National Defence Committee on Oct. 1st, 2009

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you both for coming. It's an interesting topic.

I'd like to bring it back, though, to the topic we're discussing in a broader sense, and that's Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic on behalf of all Canadians, including the Inuit people. Obviously the Inuit people have a very important role to play, based on history and geography.

First of all, Indian and Northern Affairs Canada is the lead agency in Canadian Arctic sovereignty. How do you view that: good, bad, encouraging? How do you see that playing out with them, not the Department of National Defence, as the lead agency?

[Mary Simon]

We're not biased against any one department as long as we can have a meaningful relationship with a federal government department that's really respecting our wishes. I think with INAC, it's more related to the human dimension, which we often talk about, whereas Defence would be more in terms of the military. We do have our northern Rangers who are very active, and we're very supportive of the fact that they got more support for what they do for the military in the Arctic. I think that was a very important announcement, where our northern Rangers are going to have increased support. That part of it is also tied to their ability to bring an income to their families, so any kind of job is always very good for us.

I don't really have a strong view about which department we would prefer to work with. I think the federal government as a whole has a fiduciary responsibility and has signed these land claims agreements. Many departments are part of those agreements and need to be more engaged in how we implement these agreements. I think that's really the bottom line; more than one department has to look at how we implement these agreements. They need to be engaged in the process and not just have junior representatives in committee meetings and in discussions that we've had. We want it to be at a more senior level where the decisions can be made.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Those are all good points, and that's why the Government of Canada, I suggest, has made Indian and Northern Affairs the lead agency. It's a recognition of the importance of the Inuit people in the north.

I've spent time with the Rangers, and it's a wonderful organization.

There are going to be a lot of opportunities stemming from development, whether it's construction or just presence, an increase in Rangers and so on. Could you discuss some of the opportunities that you see coming from our emphasis on Arctic sovereignty on behalf of all Canadians and how that might specifically impact on the welfare of your people?

[Mary Simon]

Thank you for that question.

Sovereignty has impacted our people for many years. I don't know if you know this, but in the early 1950s our people from Nunavik, from northern Quebec, which is where I come from, were relocated into the High Arctic. The government, maybe not this present government, but the federal government has acknowledged that yes, Inuit played an integral role in the assertion of sovereignty. So we have been impacted by the sovereignty issue for many years.

What we're trying to do now is have more control over how that plays out in terms of our own lives, because people were moved without consenting to be moved. I think that in 2009 we're at the stage where we do have these land claims agreements, we do have different authorities that represent Inuit, like ITK. We have the Makivik Corporation, we have the Nunavut Tunngavik, we have the Inuvialuit region, and now we have the Nunatsiavut government. They all have authority over their territories. I think it's really incumbent upon all of us to make sure that these processes work so the lives of our people at the community level are not being adversely affected the way they were years ago. Very big traumas were experienced in those days, and we don't want to see that happen again. The only way we can have some assurances is to work together on these issues.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

I agree, and obviously the welfare of your people translates to your being able to play a larger role in the north and therefore enhance Canadian sovereignty on behalf of all Canadians and, more specifically, the Inuit people. Is that a fair statement?

[Mary Simon]

That's a fair statement. In fact, that's what I was saying when I did my cross-Canada tour.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

You mentioned education and opportunities and so on. Obviously because of geography there are some challenges there. What's your vision of education for the Inuit people in the north?

[Mary Simon]

That's a very important question.

We have just embarked on a national process to improve Inuit education across the Canadian Arctic, and I'm the chair of the process. What we're going to do is look at how well we've done in education, where some of the failures have been, where the successes are. We want to build on our successes and identify the gaps. So we have embarked on a pan-Arctic process, and Makivik is very involved in that, and the Kativik school board in Nunavik and the Nunatsiavut government also. So it's all the regions, and it has been signed by Minister Strahl on behalf of the Government of Canada. And we are also urging the provinces that have Inuit living in them to participate, such as Newfoundland and Labrador and Quebec. We had a representative from the Newfoundland government. They haven't signed the accord, but they were there and they participated, so that's important.

So we are embarking on this initiative because I think it's at the core of all the issues we face. Our young population numbers are very high, and if we can't get well-educated adults coming out of our school system, the jobs are always going to be taken up by those who move into the Arctic and then leave again because it's not their home. I think that in order to have sustainable communities, we have to educate. Our graduation rate right now for high school is 23%. So 61% don't finish high school. You know, when he was up in the Arctic this summer, the Prime Minister asked me a lot of questions about that, and he was really surprised to see that most of the people working out there where he went were non-native, were non-Inuit. He wanted to know why.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Merci bien, Madame Simon.

Now I will give the floor to Mr. Dhaliwal, please.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, congratulations on your election today.

And thank you to you, Mary Simon and John Merritt, for being at the witness table here.

The work you're doing is good, but I'm going to continue with education. I personally feel it should be the fundamental right of every Canadian to acquire that. You mentioned 23%; that is a very low rate when it comes to graduation. How could we deal with education differently, so that Inuit people will be able to compete in the international market in future years?

[Mary Simon]

Thank you for that. Education is the key component of that, and we are trying to set up an education system that will embrace our culture and language, where we will use our mother tongue as a teaching language, and our history and our culture will be integrated into our education system. That's our goal and that's our mission. We know that other aboriginal cultures, indigenous cultures—for instance, the Maori in New Zealand—have been successful in turning their whole education system around so that now they teach only in the Maori language. So it's doable, and we feel very lucky because our language is still pretty strong.

So we have an opportunity to do that, and I think that's where we really need to work with the federal government, the territorial governments, and the provinces to make sure we are moving towards that goal. It won't happen overnight, but it can happen.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

For your information, actually, I brought in a private member's bill, the only private member's bill I tabled. It was to recognize mother tongues. There are over 6,500 different mother tongue languages spoken in Canada besides the two official languages. That is a good point you brought forward.

This spring I met with the chair of the Churchill port authority, who mentioned the fact that there was literally no framework for environmental regulations developed by the government. The Arctic will get more port traffic in the coming years, and there is also very little planning done on how to drive economic development in this particular region.

Could you comment on that? Would you say that any plans around the defence strategy have to be part of the broader and more comprehensive strategy for Arctic development?

[Mary Simon]

I'll let John deal with the defence side.

When I was talking about this proposal for a joint Inuit-federal government authority that would be proactive, I think those are some of the issues that a joint committee would address. I think environmental issues are part of that. If there is a shipping accident or an oil spill, there has to be some kind of regime set up. We feel that we need to be part of that process because it would affect our communities. Our communities are all coastal communities. We surround the coasts.

John.

[John Merritt]

Thank you.

ITK acknowledges, as President Simon mentioned a moment ago, that the Arctic is a high-cost area and public investment is limited. So one has to make the best use of resources.

Insofar as pursuing a sovereignty strategy and a defence strategy in the north is concerned, it makes sense to try to make federal investments as multi-purpose as possible. That means consciously trying to wed civilian and military objectives. There are many examples where we think a creative agenda can actually serve a variety of ends.

We talked a moment ago about small craft harbours. It clearly makes a lot of sense to invest in small craft harbours. Those harbours are important for surveillance, monitoring, and environmental protection purposes. They're also important for reducing the cost of bringing goods into the communities. They're important for regional economic development purposes.

Associated with that is the expansion of the commercial fishery in the Arctic. There is the nucleus of an Inuit fishery, a commercial fishery. Their prospects are bright. There is some hope that the turbot allocations will increase in the next 12 months. It would make sense to have an Inuit-owned resident commercial fishery in the Arctic. Every boat that goes out watching those waters is evidence of Canadian use and occupation.

We talked earlier about the Rangers. Certainly the Rangers are a valuable part of Canada's defence policy, and the expansion of the Rangers program is welcome. In theory, the Rangers program could also be more consciously multi-purpose. In addition to environmental observation, you could in fact expand that program to allow Rangers to help in bringing country food back to the communities. There are some reports that say one in every two Inuit households goes hungry once a year. That's a shocking figure.

So multi-purpose investments would help.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I will have to give the floor to Mr. Boughen, please.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Chair; and congratulations on that landslide victory.

John and Mary, let me add my voice to those of my colleagues in welcoming you this morning and thanking you for taking time out of your day to spend some time with us.

Mary, I thought you said there were six recommendations.You spelled out five. Maybe I heard wrong; maybe you mentioned “five” and I heard “six”.

Out of the five recommendations you mentioned, I wonder if part of the problem in creating the change is that the Arctic is experiencing a rapid change. From dog teams and sleighs to snow machines, and young people who hunted and lived off the land now fighting drug addictions, just that whole environmental impact has caused a significant change in lifestyle of the Arctic.

When you look at what you need to bring this together, what would be your first recommendation? You talked about land claims; you talked about health, education, and government partnerships. What do you see as the first order of business?

[Mary Simon]

Thank you very much.

You are right that I said there were six recommendations. I felt I was going over my time, so I didn't go into my sixth recommendation. But I actually brought it into our discussion, and it's the one where we might explore a more productive relationship by possibly creating this joint Inuit-federal government Northwest Passage authority. That was the sixth recommendation.

Let me address the bigger picture you just laid out. There are many factors regarding why our young people are not doing as well as they should. There is the fact that our school system needs to be improved. We need better social and health system services. We don't have services for mental health. The suicide rate is seven times greater than in the rest of Canada, and it's mostly young men who are committing suicide. We don't have a mental health service in the north; it's non-existent in many areas because, as you know, our communities are very remote. There are no roads. The smaller the community, the less service they get. Mental health has been one of the key priorities in the development of our health services—not to diminish the other health factors as well.

Education is another one.

On climate change, we need adaptation programs. The climate is changing rapidly in the Arctic. We can't do anything about it; it's not really in our hands, and yet we have no real ability to help people adapt to those changes. You are right that it is having an impact.

So when you put all of these things together, it's very difficult for me say what the number one priority is, because all of these factors are interrelated.

We have communities that are going to have to be relocated because of climate change. One of them is in Nunavik, where Salluit is a community that is sinking.

These are very big issues for our communities.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Would you say that any single one of these issues should have been addressed yesterday? Are health care, regional hospitals, or walk-in health clinics more important right here and now, or is the educational process more important now, because those two seem to be two big issues?

[Mary Simon]

I would say mental health and education.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Now I will give the floor to Monsieur Bachand.

Monsieur Bachand, s'il vous plaît.

[Claude Bachand, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Over the course of our deliberations, we have tried to examine the sovereignty issue to some extent. Land occupation is a very important consideration. It seems that no one disputes the fact that Inuit have occupied the land in the north since time immemorial.

But there are other avenues that we are also pursuing. There is the whole issue of the extension of the continental shelf. As you know, in 2013, Canada will have to make its proposal and explain how it sees the issue. Furthermore, an additional 300,000 km were recognized as belonging to Norway.

And there is the whole matter of land control, and I would like to hear your thoughts on that. In terms of the Northern Strategy, we, the Bloc Québécois, find there is a lot of talk about militarizing the north. I think I heard you say earlier that you are not opposed to having a bit of a stronger military presence in the north. One of the measures put forward by the government is the modernization of the Rangers. You cannot object to that.

But I would like to hear your thoughts on the military training centre in Resolute Bay, the building of a deep-water port in Nanisivik, the presence of an ice-breaker, the new offshore patrol ships and the Polar Epsilon project, which, along with RADARSAT-2, will monitor and track vessels entering and travelling through the Northwest Passage.

Do you acknowledge that the issue of land control can go as far as to include the range of military measures put forward by the government? On one hand, do you share that opinion? On the other, are you consulted on all the dynamics when a decision is made to do this or that? Are your governments consulted? Does Canada ask for your help with all of these projects?

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Madam Simon.

[Mary Simon]

I'm going to defer the answer to John.

[John Merritt]

Well, you'll be either disappointed or relieved to know that ITK doesn't actually have somebody who works full time on military issues per se, so by definition, my response will have to be somewhat general.

On your last point about consultation, ITK has minimal input into the Arctic strategy, and that was a major disappointment. As you heard from President Simon, a test of partnership is doing things together, and in the absence of the Inuit having a central role in the development of Arctic strategy, it's hard for the Inuit to believe that the strategy will reflect Inuit priorities. That covers everything.

In terms of military investments, as President Simon said, Inuit have supported Canada taking steps to demonstrate to the world that it has an active program to discharge responsibilities in the Arctic. Where possible, it's important that military investments be married to civilian purposes. Insofar as we can serve civilian agendas and military agendas at the same time, that's a better use of investment.

How much military investment is too much in comparison with what's being spent on education and health is obviously a core issue. I think there is a sense that the civilian agenda has been left behind and that there are investments that should be made on the social policy side that aren't being made. The Nunavut Inuit lawsuit, which we talked about earlier, speaks precisely to that point. Justice Berger completed a fine report in 2006, as conciliator, that said that the only way forward in the Nunavut project was to heighten investments in education and training and that there is a connection between language retention and education. NTI made that lawsuit. ITK supports that lawsuit, and we hope there will be a negotiated outcome.

Radar satellites fit into, perhaps, an alternative way of looking at the Northwest Passage, which came up earlier. The possibility of some kind of joint Inuit–Government of Canada passage authority would be a novel but interesting idea worth exploring. We have a St. Lawrence Seaway Authority on a bilateral basis with the United States. The partnership with the Inuit is surely as important in the Arctic as our relationship with the United States is on our southern border.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you, Mr. Merritt.