Mr. Bachand.
Evidence of meeting #37 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was inuit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #37 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was inuit.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Chair, I would like to welcome our Inuit friends. Having been close to this matter for several years, I feel that I have been a kind of witness to the First Nations' and Inuit's uprising. I have to say that governments, especially the Canadian government, are quick to sign agreements and then equally quick to go back on them.
Personally, I was having this kind of conversation with my colleagues at a time when First Nations were forced to go to court to get justice. Now, Federal Court or Supreme Court of Canada decisions run about 50% in favour of aboriginal peoples and Inuit. Yet, despite that, it is still difficult to have decisions implemented because the government does not implement them. So the situation is quite disgusting.
Mr. Amagoalik, I have read part of your book Changing the Face of Canada. You were only five years old when you were deported. I have to use that term. When you live in Nunavik, in Inukjuak to be precise, and you are moved 1,500, maybe 2,000 kilometres to the north, to Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord, I have no other word but “deportation”. A whole chapter of the Erasmus-Dussault Commission report dealt with that injustice. I agree with you that apologies are needed from both Conservative and Liberal governments, yet you are still waiting. The event took place in 1953, so there has been plenty of time to examine the issue and move forward.
But why do you think the deportation took place, Mr. Amagoalik? I want to assure you that Bloc Québécois MPs feel that the matter of Arctic sovereignty needs Inuit. Nothing can be solved in the Arctic with frigates, destroyers, satellites and the army. We feel that the solution lies in friendly and appropriate agreements with Inuit.
You were five at the time. Could you explain to us what your perception of that event is today? Why did Canada do it? Is it just us a question of sovereignty? I agree with you: you really need an apology from the Prime Minister.
9:40 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
As to commitments that have not been fulfilled, I think Canada's history is full of examples. Ever since Canada became a nation, the government has signed treaties, signed agreements, and made commitments to the aboriginal people. There's a long history of broken promises and commitments not kept. Unfortunately, this is a continuation of that. We hope eventually that it will end.
As for the relocation, the Government of Canada recognized a long time ago that one of the main reasons for it was to assert Canadian sovereignty in that part of the country. We were chosen because we were 2,000 kilometres away, and we couldn't just pick up our belongings, get on the dog team, and go home. We couldn't do that. The two communities of Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord occupy a strategic position along the Northwest Passage, and I think that's why we were put in these locations.
The Government of Canada made attempts to relocate some Inuit from the communities of Pond Inlet and Arctic Bay, close by to the Northwest Passage. If they didn't like what was happening, they could just get on the komatik and go home. We couldn't do that because it was 2,000 kilometres to home. The Government of Canada has now admitted that sovereignty was an important part of the relocation project.
9:40 a.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Correct me if I am wrong, but your way of life in Nunavik was far different from the new way of life that you had to get used to in Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. Further south, you had different food and your culture was different; two thousand kilometres further north, the land was almost barren.
Was there loss of life to any extent? People were just left on the ice. Were there a lot of people who did not survive the deportation?
9:40 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
The two oldest people did not survive the first two winters. In Grise Fiord, Dera Elter, the community leader, did not last one year. In the community of Resolute Bay, our matriarch died soon after the move had been made. The graves of those people are there.
A number of people did not survive the first couple of years, because those years were extremely difficult. At the time, climate change had not taken place and the High Arctic was extremely cold. I remember landing in Resolute for the first time in late August and it was just like landing on the moon. There was no vegetation as far as the eye could see, just sand and gravel.
In those days, it was different from what it is now. It was a whole different world. Canada was different. The whole world was different. There was a different attitude then. I don't see this sort of thing happening today, because the people of Canada would not stand for it.
9:40 a.m.
Acting President, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to add to what John Amagoalik said.
We have two next-door neighbours who are looked after by the federal government. That's Alert and Eureka. Their treatment is really good because their employer is the federal government. Anything they run out of--food or whatever they need--they get transported up there to help them out. The treatment is different. When we talk about Resolute people, Inuit people, the treatment is different. That's why we've been asking the federal government to recognize the Inuit people. For our two next-door neighbours, Eureka and Alert, the treatment is really good. They have employment and they make good money. All the food and expenses are paid, the transportation is paid, and if they have a family down south they get paid.
So the treatment is different. Depending on where the federal government has located the Inuit people, the treatment is different. That's what we are complaining about.
Our people, our parents, the ones I mentioned earlier, are buried and frozen in the ground. We're not going to leave them alone. We're going to live up there. Right now our families live up there. There are more people who were born up there. It's their hometown now. We've been asking the federal government to recognize the people up there.
They talk about Lancaster Sound and the Northwest Passage. They talk about animals. They want to protect them really good, just like a soft pillow. But they never mention anything about us, the Inuit people. They relocate us.
Like I said earlier, we don't even know what we're doing up there, what we're protecting up there. It's a big island, half of Nunavut, when you look at the map. It's really important to us, to our people, that Inuit people live there.
Let's negotiate something better. That's what we're asking for.
9:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Eckalook.
I will now give the floor to Mr. Harris.
9:45 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Thank you, all of you, for coming. I want to join in welcoming you to our committee.
The topic is very moving and emotional. I can understand the importance of it, and not only from what you've told us today.
I was present in Nain, Labrador, in 2005, at the signing of the Inuit Land Claims Agreement, the formal signing, and the creation of Nunatsiavut. At the time, there was also an apology ceremony. Premier Williams apologized, on behalf of the people of Newfoundland and Labrador, for the forceable move south of two Inuit communities to a place where they did not wish to be.
I can tell everybody here that it was an extremely moving apology, and it was very, very clear from the reaction of the people involved how important it was to them and what a striking reaction--an emotional, physical reaction--resulted from that.
So I understand that, and I support your request for an apology.
I also want to say, and I said this before when Mary Simon was here, that I find it quite distressing and disturbing, as a member of Parliament and as a Canadian, to see the apparent, total bad faith in which the land claims agreement is being implemented. I discussed it with one of the witnesses after one of the recent appearances. She described the government as treating the land claims agreement as a divorce where you take the money and go, when it really should be a marriage where you become partners on the basis of an agreement on how you go forward.
I think it's a good way of putting it. It seems to me to be great bad faith. That, obviously, is something I'm concerned about.
I know how important the role of the Inuit at Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord has been to the declaration of sovereignty, but I was interested, Mr. Amagoalik, in your comment that the second and third generations that are still up in the High Arctic wish to continue to play the role of guardians of the north.
Are you saying that they wish to stay where they are and are willing and want to continue to play the role of guardians of the north? Could you elaborate a little bit on that?
And if you want to comment on the other issue, about a marriage versus a divorce, please feel free to do so.
9:50 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
We consider the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement to be a living document. Too many times treaties are signed, they're put in a file in a filing cabinet, and they're forgotten about. We feel that the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement has to be a living agreement. It has to be implemented properly. We want to see our agreement treated as a living document.
What was the second part of your question?
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe you said that the second and third generations up in the High Arctic are satisfied to continue to act as guardians of the north. Could you elaborate on that?
9:50 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
The explanation is that the second and third generations of people who were relocated there were born up there. They don't know any other place. To them, this is home, as George has said many times now. They have no other place to go, because they were born up there, and it's the only thing they know.
I think that the attitude of people living in those two communities is very positive. They feel that they contribute to the sovereignty of this country, and they're proud of that. We consider ourselves guardians of the High Arctic because our ancestors are buried there, and our descendants are continuing to live in those communities and are helping the country assert its sovereignty in the Northwest Passage.
To answer your question, I think the people living in those communities are prepared to live up there for the rest of their lives, and they feel that their contribution is important.
9:50 a.m.
NDP
Jack Harris NDP St. John's East, NL
The follow-up question for me, of course, is what do they hope to have in the response from Canada in return? I think we probably have that answer in your presentation in terms of becoming partners with the Inuit in asserting the sovereignty of the Arctic and working on the recommendations that were presented by Mary Simon.
Am I right about that?
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I would like to thank the representatives for being here this morning and for your very helpful presentations.
I wanted to start with a question pertaining to geography, if I could. Could you either explain or point out on the map where the Qikqitani region is?
9:50 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
As I said, there are three regions in Nunavut. The western part covers this area. That's the Kitikmeot Inuit Association region.
The Kivalliq region is down here in this region.
The region that we represent includes Sanikiluaq, way down at Hudson Bay. It includes the community on those islands all the way to James Bay. It also includes all the islands north of the mainland, so it represents approximately 50% to 51% of the land mass of Nunavut.
9:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
About 51%, okay.
Thank you very much, Mr. Amagoalik.
Secondly, moving on to the issue of the apology that you spoke about earlier and with respect to the compensation package in the 1990s that you negotiated and finalized, were you seeking the apology as part of those discussions at the time, and if so, what response did you receive?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
The apology has always been part of our position. When we approached the Government of Canada to negotiate this compensation package, it included an apology. As I said, we worked out the compensation side of the agreement but the apology was just left hanging. No further discussions took place.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Finally, on the importance of education for the Inuit people and increasing access through education and outcomes for education, do you know roughly what percentage of the Inuit population has a post-secondary education?
9:55 a.m.
Executive Policy Advisor, Qikiqtani Inuit Association
If I remember my statistics correctly, I think the last figure that we saw and we heard on the news was that approximately 32% of Inuit students make it through high school. As to post-secondary education, that percentage is even smaller. I think it's down to the mid-teens.
Post-secondary education achievements are low and high school graduation rates are still low, although they're improving a little bit each year.
9:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Braid Conservative Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Moving further then, do you have any specific recommendations or can you subsequently provide any to the committee on how to increase those outcomes, both for high school education and then for post-secondary education as well?