actions in response to the concerns you voiced to Canada around Arctic security and sovereignty?
Ms. Joseph: I think the only concrete action to date was to have an invitation to present to the standing committee. Other than that, there hasn’t been.
Ms. Adamek: I wanted to add that I think it’s so important to have the diversity of perspectives. As you heard from Chief Joseph, when it comes to Arctic security, the northern parts of the territory have really specific issues, as do the southern parts of the Yukon.
I want to remind the committee that there are actually four specific border entry points into the Yukon. There is Skagway, Haines, Beaver Creek and then up towards Eagle in Chief Joseph’s territory. Oftentimes, I find really interesting that when we think about Arctic sovereignty, our minds go directly to the ocean as opposed to thinking about the way in which those international borders are currently placed.
We are so close when it comes to Alaska and Russia. Just recently, I heard of people who took a boat from Russia over to Alaska because of what’s happening between Russia and Ukraine. That’s a real possibility of what can happen over there. How are we as Yukon First Nations governments included in decisions when we are so close to the U.S. border? Many of our families are U.S. citizens. I know in my nation, there are citizens of Kluane First Nation who are also U.S. citizens and who live in the U.S. The same can be said for so many Yukon First Nations.
When it comes to some of these issues around Arctic security and sovereignty, I would say that our region has not been included. That is a really critical oversight because, as Chief Joseph mentioned, I would say that every single Yukon First Nation and community — and I stand to be corrected — has an incredibly strong group of Canadian Rangers and has played a critical role in ensuring and upholding those responsibilities here in the Yukon. Certainly, the time has come where we’re seeing announcements being made with respect to funding and looking at long-term planning. The Yukon and Yukon First Nations governments need to be included in the exact same way that you referred to other parts of the North being both consulted and engaged, because the impacts here are going to be very similar to what we see right across the North.
Senator Anderson: Mahsi’cho.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you to our two witnesses. Your testimonies are very, very interesting. I want to thank you.
Chief Joseph, if I understand correctly, your community borders on two territories: Yukon and Alaska. Is that right?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: My community is in northwestern Yukon, and the Yukon is adjacent to Alaska by road. We’re one hour and 15 minutes by highway. By river, we’re probably about six hours to Alaska and about 15 minutes by air. Vuntut Gwitchin is probably about the same distance — maybe a little less — but they don’t have a highway. By air, it would be about 15 minutes. They would probably be about an hour to an hour and a half to the Arctic Ocean by air — maybe a little less than that. But there is no highway to the Arctic Ocean from their community. Vuntut is north of Dawson, and it’s a fly-in community.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I’m asking you this question because I understood from your brief that you had a political relationship with both the Americans and Canada. Did I understand you correctly?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: No. I requested that if Canada is engaged with the United States on Arctic sovereignty and security, then we should be invited to those discussions.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: I understand very well. Thank you very much.
My question is this. You were right — I don’t know if it was you or Ms. Adamek — to say that you are now an open society. For centuries, I would even say decades, the Arctic was made up of very closed communities, given the climate that existed. Now we see that it is an open environment for economic development, for resource development, for shipping and so on. There is no doubt that the face of the Arctic will never be the same for decades to come.
In this context, as a society open to the world, if I may say so, what role do you want to play in the management of your territory, the autonomy of your territory? What role do you absolutely want to play in your future?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: Our First Nations need to really play a role in participating in discussions with regard to northern Arctic sovereignty and security. It’s important because of, as I mentioned, how close we are to the Arctic Ocean as well as to the Alaska border. We do have other First Nations communities here in the Yukon that are fairly close to the Alaska border as well.
It’s important for us to be able to understand what kind of plans are being developed for Arctic sovereignty and security. Because we are modern treaty First Nations, our agreements lay out that we have the ability to collaborate and co-manage resources within our respective traditional territories. We see Arctic sovereignty and security as part of activities that have a potential for having conflict, and we need to ensure that we are prepared for that in our traditional territories. We need to ensure that the Rangers residing in our traditional territories have the infrastructure and training they need as well as the ability to mobilize if they need to take any action. We need to ensure that their numbers increase. We need to be part of the implementation of and benefits from economic development opportunities as outlined in our modern treaty agreements.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Ms. Adamek, as we know, the Canadian Rangers are what I would call a paramilitary force. They are not part of the regular armed forces. We know that the armed forces have a major recruitment problem. We are talking about thousands of positions to be filled. Should the armed forces have a specific strategy for recruiting members of your communities to be part of their regular forces?
[English]
Ms. Adamek: I think that could be possible. I think I would be remiss not to acknowledge the fact that when it comes to issues of defence, so many Indigenous veterans participated in the First and Second World Wars and were not treated equally to other Canadians, and that’s not something that’s lost on our people.
There is a specific Indigenous Veterans’ Day, which is really important to us because there were very strong, solid and incredible leaders, Pete Sydney, Elijah Smith, Alex Van Bibber to name a few. When Canadians were asked to join or told to join. Indigenous people weren’t part of those lists, so to speak. We showed up because we felt it was important to protect our territory. The elders would have guided them through that process.
To answer your question, I think there is an opportunity for Indigenous people, and specifically Yukon First Nations, to be in every place and space where decisions are being made or where actions are being taken to protect our land and our territories.
I think that it would require an understanding that there is also a pull to get more Indigenous people in policing, for example. There needs to be shifts in approach, for sure, in ensuring that Indigenous people’s values and culture would be reflected in those programs. I wanted to share that with you. I think there are certainly opportunities there, but it is important that we not forget the history and why there would be potentially some reluctance with our people wanting to step forward in that way.
[Translation]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you very much to both of you. It was very interesting.
[English]
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you both for being here today.
I’ve made three attempts to get to the Yukon, with three cancellations, but I’m hoping to be there this July. I am excited about getting a chance to walk the roads.
I’m going to continue with the question that I really hope isn’t too redundant and repetitive. It has come up a couple of different ways with the relationship between the Yukon and Alaska. Of course, we all know the border is shared, and we would expect that the relationship with the forty-ninth state is just as important as your relationship with the federal government here in Ottawa.
As Canada needs to try to modernize the military, as we go through that process, I’m wondering from your perspective the sense of where that Yukon-Alaska relationship is right now, as well as Yukon’s First Nations operating within this bilateral relationship. I want to make sure we’ve got that covered or well understood today. If there is anything that either one of you could add to that, that would be appreciated.
Ms. Joseph: I could add that in terms of the relationship between the Yukon, there has always been a relationship between the Yukon government and the Alaska government. There are many matters that are discussed, I believe, in terms of management of international species, such as the Porcupine Caribou Management Board, as well as Yukon River salmon and Pacific salmon. Those are some of the areas where there are relationships with Yukon First Nations included in those discussions as co-management of those international species lies within the parameters of our modern treaty agreements.
We do have collaborative discussions in that sense, and it would be important to begin discussions with the government of Alaska on these other issues, and I think that step would have to first be taken by the Government of Canada as well in order to be a part of that process.
Ms. Adamek: I think that’s a really important question, and I want to acknowledge that recently our member of Parliament, Brendan Hanley, had a meeting with re-elected Mary Peltola who is also an Indigenous woman from Alaska. As Chief Joseph mentioned, a sort of intergovernmental relationship exists on some of those parameters of mutual interest in terms of some corridors, some energy possibilities. I’m thinking about the Skagway, and there have been discussions about fibre optics there and about hydro potential there. I’m mindful also of the Taku River Tlingit who sit as part of northern B.C. but are right at the Yukon border. I do think that there’s a great opportunity here to further strengthen those relationships.
As Chief Joseph mentioned, from a First Nation government perspective, and I’ll speak from a more southern Yukon perspective, so many members of our citizens of Kluane First Nation happen to be Alaskans. First they are Kluane First Nation, and then they are Alaskan. That also includes having the Tlingit and Haida tribes of Alaska. We have Inland Tlingit here in the Yukon, Teslin Tlingit Council, Carcross/Tagish First Nation and Taku River Tlingit, as well as migration stories of our people from Alaska into southern Yukon. Whenever you do come, you’ll see that coastal art through a lot of southern Yukon because that’s our history. A lot of us have history from southeast Alaska and follow the clan system from southeast Alaska as well, and that’s southern Yukon reality.
In the North, as Chief Joseph mentioned, a lot of people will go down the Porcupine River from Old Crow to the Yukon to celebrate the Gwich’in gathering. There is Gwich’in Council International. There are bodies that exist. The Arctic Athabaskan Council for example, is not as active as it once was but is certainly an important body that exists to ensure Indigenous voices who are Gwich’in or who are in Chief Joseph’s reality, Hän perhaps, the stories and the songs and the history. We didn’t have these borders a long time ago. These are colonial borders that were created. Those histories, the stories, the songs, the relationships run incredibly deep.
In terms of a formalized way in which we meet, Chief Joseph, that may be something that could happen through this process. I would be interested to know what our Yukon chiefs think and feel about that, but certainly there’s a great opportunity here to further strengthen those more political and intergovernmental relationships.
Senator M. Deacon: Both of you have mentioned this, and we’ve had quite a bit of discussion about the Canadian Rangers. It’s a topic that has been covered a few times in different ways, but I’d like to get the thoughts of both of you on this program. We’ve heard about the good the Rangers do and their importance in the communities, but in your opinion, is this a beneficial program for those who serve us as well? I get the sense that the role of the Rangers will continue to grow. I want to get an idea of what attracts young men and women from your communities to step up and sign up to be a Ranger or a reservist. What more could be done to improve the program for reservists in the North? This is for both of you.
Ms. Joseph: Thank you for that question.
In regard to the Canadian Rangers here in the North, funding is provided to those who are in the army. Our Canadian Rangers here in the North do a lot of training. They do on-land training, and they have gone to every part of the traditional territory. They also attend training together at annual gatherings, wherever they are held. They all have to provide their own equipment. With on-land training, a lot of the equipment is provided by themselves. They don’t have a lot of infrastructure such as snowmobiles or ATVs. They provide all of that themselves. They have to have this kind of equipment in order to be able to go out on to the land. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be able to participate in the training.
Now that we have planes and helicopters available here, they should be able to do flight training as well. They should also be able to travel to take the more extensive training that can be offered by the Canadian army. I think there might be a base in the Northwest Territories, in the North. It would be great to have them participate in that level of training with the army because the more training there is, the better it is. We may have to think about having a base here in northern Yukon as well, not only in the Northwest Territories. I’m not sure if there is one in Nunavut, but maybe there needs to be one here considering that we are adjacent to the Alaska border.
Cadet training is another step. If there was an army base here in the Yukon, maybe more and more of the cadets might go into the army. Right now, they take their cadet training until they are 18 or whatever, and then they move on to other interests because there is no base here in the Yukon for them to consider that as a career.
I think a lot can be provided to the Rangers in our communities. They don’t even have infrastructure for storage and those sorts of things. I think that can also be provided.
I think there is interest in the army because a number of individuals enjoy going out on to the land and they enjoy the training activities together as adults. There are not a lot of things that you can do in our northern communities because we lack a lot of infrastructure. Most of the infrastructure is in Whitehorse, Yukon, where the majority of the funds are put into recreation and telecommunication infrastructure. We have to drive to Whitehorse for a lot of our needs. Being able to provide more infrastructure would be great.
I think that those who participate also enjoy and appreciate the training that is being provided in terms of mechanical training on small engines and being able to do that on your own because that’s what you would have to do to take care of them when you are out on the land, as well as being able to teach the younger generation and getting interest there from the younger generation to participate, like in the Junior Canadian Rangers. I’m not sure if every community has a Junior Rangers program, but we have that here because we don’t have cadets. There are not a lot of activities here. I think one of the reasons individuals get interested in being part of the Rangers is that there are not a lot of activities here in our small communities.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you to the witnesses for being here today.
We are talking about the Arctic and about northern security. I listened to both of you, and this is not a question of our military might. It is about other things that are part of the larger strategy about how we exert our sovereignty on our own land and about how we develop relationships in regard to how we are going to strengthen our sovereignty over Canada’s territory.
As Canada looks toward a renewal of NORAD, what are some of the things Canada can do better? This is a critical juncture as Canada renews the NORAD agreement with the United States. There will be huge investment. There are many other things that we need to think about. In some of the communities, it may not be military, but this is equally important in the context of how Canada can maintain its sovereignty on its own land and work with the community and with your nation-to-nation agreement as to how we advance our relationship going forward.
I encourage both witnesses to comment.
Ms. Joseph: I think Canada is moving in the right direction by the renewal of NORAD, especially when we are dealing with a level of uncertainty in the North and in the world with the invasion by Russia into Ukraine and how that has continued to provide a level of insecurity in the world. We are so close to those countries in the North — just on the other side of Alaska — as well as the open waters in the Arctic Ocean. It is important to ensure that we have secure lands and our own secure sovereignty here in the North as well as in Canada.
In the past, we never really thought too much about that, but in this day and age, when missiles can go a long way, we have to think differently. There is more modern equipment that can travel in deep water in no time at all and planes that can travel quite swiftly. We never really had to think about those types of things in the past, and a lot of people never really thought about the North in the past. The government never thought about the North in the past, but it is something that we need to do now.
I think that with the Government of Canada renewing NORAD, you are taking the matter seriously in terms of where we have a place in the North or in the world to be providing a level of security, and moving forward in discussions with those who can be partners as well as ensuring that there is engagement with First Nations in the North and other areas where there could be an impact in Canada.
Ms. Adamek: Senators, in terms of regional protocol, I will always defer to a chief who is joining us to speak first. The chiefs, of course, are the rights holders in our territory, and I’m elected by them to be an advocate and a facilitator and bring information back and forth with the Assembly of First Nations and the chiefs to get their direction. I just wanted to acknowledge that, because it is important that you hear from Chief Joseph first in this type of setting.
The second point I wanted to raise is that concept of dual infrastructure. You heard Chief Joseph speak to some of the infrastructure and lack thereof. For example, in an emergency situation — and a lot of us learned this through COVID-19 — do you have a large space that people can go to if needed? Not every community has a facility like a large school or a school gym or a place like, for example, a hockey arena. I know in Ottawa, that is where they were doing some of the vaccinations. We don’t have all of those things in every single community, so what are the dual roles, then, when we are being strategic about these funds coming to the North and making sure that, from an infrastructure planning perspective, it is not just what Ottawa might think is best for the North. This is often our challenge as northerners.
I didn’t get a chance to respond to the earlier question about the Canadian Rangers, but I can share that in so many of our communities, the population of First Nations people is 85% or higher. You can imagine that most of the Canadian Rangers in the North are Indigenous. When we think about that, what are ways that that program could be augmented? You are taking young people on the land. Those values align with our values as Indigenous people.
In fact, knowing that the Junior Canadian Rangers program has had a lot of success but that it might be harder to pull upon this generation, who is very interested in technology, are there ways that young people can also be engaged? To one of the senator’s earlier questions about how you draw on young people to want to join the Canadian Armed Forces, well, you get people involved when they are young and help them understand why it’s important.
As we look at the investment of NORAD, it is looking at what are ways to minimize the deaths by suicide in the North, which are higher than anywhere else in the world when we look at Nunavut, for example. We do that by engaging people and getting them on the land, because the land heals.
There are so many different ways that I see synergies with NORAD, with continuing from a very high-level political, intergovernmental policy perspective to really getting to the grassroots people. What do they need, and how do those needs align with the needs of where this federal government sees Arctic security going? A lot of it is to get people out on the land.
I can admittedly say that if you were to give me a Ski-Doo in minus 35, I could go for a few hours and could start a fire, but could I survive overnight? Probably not. My dad could, and my uncles could, and my uncle is part of the Canadian Rangers. These are the skills that, as northerners, so many of our elders have, as does the generation before me. But when we look to some of our young people, they’re aching for that. Indigenous youth are aching for this. I see so many different parallels.
Also, combating and mitigating climate change is part of this work. The way you would go out on Kluane Lake is not the same as it was ten years ago because our lake has dropped by 10 feet. How are we as a nation state, as Canada, but also as Yukon First Nations people, looking to adapt to the way the land has changed so much, making sure that our young people are still participating in these programs like Junior Canadian Rangers or being able to participate in any program that has to do with Arctic security in a way that is reflective of our values and that also provides young people with some of our teachings?
I know those are very micro examples, senator, but I think it is really important to give a stronger understanding to what is happening on the ground and ways in which some of these young people may be able to earn high school credits or be able to apply it to university applications, if that’s what they choose. If they choose a different career path like the Canadian Armed Forces, for example, or if they want to become carpenters, or if they want to become writers about Arctic sovereignty, whatever it is that they choose to do, they should be supported in doing that. That’s where I think this investment in NORAD could really support the priorities that Yukon First Nations people have already addressed with the federal government and brought forward with the federal government.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Chief Joseph. Chief Joseph, the supply of food and essential goods is often one of the issues that comes up in discussions about the implementation of government programs, among other things. To help us better understand, could you give us a brief overview of these supply problems and tell us about possible solutions to try to correct the situation?
[English]
Ms. Joseph: Thank you for that question. It is really appreciated at this time.
Since COVID, the rate of inflation here in the North has gone through the roof, especially for the people living in Old Crow, the Vuntut people. They pay $100 just for a watermelon. I really feel for those who are on social assistance because I don’t really believe that they can have enough food for the whole month because of the cost of food. The same is true here in Dawson City. We are the second-most northern community in the Yukon, and the rise of inflation on groceries has been extremely difficult. Groceries have been increasing every quarter in a significant amount. Compared to a year ago, you could buy $100 worth of groceries and take out a few bags, and now you can go to the store and buy $100 worth of groceries and probably end up taking out one bag or less.
Food security in the North is a real concern because our climate is cold during the winter and we don’t have a lot of growing ability here in the North without the infrastructure. Most of our First Nations in the North, in the Yukon, do not have four season greenhouses. Many of us have begun small gardens to provide some level of food security, but it is really not enough. Our salmon have been severely impacted by global warming. We haven’t been able to harvest any Chinook or chum salmon at all this year along the Yukon River, as well as on the Porcupine where the salmon also migrate. Our traditional foods are declining.
For the Porcupine caribou, although it is a high number, I think there are not enough studies into either oil and gas or mining activity impacting its traditional migration route into our traditional territory. Either that, or global warming is seeing methane gases which are stopping them from travelling into our traditional territory and migrating into the Yukon altogether. They have mainly been lingering in the North and in Alaska in recent years, so it has been hard on our northerly communities to have access to traditional foods.
As well, the Yukon’s population has been growing over time, and with that, that also means that more and more people are going out there hunting and harvesting, so we have been impacted that way as well in terms of having enough moose for our people to be reliant on.
There are a lot of impacts in regard to global warming in regard to traditional food sources. Being in the North, food security is always an issue. We have to have trucks drive the Alaska Highway from the south to bring food north. They have to drive at least two or three days from the large providers. In terms of Old Crow, they have to fly in. Some of our communities only have a really small store or small convenience store that provides general products, so basically, those who can afford it drive to the city of Whitehorse to buy a lot of case lots, but not everybody can afford that for themselves.
Having the breakfast program in our communities for our children is really great. That’s really appreciated. Maybe in some of the more northerly communities, there also needs to be a lunch program because of the high cost of groceries. Even if there is a breakfast program, there are still probably children who go without food other than the breakfast program. If their family is on social assistance, that doesn’t take them very far in regard to having food for the whole month.
Marsee.
Senator Anderson: As an Inuk, and in my past life as a negotiator on the Inuvialuit self-government agreement, it is my experience that discussions and negotiations with the Government of Canada are siloed and sometimes cursory. Instead of waiting on the Government of Canada, is there a strategic avenue for the rights holders to do a paradigm shift and lead the discussions on engagement collectively on Arctic defence, security and sovereignty? Is that an option?
Ms. Joseph: I think that if we are able to provide for capacity funding, that could be an option. Working in partnership with others, we would be able to develop some level of programming. I know that working with the Rangers here, we can expand on what they are being provided at this point in time. I think that giving them the opportunity of some training with the army can also increase capacity and ability.
In September, I met this young boy at the store and asked him how he was doing. He said he was fine. He said his family was moving to Whitehorse. I asked him if he was going to Whitehorse to work. He said he was going there for a visit, and then he was going to look into joining the army. He was maybe 15 or 16 years old. He would have to go south for that. Such a young boy who doesn’t have much experience in the world is thinking about doing that just to get some training, but he has to go such a far distance to do that, with no family support. It is difficult, and I think that more people would be interested if we had the infrastructure here in the Yukon as well.
Ms. Adamek: Thank you for the question.
As was shared by Chief Joseph, certainly I go back to a time that predates me and how things went very, very badly with the way in which our people were involved in a lot of the big shifts that affected our own people in this territory, Yukon First Nations people. Now moving into 2022, there is incredible opportunity to see co-governance models and to see the proven leadership and abilities of projects, initiatives, infrastructure that is done in partnership with Yukon First Nation governments. Essentially, we have our own plans. We have our own vision. We have incredible leadership here in the territory. I would say absolutely that this is a time that you could see a renewal in the relationship by way of supporting Yukon First Nations people to lead how they would like to in the space of defence and Arctic security.
I want to acknowledge you, senator, and your work as a negotiator. I can’t imagine what that would have been like at a time where there were still so many misconceptions about our people. I think about Ivvavik National Park, which sits at the most northern tip of the territory. When we talk about ways in which there are these co-shared models, you can look at a lot of the national parks that exist here in the territory and are co-managed by our people. We have renewable resource councils. We have processes in which the boards and committees that make determinations on major projects include Yukon First Nations representation, which was never done in the past. Our agreements spell out the path moving forward, and they need to be, in my view, looked to to provide us the direction that we need today.
Are Yukon First Nations wanting to be engaged? I would say yes. We’ve heard a lot of conversations at our chiefs summits about this particular topic. The support and capacity through funding through NORAD could provide nations like Tr’ondëk Hwëch’in and Kluane First Nation with the ability to become more engaged on this particular issue and move it beyond conversations and reflections to actual roles and responsibilities and perhaps looking at ways that some of those authorities that exist could be delegated to another government such as Yukon First Nations governments, for example. I’ll leave my comments there.
The Chair: Thank you, both. Thank you, Senator Anderson, for a terrific closing question and to our witnesses for very fulsome and helpful answers.
This brings us to the end of our meeting this evening. I want to extend a very sincere thanks to you, Chief Joseph and Chief Adamek and to other witnesses today for guiding us through a very important set of discussions. Your contributions today are enormously helpful to us. We thank you for your time, your participation and your generosity in sharing your experience and advice with us. We couldn’t do this without you. We’ve listened very carefully to what you’ve told us today, and I have no doubt that much of this will be reflected in our deliberations as we go forward. On behalf of the committee and the Senate of Canada, we thank you very much for this.
Colleagues, our next meeting will take place next Monday, December 5, at our usual time of 4 p.m. Eastern. With that, I wish you all a good evening.
(The committee adjourned.)