Bonjour. I thank the honourable members of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development for inviting me to share my thoughts and experience. In my previous appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples in 2016, I specifically shared my thoughts and experiences working with Inuit and first nation communities, so there's definitely some overlap with what Gary just expressed.
I just have a few words about my firm, EVOQ, and me, for those who don't know me—and most of you don't. EVOQ is one of Canada's leading architectural firms. For more than 35 years, we've been recognized for our work with Inuit and first nations and heritage conservation. Our approach is collaborative, working closely with each client and community to achieve their vision. Our architects also lecture at universities, participate in design review panels, and lead various organizations.
EVOQ has received numerous awards for its work, and its portfolio includes a number of high-profile buildings, including the West Block here in Ottawa—don't ask me when that will be complete—Union Station in Toronto; the nearly completed LEED gold Canadian High Arctic research station, or the CHARS, in Ikaluktutiak/Cambridge Bay in Nunavut; as well as the LEED silver Kuujjuaq air terminal in Nunavik.
More questions were forwarded to me to prepare for this appearance. I've been looking at them from the point of view of someone living in a remote Inuit or first nation community, as I had presumed this was the reason for inviting me to appear before this committee, given my experience with Inuit and first nations. To initiate the discussion, I will start by pointing out a number of issues that need to be addressed, that make up the whole picture when considering the environment and sustainable development. It's not just about bells and whistles and developing new gadgets; the approach must be comprehensive and holistic.
I've grouped these three issues under the following three general headings, what I would call prerequisites, objectives, and support initiatives. Prerequisites are essentially to be able to move forward. Basic infrastructure and housing needs must be met. It's very difficult to get anybody's attention about reducing greenhouse gas emissions when even their most basic infrastructure needs are not met. That is point one.
If any programs or initiatives are to work, we must get community buy-in and engagement. One size does not fit all. We must take into consideration regional and cultural specificities, and that includes all across the Inuit Nunangat territories. We have Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, and Nunavut that have different governance, different structures, different environments. Then, as part of the prerequisites, culturally adapted infrastructures and housing can only be designed and built through proper dialogue with the communities. Lastly, in the prerequisites, you must prepare for climate change and develop strategies. We have to anticipate what's coming, and in the north specifically, it's there.
Coming to objectives, the second group of issues—and many of them will cover what Gary just said—we must reduce dependency on costly fossil fuel energy and replace it with renewable sources of energy. Some R and D has been going on and will go on, and the CHARS is supposed to be one of the places that will favour such research. We must improve energy efficiency and maintain it throughout the infrastructure's life cycle. This is much more challenging than it may appear. What works on the opening day will falter later for lack of proper upkeep, so we may have a very well-performing infrastructure, but if the systems aren't maintained properly, then we've lost it all.
We must build local construction capacity, and that also means local construction and maintenance capacity, ideally aimed toward self-sufficiency. Why not? We can dream. Of course, we must reduce maintenance costs. Construction in remote communities is expensive, so let's go for heavy-duty and durable materials, such that we don't have to go back constantly to repair them. Lastly is what I would call support initiatives; support research for what I call real innovation. Innovation mustn't just be a buzzword. Innovation is too often hamstrung with a proviso that it be achieved with proven technology.
I could quote from many requests for proposals in which we were asked to be innovative, but whose second sentence or next page told us to do so with proven technology. Of course, man would not have walked on the moon if they had taken the proven technology from the 1950s. If we're going to talk about innovation, we must be serious about innovation; it shouldn't be just about paying it lip service.
We should support industry research and development. In remote northern communities, of course, the infrastructure and housing markets are very small, and they offer little incentive for development. I think this is an area where the government could come with support, and again, with the CHARS being there, it will be possible to test equipment up north in the Arctic.
We should support the documentation, post-construction monitoring—and I do underline post-construction monitoring—and sharing of best design and construction practices. As we design, we will make assumptions, evaluations, and do lots of modelling—it's also a popular buzzword—but what actually happens in the field? How do our buildings and infrastructures perform in the field? That's very important to find out. There again, supports should be coming towards post-construction monitoring. Of course, you have to understand that construction in the Arctic and in remote communities is extremely expensive, so when it comes down to putting in those last dollars to install monitoring systems in the infrastructures, whether it's for housing or other buildings, it falls through. There is no money, and yet it would be very important to do it.
The last point, which I already mentioned, is that we should support the cost of construction and supply proper funding. This goes back to point one, which is that if there's a permanent housing crisis going on in Inuit and first nation communities, of course, given some money, they will favour building those houses, and they don't want to cut the funds.... Build more expensive houses such that three, four, or five families in that given year have to be told that they're not on the list, because building those houses is a little more expensive because they perform better.
Merci.