National Defence Committee on Nov. 3rd, 2009

[John Amagoalik]

First of all, I don't see how opening up the passage for commercial use could deal with the high cost of living.

The very first concern of Inuit living in that region is to make sure the passage is environmentally protected, because Lancaster Sound is recognized by the international community as a very important ecosystem. UNESCO has been pushing for that sound to be recognized as a heritage site for 20 or 25 years now. Our first priority is to make sure the wildlife and the environment are protected before any agreement is made about a commercial passage.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Whether we like it or not, there is an indication that there is passage of nuclear submarines in that area. Given the priority of ensuring the environment is protected, would your community feel it would be necessary to have a port that was able to handle an accident or an emergency involving a nuclear-powered vehicle?

[John Amagoalik]

Regarding the use of nuclear submarines, battleships, we don't want to militarize the Arctic. We don't want the Arctic to become a contest between powerful countries like Russia and the United States.

As I said, we want recognition of the passage as internal waters so that it will be up to Canadians to decide what happens there. The position of the United States as of now is that the Northwest Passage is international waters. That is not acceptable to us.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I give the floor to Mr. Paillé.

[Pascal-Pierre Paillé, Bloc, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Thank you.

Let me wait for the translation. Can you hear me? Thank you for being here.

Your testimony thus far has been very interesting. We have been examining the matter of the Northwest Passage for some weeks now. I am particularly moved by your testimony and it has given me much better information about your reality.

I just have one question and then I will share my time with my colleague.

Do you see the Northwest Passage, or all the development that is currently going on in the Arctic, as an opportunity to establish new relationships with the government, to put some things right, perhaps to demand investment? Or do you see it as just another challenge that you have to be afraid of? I would like to know if it is something that concerns you or something that you embrace.

[John Amagoalik]

The kind of relationship we will have with the Government of Canada is described by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. That's number one. As far as opening up the area for economic development, oil and gas, mining, and that sort of thing, if it's going to help our communities then we're willing to negotiate.

As we have indicated, we are the designated organization in this part of Nunavut. If a mining company wants to open up a mine, they talk to us. If an oil company wants to carry out a project for oil and gas in the High Arctic, they come to see us. The first thing that has to happen is that the people have to talk to us. If we're satisfied with the benefits we're going to receive from projects, we're perfectly willing to talk to people.

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

May I continue, Mr. Chair? I have two questions.

The first is for Mr. Merritt. Mr. Merritt, Mary Simon, the president of your organization, has provided testimony to this committee. She had six recommendations and I am wondering if your organization, the ITK, might want to add a seventh. As you know, the government's Northern Strategy applies to the Inuvialuit and to Nunavut, but not to Nunavik or Nunatsiavut.

Would your organization be prepared to make a seventh recommendation to the government, to include all Inuit in one territory? From time immemorial, for as long as you have lived on the land, there have been no borders. Yet, today, the white man is putting borders everywhere. Is it not just as important for your friends in Nunavik or Nunatsiavut to be included in the Northern Strategy?

The second question goes to Mr. Eckalook. I am worried about the housing issue. I have often visited the Arctic and I have seen houses with four generations of Inuit living in them, up to 20 people under one roof. I am a little worried about the spread the H1N1 flu virus. You will be taking the plane home, and one of you, possibly infected with the virus, will find yourself in a house with 20 people. You run the risk of infecting everybody.

Can you tell me if any arrangements have been made to provide vaccination against the H1N1 virus?

Also, do you agree with me that those homes are not designed to house 20 people? Do you not feel that the federal government should provide more help to ensure decent living conditions and to make sure that four generations do not have to live under the same roof?

Perhaps we could start with Mr. Merritt.

[John Merritt]

Thank you for that question.

ITK has said before this committee, and publicly in other places, that it believes the federal government's current northern strategy should be a genuine Arctic strategy that includes all four Inuit regions, including Nunatsiavut in northern Labrador and Nunavik. I think ITK has also made the point that it's very important that an Arctic strategy have a great marine emphasis, as well as reference to land areas within the territories. In addition to all four Inuit regions being included, it's important that the strategy pay proper attention to marine issues. A lot of the difficult issues in relation to sovereignty and environmental protection are marine issues, and it's appropriate to have that focus.

The other point ITK has made is that an Arctic strategy that will be durable should be written in active partnership with Inuit, and not just by federal officials.

On where other Inuit organizations stand on that, Nunavut Tunngavik is a member of ITK, so I believe they endorse that position. QIA is a region within Nunavut, so you're going down the ladder in the structuring of Inuit organizations, but I'm not aware that QIA would have any difficulty with that.

I believe you're going to be hearing further from Makivik Corporation, and I'm sure they will make the same point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I don't know if you want to add something. You still have 30 minutes ... 30 seconds.

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

It is important for us to talk about the H1N1 flu virus.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Do you want to answer that concerning H1N1?

[John Amagoalik]

Overcrowded housing, as you have described it, is a condition in some of our communities, and 18 or 20 people are living in three-bedroom houses. Of course that's not acceptable. It creates tension among families. It poses a health hazard to the people living there.

As far as H1N1 is concerned, when it first started last spring it spread very quickly through the territory of Nunavut. This time around it doesn't seem to be as serious, and the Department of Health is looking after vaccinations very satisfactorily. As a matter of fact, I got my vaccination just before I came here. That is going well.

But it is important to remember that overcrowded housing creates health problems in our communities. So when it comes to serious issues like the swine flu, it makes it even more difficult when three or four generations have to live in the same house.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Storseth, you have the floor for five minutes.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to thank the witnesses for coming and giving very compelling witness testimony today. I've done a lot of work with my own first nations communities and sat on the aboriginal affairs committee. I understand the importance of respect in your culture. I'm glad to hear you say that consultation has increased somewhat, or your perception of consultation has increased somewhat over the last several years. It's a very important factor in relationship-building between your community and the government.

I come from a community in northern Alberta where we have a couple of military bases. We see the military not only as tanks, guns, and airplanes, but quite frankly as a mechanism for building infrastructure in our communities. The military seldom comes to a community without adding benefits, whether it's economic development and jobs or infrastructure. For instance, the military just spent $135 million in our community helping to upgrade water, sewer, and infrastructure programs.

Do you see a potential benefit when we talk about the military? It's kind of the chicken and the egg. It's not always just about equipment; sometimes it's about increasing resources and infrastructure. Do you agree with that?

[John Amagoalik]

Historically the relationship between the military and the Inuit has been almost non-existent. During and after the Second World War, the military had a big presence in the Arctic. It had a big presence in those early days. That also included the American military, in places like Resolute Bay. There was almost no relationship between the military and the Inuit, but they sure did leave a lot of garbage, especially at the DEW line sites. They left a lot of toxic garbage around. It has taken years and years and millions of dollars to clean up those sites. We inherited that from the military presence in the Arctic in the early years.

Today the relationship is much better. The military is recognizing that they need the Inuit to do a proper job of patrolling the Arctic and asserting sovereignty. They're working with the Rangers much more closely, and they're consulting with the organizations when they want to carry out major exercises, like the one on southern Baffin Island this past summer. If they're going to build training centres, they have to have discussions with us. We see this as an opportunity to improve things like infrastructure and to make sure the military is working closely with our people, with the Rangers, and that they're not leaving their garbage like they used to.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Absolutely.

I know in our area the exposure to the north and your culture has really increased, especially with national television, with our Prime Minister bringing his cabinet up there as often as he has. I don't think any Prime Minister has ever been to the north as often as Prime Minister Harper has.

Can you talk a bit about the sense of pride your community has in hosting the Prime Minister and his cabinet? Not only does he go there, but the national media then follows to give more exposure to your beautiful community.

[John Amagoalik]

We certainly recognize that the present Prime Minister has gone north more than any other prime minister in the past. We were disappointed with the first two or three times he was up there. He never met with Inuit leaders. He never mentioned the Inuit in his speeches. We were curious as to why that was happening.

Then he came out with this line of “use it or lose it”. That to us was very painful. It was a hurtful thing. It was insulting. We do use and occupy the Arctic every day, and we have been doing that for thousands of years. We feel that the Government of Canada has to stop using that line. It doesn't work.

We're happy that the Government of Canada has made the Arctic a priority, and we look forward to working with them. It seems that climate change has put the attention of the whole world on the Arctic. I think that's part of the reason Canadians are much more aware that they have the Arctic. It's going to become very important in the future.

We welcome the priority that the Government of Canada has put on the Arctic, but we want the Government of Canada to recognize that the Inuit are the lynchpin of anything that happens up there.

[Brian Storseth, Conservative, Westlock—St. Paul, AB]

Absolutely

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

Thank you very much.

I want to thank all the witnesses for their presentations.

Thank you for being here this morning. I am sure that all of the members appreciated your presentation. It will be useful for our future work.

Thank you very much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]