Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, Nunavut has, without question, the highest cost of living and is the most carbon-intensive region of Canada. You all know the story: no roads, deathly cold early and long winters, and darkness. There is a virtually total reliance on diesel fuel to generate power and to heat both private homes and social housing, where the preponderance of residents live.

We have the highest incidence of food insecurity and the worst social indicators in the country and — in areas like suicide — in the world. So, how is our federal government helping us deal with all these issues? Well, “big daddy Ottawa” added a carbon tax, seemingly heedless of the added cost burdens it imposes on our already sky-high cost of living.

Now, Nunavut did get exempted from paying the tax on aviation fuel for intra-territorial flights. That has been great. But the reality is that everything comes from the South, so we are taxed on it anyway.

We have also been exempted from paying the carbon tax on fuel burned to generate electricity, and it has now been confirmed that on July 1, 2024, the carbon tax will not be levied on home‑heating fuel. That is also good. Thanks to Atlantic Canada.

However, this brief three-year reprieve was meant to buy folks a little more time to transition to cleaner energy sources, and I’m sorry to say transitioning Nunavut to clean energy in three years just isn’t going to happen. Just yesterday, we heard from Jerry DeMarco, Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, that Canada is not on track to meet its 2030 emission targets. Canada is the only G7 country that has not achieved any emission reduction since 1990.

Carbon taxes are supposed to change consumer habits and encourage people to seek out alternatives, but the Environment Commissioner’s report confirms that this has not happened since the tax was introduced in 2019. Moreover, in the case of Nunavut, there are no alternatives from which to choose. We can’t go back to dog teams to hunt. We can’t go back to igloos in which to live in the cold. There are still no electric vehicles — not one — in the capital city of Iqaluit. So, Nunavummiut are hurting, and, sadly, there just doesn’t seem to be any end in sight.

Thank you.

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Senator Gold, last week, Prime Minister Trudeau introduced a three-year reprieve from the carbon tax spent on home heating fuel. However, regarding the supplies in Nunavut, because it’s a backstopped jurisdiction, it’s complicated. We buy our fuel in bulk ahead of the winter, meaning that some of that home heating fuel now being used has already been taxed. Approximately 60% of the population lives in social housing, meaning it would be the Government of Nunavut both paying those costs and getting the money back, not your average resident.

So my question to you is this: How is your government going to roll this program out in Nunavut to ensure that we are getting properly reimbursed for any carbon tax already paid and Nunavut residents feel less of a pinch through this tax break?

Hon. Dennis Glen Patterson: Honourable senators, I am pleased to speak briefly to Bill C-29, An Act to provide for the establishment of a national council for reconciliation. I want to say that this has been a very difficult bill to deal with because although it is a direct response to Call to Action 53, it’s important, I believe, to provide a little context.

Let’s go back to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission Calls to Action and recall that they were the result of three years of intense work done by our former colleague, the Honourable Murray Sinclair. The Calls to Action were released in 2015. On December 8, 2015, Prime Minister Trudeau said that:

There is no relationship more important to me — and to Canada — than the one with First Nations, the Métis Nation, and Inuit.

Since then, in December of 2016, the government established permanent bilateral mechanisms with an initial investment of $88.6 million in the 2017 and 2018 budgets. They created tables where First Nations, Inuit and Métis representatives could raise their specific priorities directly to the federal government. This was a development since the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada Calls to Action.

The Inuit-Crown Partnership Committee, or ICPC, table has turned out to have been a very effective tool used to identify and work on Inuit-specific priorities. To date, this table has secured literally hundreds of millions of dollars for issues of importance, such as the construction of housing and other critical infrastructure and the elimination of tuberculosis. It has also helped secure apologies for historic wrongs such as the dog slaughter.

Colleagues, we find ourselves on the brink of signing into law a mechanism that, in the view of some, is no longer required because we now have different accountability mechanisms in place, with First Nations, Inuit and Métis people having a direct line to the government. As well, there is a ministry — Crown‑Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada — that focuses on this important work. It was very important to Inuit that the work of this council not take away from or erode in any way the good work being done through the ICPC tables. That is why I was happy that the committee supported the adoption of my amendment, brought forward in consultation with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK. That amendment clearly kept the mandates of the council and the ICPC table separate.

However, not every concern brought forward by Inuit was able to be addressed through the amendments. The Inuit did express a concern that there was not Inuit specificity in this bill. While I can understand to a certain extent that there cannot be Inuit‑specific terminology in a pan-Indigenous bill, it is still important to hold the concerns of Inuit in mind. That’s why I wish to speak briefly on this point.

One example would be the importance of ensuring that the staff of the council should have some capacity to work with unilingual Inuktut-speaking elders. Another large concern is the lack of representation of Inuit women. While the Native Women’s Association of Canada, or NWAC, was granted a seat on the council by this bill, Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada were not. NWAC has said time and again that they represent Inuit women, but Pauktuutit President Gerri Sharpe told me as recently as today that it is Pauktuutit that truly represents the voice of Inuit women and girls. They have done so very effectively for decades and will be celebrating their fortieth anniversary the year.

Why is this distinction so important? It’s important because there is a real fear that the makeup of the council may lead to it becoming unbalanced, with a heavier emphasis on First Nation issues. If this is to be a pan-Indigenous council, reporting on the progress of reconciliation, then it must truly be pan-Indigenous. That means ensuring that Inuit are properly represented.

In this connection, honourable colleagues, without wanting to tamper with this bill any further, I would like to put on the record a challenge to the Native Women’s Association of Canada, which would be welcomed by Pauktuutit Inuit Women of Canada, to reach out to and work more closely with them on this reconciliation council.

Thank you. Qujannamiik.