Introduction

From coast to coast to coast, Canadian communities struggle with a significant infrastructure deficit, the extent of which has been estimated at anywhere from $50 billion to $570 billion.[1] This infrastructure deficit is most severe in northern, remote and Indigenous communities.[2] Not only does it create significant challenges to socio-economic development, it also contributes to “a cycle of underdevelopment in the north” by being “itself a barrier to building new infrastructure.”[3]

Aware of this situation, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs (the Committee) decided on 24 September 2018 to undertake a study of critical infrastructure projects and regional strategies in the northern regions of Canada.[4] The Committee is particularly interested in roads, rail, bridges, airports, ports, energy infrastructure, housing, telecommunications and other components of broader regional infrastructure strategies. “Northern regions” was understood to include those covered by the Government of Canada’s upcoming Arctic Policy Framework: Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Inuit Nunangat,[5] Nunatsiavut, Nunavik and Northern Manitoba. In this report, the terms “North” and “Arctic” are used interchangeably to refer to these northern regions.

During its study, the Committee held a total of eight public hearings and heard from 51 witnesses, including representatives from northern communities, Indigenous organizations, public utilities and private corporations operating in the North. The Committee also received six written briefs. The Committee sincerely thanks all the individuals and groups who took part in this study, shared their knowledge and proposed concrete solutions to the challenges facing infrastructure development and maintenance in the North.

It should be noted, however, that this short study could not provide a comprehensive picture of such a complex issue. The Committee recognizes that this report only touches the tip of the iceberg; a lot of work remains to be done.

Background

Unique Characteristics of the Arctic

The Arctic is unique and so are the challenges and opportunities faced by the regions and its residents. Environmental factors such as harsh climate conditions and difficult terrain result in a short building and shipping season, and contribute to the challenges in developing and maintaining infrastructure in the North. Specifically, permafrost, snow and ice significantly influence the design of northern infrastructure.

Furthermore, Arctic communities are relatively remote and isolated, both from the South and from each other. Government officials noted that “[t]here are about 200,000 residents across what we call the Arctic.”[6] Thus, despite covering almost half of Canada’s total landmass, the Arctic represents less than 1% of the country’s total population.[7] Figure 1 below illustrates where Arctic communities are located. It also shows the location of major all-season and winter roads, railroads, marine infrastructure and selected airports.

Figure 1—Transportation Infrastructure in the Arctic and Geographical Demarcation of the Arctic Policy Framework

Source:  Map prepared by Library of Parliament, Ottawa, 2019, using data from Natural Resources Canada (NRCan), Administrative boundaries in Canada—CanVec Series, “Administrative features”, 1:5M, Ottawa, NRCan, 2018; Lakes, rivers and glaciers in Canada—CanVec Series, “Hydrographic features”, 1:5M, Ottawa, NRCan, 2018; Transport networks in Canada—Canvec Series, “Transport features”, 1:15M, Ottawa, NRCan, 2018; Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC), Inuit Regions (Inuit Nunangat), Gatineau, 2017; INAC, Inuit Communities Location, Gatineau, 2016; INAC, First Nations Location, Gatineau, 2016; and Natural Earth, Physical Vectors, Physical Labels, “Marine Areas”, 1:50m, version 4.1.0. The following software was used: Esri, ArcGIS Pro, version 2.1.1. Contains information licensed under Open Government Licence—Canada.

Note 1:  Most communities have their own airport or airstrip. This map only shows the airports identified by Transport Canada in its most recent Transportation in Canada report (see Map 4 in Annex A).

The remoteness and size of northern communities, as well as the effect of climate change on built infrastructure and the environment, also act as barriers to infrastructure development and maintenance in the North.[8] Since Arctic communities tend to be small and widely dispersed, they are less easily accessible, further increasing shipping and construction costs. In turn, these factors contribute to the high cost of doing business in the North and constitute a logistical challenge.

As such, the lack of infrastructure is itself “a bottleneck to development”[9] that stifles the North’s potential. It should be noted that the issue is not simply about the cost to businesses. This situation also leads to a higher cost of living. In particular, the lack of transportation infrastructure can hinder service delivery in northern communities. Elder George Kemp of the Berens River First Nation noted that:

Every time we've seen development of all-weather roads and so forth, it's always about extracting the resources. What about us as people? We're there. Look at us. There are 20,000 people in one concentrated area [in northern Manitoba] who are suffering.[10]

Another unique characteristic of the Arctic is that a large proportion of its population identifies as First Nation, Inuit or Métis. This is most notable in Nunavut, Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, where 85%, 89% and 90% of the population identify as Inuit. This population is younger and growing at a faster rate than the rest of the country, putting an increasing burden on existing infrastructure. It also emphasizes the need for community infrastructure as well as for infrastructure allowing the delivery of health care, education and other social services.

Attracting and retaining a skilled workforce in the Arctic is another challenge to building and maintaining infrastructure. Training opportunities are not always readily available in the region. Additionaly, the Committee heard that infrastructure projects are often not long enough for people to complete apprenticehips, making it even harder to build up a skilled workforce at the local level.[11] Federal officials explained that northerners are trying to find solutions to the “shortage of… expertise to support maintenance on a long-term basis.”[12] In the meantime, workers often have to be brought in from other parts of Canada to complete projects.[13]

Emerging Challenges

Throughout its study, the Committee heard of the importance of addressing the infrastructure deficit in a timely manner. Due to the threat of climate change, there is a sense of urgency to take real action to address this issue. Permafrost, which underlies most of the ground in and around the Arctic, is currently thawing. Similarly, the winter roads on which northerners rely are becoming gradually less reliable: “[c]limate change is definitely reducing the effectiveness and the length of ice roads.”[14] Thus, even though they do not significantly contribute to climate change themselves, northern communities are more vulnerable to its adverse impacts. According to Annette Bergeron, President of Engineers Canada, “northern, remote and indigenous communities are far from prepared to adequately withstand climate-related risks, thus further widening the infrastructure gap in these communities.”[15]

The Committee also heard that the mining sector, and its local and Indigenous partners, cannot exploit the region’s full potential due to the lack of transportation, energy and telecommunications infrastructure. Another significant issue that was raised is that of Arctic sovereignty. Developing and maintaining infrastructure in northern areas of Canada is one way of ensuring the country’s claims in the Arctic. The Committee believes that these issues, discussed in greater detail below, make this study particularly timely.

Current State of Infrastructure

The Committee looked at various types of infrastructure, from transportation and energy to telecommunications and housing. The following sections summarize what the Committee heard on the current state of northern infrastructure, as well as testimony related to challenges to its development and maintenance.

Transportation Infrastructure

Safe and sustainable transportation infrastructure is vital to connecting northern communities, supplying food, fuel and other goods, delivering health care services, supporting tourism and travel, and ensuring a rapid response in the event of an emergency. As such, it has been described as “a lifeline for northern communities and an essential enabler for economic development.”[16]

However, several factors, such as the Arctic’s harsh environment and climate, as well as the relative remoteness and smaller size of the widely dispersed northern communities, complicates the development and maintenance of this type of infrastructure in the North: “[a]s a result, basic infrastructure is limited in the region, making it difficult, time-consuming and expensive to move passengers and goods in and out of northern communities.”[17]

In the Arctic, most communities depend on multiple modes of transportation for goods and people, meaning that ground, marine and air transportation systems must complement one another. Furthermore, according to the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, “[r]esearch indicates that greater benefits accrue to communities that are strategically positioned with respect to multimode transport systems that integrate” these three modes of transportation.[18] Yet, the committee heard that northern trade and transportation infrastructure “suffer from dis-integrated plans,”[19] possibly resulting in lost efficiencies.

In response, the Yukon Chamber of Commerce recommended developing and implementing “a pan-territorial transportation strategy with a territorial corridors coordinating agency.”[20] On this point, the Committee heard that the Department of Transport is currently developing a “multimodal Arctic transportation policy framework”[21] and hopes that this initiative will help address some of the issues raised by the witnesses.

Marine Transportation

Seaways serve as regional highways in the Arctic.[22] Because of the lack of ground transportation infrastructure, many communities depend on sealifts to supply essential goods and construction materials. Marine transport is also one of the most effective modes of transportation for Arctic coastal communities.

Yet, the Arctic has less marine infrastructure than other parts of Canada and northerners “continue to have a substandard marine service.”[23] The Committee heard that developing new and enhancing existing marine infrastructure is required. As the shipping season extends due to climate change, more ship traffic is expected. According to the Honourable Johannes Lampe, President of the Nunatsiavut Government,

The number of ships sailing along the north Labrador coast is on the rise and will continue to increase as northern shipping routes are developed and expanded. That is why it is extremely important that we promote the development and enhancement of marine infrastructure in our communities. At the same time, we have to ensure that proper mechanisms, rules and technologies are put in place to reduce the chances of marine disasters. A disaster at sea along the Nunatsiavut coast would be devastating.[24]

Consequently, there is also an increased demand for the Canadian Coast Guard’s presence in the Arctic, something the agency recognized.[25] Among other things, the Coast Guard works to ensure safe navigation in Canadian waters, notably through icebreaking and ice‑management activities.[26] On the Arctic’s marine highways, the Coast Guard’s icebreakers act as “the snowplows of the North.”[27] Although sea ice coverage is reducing because of climate change, some risks remain (and others arise) as “harder, more dangerous multi-year ice [now] travels down into the southern Arctic waters.”[28]

This changing marine environment makes proper port facilities a necessity for communities. Currently, the only deep-sea port in the Canadian Arctic is in Churchill. Murad Al-Katib, representing the Arctic Gateway Group, a consortium which recently acquired the Hudson Bay Railway in Northern Manitoba, stated that Churchill and its port, being connected to the railway system, have the potential of becoming a true gateway to the Arctic.[29] He also noted that climate change, melting sea ice, “makes icebreaker-assisted year-round shipping commercially feasible.”[30]

While another deep-sea port is currently being built in Iqaluit, it will not be in operation all-season and, according to Madeleine Redfern, Mayor of Iqaluit, it will be too small to fully capitalize on future opportunities.[31] There are currently no deep-water ports in the Western Canadian Arctic. Yet, the Committee heard that “[a] functioning deep-water port is a key to supporting a variety of industries including natural resources and tourism.”[32] Witnesses suggested Grays Bay (Nunavut), Tuktoyaktuk (Northwest Territories) and King Point (Yukon) as potential locations for a future deep-sea port in the Western Arctic.[33] The Honourable Jackie Jacobson, Councillor in Tuktoyaktuk, stated that the local government is currently looking to secure foreign and private support to make its port a deep-water facility.[34]

Ground Transportation

Unlike in Southern Canada, roads are not as developed or frequented in the Arctic. They are nonetheless important for remote and isolated communities. For instance, Elder George Kemp explained the significant positive impact of the new road that was built in Northern Manitoba, connecting the Berens River First Nation to the highway system. He stated that the road reduced isolation and improved the community’s access to the resources needed to upgrade, rebuild and build infrastructure.[35] Nonetheless, the number of all-season roads in the North remains limited. As such, northerners rely heavily on winter roads in terms of ground transportation.

Similarly, Mr. Al-Katib stressed the importance of stable rail infrastructure for economic development.[36] With the exception of the rail lines that travel to Hay River (Northwest Territories) and to Churchill (Manitoba), there is currently very little railway infrastructure in the Arctic.

The Committee heard from other witnesses that the lack of ground transportation infrastructure affects sectors including natural resources and telecommunications by significantly increasing their operating expenditures. For instance, one witness explained that “[t]he lack of roads leaves mineral resources, like cobalt, gold, lithium, bismuth and rare earth elements necessary to fuel the global green economy, mostly inaccessible.”[37]

Moreover, the Committee heard how the new all-season road in the MacKenzie Valley opened up Tuktoyaktuk to new opportunities. The federal government alone invested $199 million in this project, a high cost that reflects the realities of the Arctic. According to Merven Gruben, Mayor of Tuktoyaktuk, Merven Gruben, this new “Highway to Tuk” contributed to increasing the number of tourists in the Hamlet more than two-fold.[38] The Hon. Jackie Jacobson, however, noted that “[t]here's no funding for a restaurant to buy coffee and no hotels in Tuk.” Despite the possibilities in tourism that a new road affords, the Hamlet still lacks the infrastructure to accomodate tourists.[39]

Mayor Gruben also explained that, with the support of other levels of government, Tuktoyaktuk could futher develop its harbour and storage facilities: “you can truck anything from the south to Tuk all winter, stockpile all the material you need there… [I]f we haul in the stuff all winter on the roads, then we can ship out a lot earlier to the communities.”[40] Taking advantage of the new all-season road, the Hamlet could effectively become an important hub in the region. This testimony is similar to what Michael Spence, Mayor of Churchill, also told the Committee. According to Mayor Spence, Churchill and its “infrastructure can continue to serve a regional purpose and contribute to a more prosperous Arctic.”[41] Strategically located infrastructure could help remediate the lack of roads and rails in the Arctic.

Conversely, the Yukon Conservation Society noted the potentially adverse impact of the built environment, specifically ground transportation infrastructure, on wildlife and biodiversity: “each land use that interrupts the usual free roaming of species, and access by community members for food and medicines, destabilizes relationships that have been interdependent forever.”[42] For this reason, the Yukon Conservation Society recommended treating biodiversity loss and infrastructure development as one issue.

Air Transportation

Given the lack of ground transportation infrastructure, most Arctic communities are only accessible by air. As such, air transportation is still “the principal means to bring in supplies and people”[43] and often the only year-round mode of transportation. However, the availability and state of northern runways is a significant challenge for air transportation and “[n]orthern operators must find solutions to operational problems that simply do not exist in southern Canada.”[44] The Committee learned that these challenges include runway and navigational limitations.[45] For example, many airstrips in the Arctic are too short to accommodate some aircraft, and extreme weather and extended periods of darkness increase challenges and risks.[46] Another issue is the fact that, of the 117 airports located north of the 60^th parallel, “[o]nly 10 are paved, and out of those 10, only five are well paved. The other five need to be repaved.”[47]

With so many remote and isolated communities only accessible by air, or with limited ground and marine access, developing and maintaining safe and efficient civil aviation infrastructure is essential. Given the importance of civil aviation infrastructure, the Committee agrees that additional efforts are required to improve aviation weather information, airport infrastructure and runway approach aids.

Energy Infrastructure

The infrastructure deficit in the North also affects the energy sector. The Committee heard of a situation of ongoing “energy inequality” in the Arctic, “where the cost of electricity in many communities is estimated to be over ten times higher than the Canadian average.”[48] Gaps in energy infrastructure have significant impacts on the lives of northerners.

A particular challenge is that many communities rely almost exclusively on high-cost diesel fuel to generate power. According to officials of the Department of Natural Resources, “there are about 200 communities in Canada that are not connected to the North American electricity grid and are entirely dependent on diesel fuel for electricity.”[49] These officials noted that the federal government is currently supporting northern communities in reducing their reliance on diesel fuel, for instance through a new program of the Department of Natural Resources, the Clean Energy for Rural and Remote Communities Program. However, with its $220-million envelope over six years, this program is already oversubscribed.[50]

Reducing the dependency on diesel fuel is more than a financial challenge: it is also a technical one. According to Bruno Pereira, President and CEO of the Qulliq Energy Corporation in Nunavut, alternatives such as solar and wind provide only intermittent power, meaning that communities will continue to require diesel as a backup.[51] The Yukon Conservation Society similarly noted the limitations of wind and solar energy: “they are intermittent and thus energy storage in some form is required for these resources to be comparable to hydro and fully replace fossil fuels.”[52]

As mentioned above, electricity rates are significantly higher in the North than elsewhere in the country: “the reality is that [northern communities] have among the highest power rates in the country.”[53] According to Jay Grewal, President and CEO of the Northwest Territories Power Corporation, “[w]e are at the point where, for some of our customers, they have to choose between buying groceries to feed their family or paying their utility bill to ensure they continue to have power.”[54]

The Committee heard that, in the Northwest Territories, the territorial government is prioritizing the Taltson Hydroelectricity Expansion Project[55] as a way of providing cleaner, more reliable and cheaper energy to communities and industries.[56] The Honourable Wally Schuman, Minister of Infrastructure for the territory, explained that “[t]he Taltson River currently has 18 megawatts of installed hydro power, but has 200 megawatts of potential that could be harnessed under the phased-in approach. All phases will rely on run-of-the-river technology without the need for new flooding.”[57] Similarly, Ms. Grewal said of the project that it “can and must proceed,” noting that “it will also lay the foundation for greening current and future mining developments.”[58]

Telecommunications Infrastructure

In 2016, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) declared that internet access should be viewed as a basic service across the country. The CRTC anticipates that, by 2021, 90% of all Canadians will have access to fixed broadband services—with speeds of 50 Mbps and 10 Mbps for download and upload respectively.[59] Yet, the Committee heard that, “for the most part, very important parts of this country are underconnected, underserved, and in some case unserved.”[60] The situation varies greatly between communities and “improving connectivity in Canada’s remote north will require collaborative solutions that encompass the complexity of the region.”[61]

The Committee heard that progress is being made and that innovative solutions are being implemented by the private sector, with the support of the federal and territorial governments. For instance, since 2018, SSi Micro Ltd. has been delivering mobile voice and data services to all communities in Nunavut, a first for many of them.[62] Similarly, Northwestel Inc. expects to be able to deliver 15 Mbps broadband and smartphone capabilities to Nunavummiut by the end of 2019.[63] Another positive example of private-public collaboration is Northern Lights’ Mackenzie Valley Fibre Link Project, a 1,200-km fibre link between McGill Lake to the south and Inuvik to the north. Recently completed, it “brought higher speed Internet at lower prices to the Valley, and facilitates improved government programs, services and economic development opportunities.”[64]

These examples are promising. Nevertheless, significant barriers remain. According to Dean Proctor, Chief Development Officer at SSi Micro Ltd.,

The challenge is not technology, logistics or money. What is needed is a holistic approach to a problem that is multi-faceted. We need to harness ideas, technology and local capacity to do things better. This will lead to a digital emancipation, where all Canadians in all regions of the country can fully participate in our digital democracy.[65]

Witnesses stressed the importance of reliable telecommunications infrastructure in the North. The internet is vital in connecting Arctic communities to the rest of the world and in opening the region to opportunities that are otherwise unavailable in remote and isolated communities. For instance, witnesses mentioned that proper telecommunications infrastructure makes distance education and telehealth tools more easily accessible.[66] The Committee agrees that “Northerners deserve fast, reliable, cost-comparative telecommunications.”[67]

Housing and Community Infrastructure

Housing and community infrastructure is another core infrastructure need. Witnesses who spoke about housing in northern communities described it as a crisis: there are insufficient housing units in the North and existing houses are unaffordable, unsafe and overcrowded.[68] As of 2016, in Inuit Nunangat, 31.5% of Inuit lived in dwellings in need of major repairs and 51.7% living in crowded conditions.[69] This situation is a severe impediment to socio-economic development in the North because “long-term economic growth also relies on community infrastructure that supports a diversified economy and good quality of life for community members.”[70] The physical environment, including housing conditions, is also an important determinant of health.[71] As such, inadequate and overcrowded housing can contribute to the spread of diseases, and have an overall negative effect on health and well-being.

The Inuvialuit Regional Corporation described recent investments[72] in affordable housing in the Arctic as “groundbreaking.”[73] However, they stated that “the pace of funding decisions and the nature of the funding vehicle” could still be improved, from year-to-year to multi-year grants.[74] Concerning the situation in Labrador, First Minister Kate Mitchell stated that the Nunatsiavut Government has been “moving along” and it has “start[ed] to make a significant difference in [its] communities” in terms of housing.[75] The Committee, recognizing the urgent need to address the housing crisis in the Arctic, encourages the government to build on these initiatives.

Emerging Issues Related to Northern Infrastructure

During its study, the Committee heard about emerging or evolving issues related to northern infrastructure. The following sections summarize what the Committee heard regarding natural resources development, climate change and Arctic sovereignty.

Climate Change in the Arctic

A recurring theme throughout the study was the impact of climate change on northern infrastructure. As temperatures rise, the permafrost that underlies most of the ground in and around the Arctic[76] is thawing, “directly impacting the integrity of building foundations, roads, runways, pipelines and coastal infrastructure.”[77] According to witnesses, climate change is affecting marine infrastructure and navigation,[78] as well as air transportation.[79] The impacts will indeed be widespread due to the fact that:

[T]he integrity of many northern ecosystems and built infrastructure is dependent on the stability of the permafrost; permafrost is undergoing rapid change, which could threaten the structural stability and functional capability of existing infrastructure; changing coastlines and the loss of sea ice further increase the risk of flooding from rising sea levels and storm surges in some areas.[80]

As noted by officials of the Department of the Environment, “the process driving the enhanced warming that we're seeing in the Arctic is not because of activities that are occurring in the Arctic.”[81] Yet, the region will “experience warming two to three times higher than the global average.”[82] Given its disproportionate effects in the Arctic, there is a pressing need to take concrete action to address climate change. This includes, but is not limited to, building climate resilient and sustainable infrastructure.

Northern communities are disproportionately and uniquely affected by climate change. This is why implementing climate change mitigation and adaptation measures should not disregard the unique characteristics of the Arctic. Northern communities are also vulnerable to the potential impacts from nation-wide efforts to reduce our carbon footprint. Mr. Al‑Katib noted that a price on pollution “may be another layer of costs” in what is “an already relatively difficult environment and cost base in the North.”[83] Considering the unique challenges the North faces, the Mining Association of Canada “has called for northern recognition with respect to carbon pricing.”[84]

Adressing these realities will require action on the part of all Canadians – fighting climate change is not a burden for northerners alone. Furthermore, the implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation measures should not disregard the unique characteristics of the different regions of Canada.

Natural Resources Development in the North

In the Arctic, the mining sector is the largest employer.[85] According to the Honourable Wally Schumann, the resource industry constitutes “the backbone of our economy.”[86] While mining exploration and development companies invest billions of dollars into projects, they still require investments in infrastructure to access natural resources and create jobs. The North has a lot of potential, but without proper roads, rail, ports, airports, energy transmission, and telecommunications, its natural resources will remain stranded. According to Lisa McDonald of the Prospectors and Developers Association of Canada, “[s]trategic infrastructure is needed to sustain exploration and unlock this potential.”[87] For the time being, the infrastructure deficit acts as a “physical bottleneck.”[88]

Capital and operating costs associated with bulding mines in the North can be up to 2.5 times higher than elsewhere in Canada.[89] Brendan Marshall of the Mining Association of Canada explained that “[i]nfrastructure is really the key to bringing down the upfront capital costs of mining in the north.”[90] Some companies like Agnico Eagle Mines Ltd. built their own roads without any support from the government (at a cost of $1 million per kilometre).[91] However, smaller players might not have the capacity to do the same.

Sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic

Although not at the centre of the Committee’s study, Arctic sovereignty was nevertheless raised as an issue by some witnesses. For instance, witnesses explained that marine infrastructure, in the form of ports and icebreakers, could help to cement Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic and the Northwest Passage.[92] According to the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation, “[c]ountries that have a development plan and strong “anchor infrastructure” for their frontier areas are less exposed to international interests.”[93] In other words, “[i]nfrastructure and active presence are vital factors in determining whether other states plan to knock on the front door or run right through it.”[94] In any discussion surrounding northern infrastructure, Arctic sovereignty ought to be at the forefront.

Responding to Urgent and Emerging Needs

Importance of Local Priorities

To address the Arctic’s unique demographic and geographic challenges, all levels of government should be included in decision-making surrounding infrastructure development and maintenance. While all regions of the Arctic suffer from significant infrastructure deficits, the needs vary from one region to the other. As such, the Committee believes that local and Indigenous partners ought to be engaged meaningfully by the federal government in finding appropriate solutions to the challenges they face.

Witnesses explained that Canada needs a consistent policy framework for northern infrastructure.[95] The Committee learned that currently “[t]here is no northern energy strategy and no northern telecommunications strategy.”[96] Similarly, the Committee was told that “[n]orthern infrastructure investment is unfolding somewhat haphazardly; projects are often multi-jurisdictional, but lack a coordinating entity.”[97] The Committee believes that this situation is not conducive to socio-economic development.

As explained by Mayor Redfern, “we need to move away from doing things poorly, with poor consultations, not including all the stakeholders, not listening to what people have to say, underinvesting and not looking forward to the future.”[98] Darrell Beaulieu, President and CEO of Denendeh Investments Incorporated, emphasized the need to “promote real government-to-government relations”[99] with the Indigenous peoples who have been occupying the Arctic since time immemorial. Canada cannot expect to find solutions to northern challenges without engaging with Indigenous rights holders and local governments. For these reasons, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 1

That the Government of Canada include in its forthcoming Arctic Policy Framework a co-developed process to ensure local and Indigenous perspectives are taken into account in the development and maintenance of northern infrastructure.

Federal Infrastructure Funding

The Committee heard that many federal infrastructure programs set aside funding specifically for northern and Indigenous communities. It also heard, unfortunately, that these programs do not always meet the unique infrastructure needs of the North, such as higher construction and shipping costs, and the smaller size and remoteness of communities.

At the federal level, several departments and agencies fund programs supporting infrastructure development and maintenance. For instance, there are at least 14 departments and agencies (including Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada and Indigenous Services Canada) providing funding as part of Investing in Canada, the Government of Canada’s $186‑billion infrastructure plan. The Committee learned that $2 billion of this funding was specifically dedicated to infrastructure projects in rural and northern communities.[100] In addition, federal officials mentioned the new $400‑million Arctic Energy Fund, which will support renewable energy projects in the territories,[101] as well as the $400‑million northern allocation of the Trade and Transportation Corridors Initiative, as examples of federal infrastructure funding set aside for northern communities.[102]

Despite these sources of funding, Hilda Broomfield Letemplier, member of the National Indigenous Economic Development Board, noted that “[m]ost funding mechanisms available in the North are overwhelmed by the magnitude of [the region’s] infrastructure deficits, leaving little room for consideration of strategic infrastructure investments.”[103] Some programs, such as the northern allocation of the Trade and Transportation Corridors Initiative, are severely oversubscribed, with more applicants than funding available.[104] Other programs, relying on per‑capita funding formulas, put the North at a disadvantage due to its relatively small population.[105]

Existing funding streams are also “simply not large enough to accommodate… nation-building and tax-revenue-generating projects” such as the $550 million Grays Bay Road and Port Project in Nunavut.[106] According to the proponent, the Grays Bay Road and Port Project would, if constructed, “profoundly improve the economic and social prospects of the Kitikmeot region's residents” while simultaneously “yield[ing] significant benefits for Canada while assisting in reconciliation efforts with the Inuit of western Nunavut.”[107] Projects like this are the type of nation-building initiatives that could help harness the region’s full potential.

The Committee believes that Canada is on the right track by dedicating funding specifically for northern communities. However, federal programs require improvements to address the issues raised by witnesses. Federal infrastructure funding programs ought to better reflect the North’s needs and realities. For this reason, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 2

That the Government of Canada consider distinct and northern-specific infrastructure funding; that funding criteria and disbursement mechanisms reflect the realities of the Arctic, such as higher construction and shipping costs, the smaller size and remoteness of communities, and the need to improve the pace of funding decisions; and that this funding and its parameters support the goals of local, territorial and Indigenous governments.

Diversifying Power Generation in the Arctic

The lack of affordable and efficient power in the Arctic is at the core of many other challenges facing the region’s residents: “[it] has limited economic potential, and stifles the region's economic development and prosperity.”[108] Northerners continue to rely on expensive fuel to generate their power. Disconnected from the North American power grid, northern communities depend on their own power plants, which are aging and in need of repair or replacement.[109] More than ever, northern communities “need affordable, stable energy.”[110]

Witnesses agreed on the need to diversify energy generation in the Arctic. However, they did not agree on the best means of doing so. Regardless, the Canadian Electricity Association emphasized that “sustained support from the federal government is critical to making transformational clean energy investments possible in Canada’s North” and stated that the region’s uniqueness “requires a dedicated, custom-made solution.”[111] Similarly, the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation stated that,

Given our common objectives of mitigating the immediate impacts of climate change and releasing families from the crippling cost of imported energy, Canada needs to come to the table with us to plan a way out of this cycle of pollution and poverty. This cannot be achieved through small disconnected pots of funding. It needs to be done through partnership.[112]

The Committee heard that generating power using imported diesel fuel is neither economically nor environmentally sustainable. Although it remains unclear what alternatives should be pursued, the Committee believes that transitioning away from diesel fuel is a goal. At the moment, public utilities such as Nunavut’s Qulliq Energy Corporation are “largely dependent on federal funding” to expand their “use of renewable and alternative energy resources.”[113] As such, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 3

That the Government of Canada implement, in partnership with northern communities, programs to ensure energy security and to transition away from the use of diesel fuel for power generation; and that during the transition towards cleaner sources of energy, the Government of Canada work to improve the reliability and efficiency of power plants awaiting to be replaced.

Moving away from the use of diesel fuel will not only provide communities with more reliable and efficient energy; transitioning towards cleaner sources of energy will also contribute to reducing their emissions of greenhouse gases. Thus, implementing this recommendation would not only contribute to diversying power generation in the North; it would also help address the real threats posed by climate change.

Taking Action on Climate Change

As previously mentioned, it is imperative for Canada to transition towards a low-carbon economy. In the meantime, northern communities will need to adapt to climate change, a phenomenon to which the Arctic is particularly vulnerable. According to Ms. Bergeron, “[r]esilient infrastructure is the driving force behind productive societies, stable industries and increased public confidence.”[114] As such, the Committee believes that any northern infrastructure strategy ought to take the reality of climate change into account. Northern communities might not be responsible for climate change, but they would nonetheless benefit from the development of climate resilient and sustainable infrastructure. For this reason, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 4

That the Government of Canada, in partnership with its local, territorial and Indigenous partners, ensure the sustainability and climate resiliency of northern infrastructure by requiring that climate vulnerability assessments be carried out on northern infrastructure projects; and that the results of these assessments serve to inform adaptation actions that address potential risks associated with a changing climate.

Northerners are particularly vulnerable to the impacts of climage change. As such, they recognize the pressing need to take real action to combat this phenomenon and reduce carbon emissions. Nevertheless, witnesses noted the challenges that a price on pollution could pose in the Arctic. As such, the Committee is encouraged by the “Made-in-the-North” approach of the Government of the Northwest Territories which will, among other things, exclude aviation fuel from carbon pricing and provide rebates for heating fuel.[115]

The Committee believes that this approach is a good example of providing flexibility for northerners without compromising climate change mitigation and adaptation measures. The implementation of a price on pollution in the Arctic should take into account the unique characteristics of the region. For this reason, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 5

That the Government of Canada recognize the pressing need to take real action to combat climate change and ensure that the implementation of carbon pricing in the Arctic is flexible enough to meet the needs of households, businesses and local governments; further, that it ensure that carbon pricing, or any other climate change adaptation measures, does not place an excessive financial burden on northerners.

Accessibility

Although the issue of accessibility was not raised by witnesses, the Committee wishes to highlight the need to remove barriers to the full participation of persons living with disabilities as an essential aspect of infrastructure renewal. The Committee believes that barriers to equal opportunities need to be removed in several areas, including the built environment and transportation. Furthermore, the Government of Canada ought to prevent new barriers from emerging. For this reason, the Committee recommends:

Recommendation 6

That the Government of Canada, recognizing that building accessible infrastructure is essential to providing equal opportunities for all northerners, ensure that accessibility assessments are carried out on northern infrastructure projects.

Conclusion

Building and maintaining infrastructure in the North is about more than economic development, access to natural resources or Arctic sovereignty. First and foremost, it is about people and ensuring that every Canadian benefits from the same opportunities in life wherever they live. Finding and implementing solutions to the North’s infrastructure deficit will require a long-term, partnership-based approach. The government ought to engage with northerners, including Indigenous peoples, to determine what northern infrastructure strategies should entail and what projects should be prioritized in their regions.

With the Arctic becoming more and more accessible, Canada is at a turning point and cannot afford to wait. Removing barriers to northern infrastructure development and maintenance will require innovative solutions. The Committee hopes that its report will contribute to finding such solutions.