Indigenous and Northern Affairs Committee on Oct. 8th, 2026

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

We're back.

For the benefit of the next panel, I'm going to review some of the audio and interpretation guidelines.

We're in a hybrid format. We have people inside the room, and we have people online. I ask all participants to consult the guidelines written on the cards on the table. These measures are in place to help prevent audio and feedback incidents and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our wonderful interpreters. You'll also notice a QR code on the card that links to a short awareness video.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking. For those on Zoom, at the bottom of your screen, you can select the appropriate channel for interpretation: floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

I'd like to remind witnesses that committee members may ask questions in either French or English. If you will need interpretation, please take a moment now to prepare your earpiece and select the listening channel you need in advance in order to take full advantage of the time allotted for questions and answers.

I'll remind you that all comments should be addressed through the chair. For members in the room, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand. For members on Zoom, please use the “raise hand” function. The clerk and I will manage the speaking order and the time.

First off, we'll go to the witnesses, and there will be five-minute presentations.

For the witnesses, I'll let you know when you have about 30 seconds left so that you can finish up your thoughts, and there will be plenty of time for you to get out what you like through the question and answer period.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses. We have, as an individual, Dr. Alexandre de Barros, professor of transportation engineering, department of civil engineering, University of Calgary. As an individual, we have Dr. McCartney, professor, school of urban and regional planning, Toronto Metropolitan University, by video conference. As well, we have Michael Beaulieu from The North West Company. He is vice-president of Canadian store operations.

Let us begin with Dr. de Barros for five minutes, please.

[Dr. Alexandre de Barros, Professor of Transportation Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Members of the committee, good morning. Thank you for the invitation to appear here today.

I appear in connection with the 2023 research paper called “Air Connectivity and Airport Infrastructure in Northern Canada”, which was prepared for the Canadian northern corridor research program at the University of Calgary's school of public policy. The paper examined 146 remote communities inside the notional northern corridor area—communities for which air is often the only reliable year-round link for people, medical evacuations, food and essential goods. The findings remain directly relevant to the cost of living pressures that this committee is examining.

Air transportation is not a luxury in the north. It is a foundational part of the supply chain that determines the price of groceries, fuel, housing materials and medical travel. When air service is infrequent, expensive or constrained by infrastructure limitations, those costs are passed on to northern households and communities.

I will list some of the key findings from the study.

Nearly all 146 communities that were included in the study have an airport or aerodrome within 20 kilometres by road. Only a handful rely solely on seaplanes or face longer road distances. Infrastructure is, however, uneven: 83% of the runways are gravel or crushed rock, and only 15% are paved; 42% of airports lack published instrument-approach procedures and can operate only in visual meteorological conditions; 20% have no passenger terminal building; and roughly 30% offer no winter runway maintenance.

On connectivity, 82% of the airports had regular charter or scheduled service at the time of the study—109 had scheduled service and seven had charter only—and 18% had none. Even where scheduled service exists, frequencies are often low, and aircraft are predominantly smaller turboprops. Only a minority can accommodate larger aircraft capable of meaningful cargo volumes. Cargo capacity is therefore severely limited at most locations.

At the time of the study, we found no federal essential air service policies comparable to those in other places. Routes and fares were left to commercial supply and demand, with only ad hoc funding for specific issues.

We also performed a limited weather analysis of cloud ceiling data at 21 airports over 17 years and found no clear evidence that climate change had reduced operational availability through that particular factor. Other climate-related risks—such as permafrost thaw affecting runway integrity, or changing precipitation and surface conditions—remain real and require ongoing attention. They were not included in the study.

These infrastructure and service gaps translate directly into higher costs. Limited runway length and surface restrict aircraft size and payload, raising the unit cost of flying in food, fuel and building materials. Infrequent service and the need for itineraries with multiple legs increase both passenger and cargo expenses.

The absence of instrument approaches and winter maintenance can leave communities without reliable access during poor weather, the very periods when medical and supply needs are often most acute.

The paper recommends a case-by-case evaluation of targeted upgrades, such as instrument approaches, terminals, the paving or strengthening of runways and reliable winter maintenance, as well as a clear policy framework for northern air services. It also notes that air connectivity alone does not meet all transportation needs. Ground options remain essential where feasible.

A fuller comparison of the costs and benefits of improved air infrastructure versus other corridor investments was left for future work. It was not included in the study.

In the broader context of this committee's affordability study, including food security, fuel costs, housing construction, medical travel and the high cost of living in remote communities, air infrastructure and service reliability are structural drivers, not peripheral issues. Improving the capacity, reliability and cost-effectiveness of northern air links—

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds.

[Dr. Alexandre de Barros]

—can help lower the landed cost of essential goods and reduce the financial burden on northern families and indigenous communities.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next, we have Dr. McCartney. You have five minutes. Please proceed.

[Dr. Shelagh McCartney, Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual]

Thank you very much for having me.

Hello. My name is Shelagh McCartney. I'm a professor of urban and regional planning at Toronto Metropolitan University. I'm also a licensed architect.

For the past decade, my research has taken place in partnership with indigenous communities and indigenous-serving organizations in the provincial and territorial north. I've heard of the challenges of exercising local control over local housing matters, securing funds to build up local housing expertise and navigating funding models that, too often, are disconnected from the expense of homes over their life cycles, and I've worked with communities to find solutions. I've completed projects with youth exploring their pathways into and out of homelessness, researched the unique challenges of building accessible housing in northern contexts, co-developed housing policies to establish local governance and taken on community-identified housing projects.

Through these and other projects, I've had the chance to spend time in many northern communities and visit the homes of hundreds of community leaders, housing providers and community members. To all those I've met, housing improvement is of urgent importance. The views I will share today build on the experiences that have been shared with me, and it is my hope that the recommendations I share honour the community members I've been invited to work with.

I want to acknowledge that, as this committee has heard, housing-related costs are growing across the country, and disproportionately in the north, due to the rapidly rising costs of materials, labour and transportation. I take it that within this committee, these and other factors relevant to northern housing affordability, such as Dr. Christensen's testimony on the inappropriateness of existing tenure models, are generally understood. Instead, I want to focus my time on how housing unaffordability has also been a manufactured policy and program outcome.

In my experience, the housing currently being built in the north cannot be affordable in the long term for communities, occupants and governments. This is not a new phenomenon. For decades, the same problems have arisen, driven primarily by short-termism. By short-termism, I mean an overfocus on quickly producing low-capital-cost housing in alignment with federal programs and fiscal years.

This often forces communities into rushing procurement decisions and settling for lower-cost, inappropriate architecture. Houses are being built with foundation systems not suited to soils, leading to near-immediate structural damage. Insulation values are far below what are required for the climate, creating high energy demand for occupants. Materials and construction techniques are not sufficiently durable for northern extremes. Spatial arrangements don't recognize unique northern lifeways or family compositions. The result is housing with extremely short lifespans—as low as 10 to 15 years, in many cases—requiring premature replacement and with especially high energy and maintenance costs for the occupants.

Most importantly, perhaps, these sporadic, short-term cycles do not allow communities to invest in the skills training needed to develop the capacity to build, maintain and manage housing locally. Short-termism prevents communities from developing a local housing economy, which is a critical component of long-term, sustainable affordable housing in the north. Instead, communities are dependent on outside consultants and labour. This leads to higher costs and the flow of money southward.

There is an urgent need for funding to bring existing northern homes to an acceptable standard. However, if policies and programs do not fundamentally change, the northern housing system will continue to produce homes that are impossible to affordably heat and maintain, make occupants sick and generate the poor mental health outcomes associated with overcrowding and homelessness.

My decade of research leads me to believe that the long-term housing affordability that communities and families need is not achievable without the following three major shifts in housing delivery.

The first is greater community control, allowing communities to make better, more context-specific housing decisions and build homes that are appropriate for their need.

The second is skills training and economic development so that communities can manage, build and maintain housing stocks affordably and without the continued economic leakage to the south. To make these investments, long-term, predictable funding is necessary over many years.

The third is a transition toward life-cycle costing models that reflect the true expense of housing over time, allowing for houses to be built specifically for northern climates, geographies and lifeways. Maximum unit pricing and other artificial price caps on federal indigenous programs, which are not used in other federal housing models, will need to go in order for this to happen.

These shifts would constitute a meaningful acknowledgement that the housing system has failed those living in northern communities and be a starting point for making a difference in the lives of the people I speak and work for as part of my research.

Thank you very much for having me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next we have the North West Company for five minutes. Please proceed.

[Michael Beaulieu, Vice-President, Canadian Store Operations, The North West Company]

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the invitation to contribute to your study.

My name is Mike Beaulieu. I am the vice-president of Canadian store operations for the North West Company.

Through our Northern and NorthMart stores, every day we see that affordability in the north comes down to two things: what it costs to get goods into remote communities and the programs that are in place to offset the cost.

This morning I'd like to speak to both nutrition north Canada, a program that works but hasn't kept pace, and the infrastructure behind the underlying cost of everything we ship north.

Nutrition north Canada was launched in 2011 and has been strengthened by governments of different parties since. It lowers the shelf price of food for northern families every day, but the program has never been indexed. The subsidy rates haven't meaningfully increased since May 2020. Since then, Canada has experienced its steepest run of inflation in four decades, and northern freight costs have risen faster still. The government's own evaluation recommends reviewing the subsidy rates, which aren't tied to inflation or freight costs.

It's worth taking a moment...for how the funding works. The subsidy is paid per kilogram shipped, so when northerners buy more, the program costs more at the same rates. This means program spending can go up without prices coming down. That's what the $30-million top-up in February covered—higher consumption at existing rates. It was needed, but it didn't lower the price of a single item. Only higher subsidy rates can do that.

On top of this, fuel prices have climbed sharply since the escalation in the Middle East in late February. Since then, we've been paying fuel surcharges of 20¢ to 50¢ a pound on air freight. On a four-litre jug of milk, that's another two to five dollars just to get it on the plane. A family in the south feels that at the pump. A family in the north feels it on everything that arrives by air. This is why inflation protection matters more now than ever.

This isn't only about price; it's also about trust. As the subsidy loses value, shelf prices rise even though the program is in place. People understandably conclude that it isn't working or that someone is keeping the money. That loss of trust hurts the program; it hurts government, and it hurts retailers like us in the eyes of our customers.

We support transparency on how the subsidy reaches customers, but the most effective way to restore trust is to keep the program whole. We don't know yet what the planned reforms will look like, but we do welcome the government's focus on building a northern food economy, which will increase capacity in northern communities.

In the meantime, adequate funding can deliver results right now. We saw this recently, when existing nutrition north funding was rebalanced to maximize impact for select communities. For example, on September 1, a four-litre jug of milk in Coral Harbour went from $11.99 to $6.89. That came from reallocating existing funding—not new money. Imagine what indexed funding could do in all 124 NNC-eligible communities.

We're recommending three things that can make a difference right away.

We're asking the government to tie nutrition north subsidy rates to inflation every year—not just the budget but the rates themselves—and to restore the value they've lost since 2020.

We're also asking that subsidy rates be rebalanced to reflect the specific remoteness and cost profile of each community. As September showed, it is possible.

We'd also like to see the surface transportation subsidy extended to remote communities served by rail, such as Churchill, Pukatawagan, Moosonee, Moose Factory and Schefferville.

The other half of the equation is infrastructure. If nutrition north helps with the cost of getting goods north, infrastructure is what makes getting them there cheaper and more reliable in the first place. Short runways and outdated navigation equipment cause food delivery disruptions and drive up costs for northern residents.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

You have 30 seconds.

[Michael Beaulieu]

Where new Arctic infrastructure dollars go really matters. We'd like to see them directed to paving and extended runways for larger cargo aircraft, modern navigation, de-icing and weather systems. Those investments serve affordability, safety and Arctic sovereignty at the same time.

The good news is that the foundation is already in place. Nutrition north works. Giving it funding that keeps pace with rising costs would make a real difference for northern families. We welcome the chance to work with the committee and government to get there.

Thank you. I look forward to your questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

First off, we have MP Zimmer for six minutes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My questions will be for The North West Company and Michael.

Hi, Michael. How are you today?

[Michael Beaulieu]

Good morning, Bob. How are you?

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

I'm good.

I have an article from Cabin Radio from earlier this year that says, “North West Company warns of price increases as costs soar”. It says, “The North West Company says prices of goods sold in its stores are likely to increase [with] rising fuel prices worldwide.”

It also says, “‘Rising fuel prices are already pushing up freight and transportation costs across our network,’ said Brigitte Burgoyne”, the spokesperson for your company. Another quote says, “Those pressures hit northern and remote communities the hardest, where goods rely on air and long-distance shipping.”

You alluded to it earlier, but I'm going to ask a very basic question: Why are grocery prices so high in the north?

[Michael Beaulieu]

Well, grocery prices are higher in the north due to the related operating costs of the north, such as getting goods to the north with air freight costs, as well as scale in our remote markets. There's a significant amount of infrastructure required to operate a retail store in a small community, and those operating costs are burdened upon a small population. Part of it is the economics of scale and the cost of remoteness and geography.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Thanks.

Transportation is a significant part of that cost, as the article alludes to. Is that correct?

[Michael Beaulieu]

Yes.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

You said this in your comments, and I'm glad you brought up inflation, because it isn't just the increased transportation cost. That's inflationary in and of itself, but there's also inflation on top of it that's not necessarily related to fuel.

I have a basic question: Are food costs going up in the north, or are they going down?

[Michael Beaulieu]

Food costs are going up in the north.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Okay. Thank you for that straightforward answer.

I have a simple question. It's a bit more of a direct question, and you alluded to it earlier. Mark Carney said he would be judged by prices “at the grocery store”. I said that this week in committee as well. He didn't exclude Yukon, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut. He made that commitment to all Canadians when he was campaigning in the last election.

What can Mark Carney do right now to lower food costs in the north? What's an easy one...? Even the excise tax has been temporarily suspended. We asked for more to be done on diesel. Even the clean fuel standard, which costs six cents to 11¢ per litre, still exists. Such things are still causing food prices to be high. Is there something that Mark Carney can do right now to lower those prices? Maybe you can speak to the broader aspects of this. I ask, what can he do right now to lower food costs?

[Michael Beaulieu]

The excise tax is four cents a litre on diesel. It hardly makes a difference at all in our freight rates, and the impact of that action for the north is very limited.

As I made reference to in my opening comments, indexing the nutrition north program to inflation at the subsidy rate level, not at the budget level, would have a significant and immediate impact.

In terms of the one reference I made for Coral Harbour, we saw similar types of impacts with a small rebalancing in communities like Naujaat and Cambridge Bay. It's the easiest trigger the government could pull to immediately make a difference in the lives of northerners. Take a serious look at rebalancing the subsidy and indexing it to inflation. We're also asking that they go back to 2020 and look at the inflation that's occurred over the last five and a half years.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Michael, I appreciate that.

I think nutrition north was an effort by our government to address expensive food costs back in 2011. It's not perfect by any means. It sounds, from your end, as though it needs some revisions.

I want to get back to the fuel specifically. You said it was negligible, but I'll just read from a trucker's quote in an article I used this week in the House. It said that “from Montreal to Toronto”...“the cost increase” because of increased fuel prices, or diesel specifically, for about “1,000 kilometres” has almost doubled from “$850 on Jan. 1”.

That's only 1,000 kilometres. The same trip that provides things from a source such as a warehouse to a remote community like Tuktoyaktuk isn't 1,000 kilometres. It's 7,000 kilometres. Just imagine the cost increase of that. Do the math. That goes from about $600 times seven: $4,200 per trip. That is a huge cost in food. We witnessed this in Tuktoyaktuk and Inuvik, where a jug of regular milk is $18 at one of your stores. It's $20 for chocolate milk. You know, that's hardly negligible.

[Michael Beaulieu]

I agree with you, and there's another nuance that most people aren't thinking about. It's that a truck driving 7,000 kilometres north has a revenue that it generates by delivering cargo north, but there's nothing on the return leg. Essentially, when we're negotiating rates with carriers, we're not negotiating a 7,000-kilometre run; we're negotiating for 14,000 kilometres. Those trucks come back from the north empty, but you're still paying for the mileage, and that's burdened into the operating costs of retailers like North West.

[The Chair, Liberal, Terry Sheehan]

Thank you very much.

Next up we have MP Hanley, please.

You have six minutes.

[Brendan Hanley, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

The breadth of the topics covered in this panel shows the complexity and the interconnections among all of these areas in terms of infrastructure, aviation, transportation, fuel, and global drivers of fuel costs and how they impact food prices in small communities.

I wish I had more than a few minutes, but I would like to start, Dr. de Barros, with you.

Thank you for your part in producing this report and for speaking to some of the highlights. You mentioned so many important aspects of northern aviation. I was interested in two areas. I note that you do research on transportation efficiency and network performance. As we think of health care and what we can do with the system we have, recognizing that there are limitations to how much more money we can put into it, I wonder if there are similarities with aviation. If you're looking at transportation efficiency and network performance, you recognize that there are some real infrastructure needs—paved runways, for example—that we need to put into strategic locations where they don't exist. What recommendations can you offer in terms of how we can do better with the aviation network that we have in the north?

The other part that perhaps you could reflect on briefly is that you talked about a northern policy framework. I know that often southern-based policies don't match the realities in the north. Maybe you could talk a bit about that.