Copyright © 2000 NLThomas
All Rights Reserved

The Innu Nation has launched a court challenge against the Canadian Department of National Defence (DND) and the Royal Netherlands Air Force to prevent supersonic test flights over their hunting territory. In a motion filed in the Federal Court on 1 August, the Innu Nation asserts that the proposed flights are potentially harmful and will provide little useful information on the potential effects of future supersonic fighter training currently being considered by Canada and the Allied countries flying out of Canadian Forces Goose Bay. The court challenge follows a decision by DND to conduct a series of planned supersonic tests. The tests were originally scheduled to take place on July 28-29, but have been suspended following the announcement of Innu Nation's intention to seek an injunction against the tests in court.

In evidence filed by Peter Penashue, Innu Nation President; Larry Innes, Director of Policy and Research for Innu Nation; Malcolm Spaven, a military expert based in Scotland; Mike Zagorski, an acoustics expert based in St John's; and Tom Jung, the Senior Research Biologist of the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research (IEMR), Innu Nation hopes to convince a Federal Court judge that inadequate consultation took place prior to the announcement of the tests, that Innu hunters may be present in the area, that the shock wave resulting from the supersonic flights will pose a high risk of irreparable damage to humans who may be in the area, and that the tests are not necessary, and will not necessarily provide useful information for a future environmental assessment.

Military flight training over 130,000 square kilometres of Labrador and northeastern Quebec has been conducted by European countries under a Multinational Memorandum of Understanding from CFB Goose Bay since the early 1980s. The majority of the approximately 6000 annual training flights are conducted by fighter jets flying at low level (less than 100 feet above ground level). Innu people have long opposed military activities over their homeland, primarily due to concerns about the impacts of jet noise and pollution on humans and wildlife.

An environmental assessment of low-level flying activities was conducted on the basis of an environmental impact statement (EIS) prepared by the Canadian Department of National Defence in 1994. The 1994 EIS stated: " The LLTA's (low level training areas) are not approved for supersonic flight, nor are there any plans to approve any such supersonic flight under the Multinational Memorandum of Understanding. "

However, recent developments in military tactics and the impending introduction of a new class of fighter jet (the Eurofighter Typhoon) has resulted in pressure on Canada from European countries to permit supersonic flights over the low-level flight training areas. The Innu Nation learned of these plans for the first time on June 29, 2000, when DND officials met with Innu Nation President Peter Penashue and senior Innu Nation staff.

        "At that meeting, Mr. Young discussed a number of activities that some of the Allies now conducting low-level flying out of Goose Bay wanted to conduct. In the course of that meeting, he mentioned that one of the proposed activities was supersonic flight training, and that the Allies wanted to commence this within two or three years. He said in that context, the Department was thinking of conducting some supersonic test flights at 10,000 to 15,000 feet in October or November of 2000, with sound sensors on the ground to monitor sound levels.", stated Innu Nation President Peter Penashue in an affidavit filed with the Federal Court. "There was no discussion of the issue of conducting these test flights, other than the general response of myself and Ben Michel that it was possible to sit down and explore options or agreements about all five future proposed activities, and that environmental assessments would be required before the Department proceeded."

The Innu Nation was formally advised of DND's intentions to proceed with supersonic test flights in a letter dated 24 July, which indicated that eight supersonic test flights would be conducted by a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16 on July 28-29.

"Three days notice is hardly adequate as consultation, and it demonstrates a great deal of disrespect for the Innu on the part of DND.", continued Penashue. "Innu Nation believes that if these kinds of trials are warranted-and we have our doubts that they are- they should be conducted as part of an environmental assessment under the supervision of the independent scientists at the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research, and with adequate consultation with the Innu."

The Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research (IEMR) is the body established by the Canadian government to monitor and report on the environmental effects of military flight activities. Based in Goose Bay, the Institute is staffed and advised by professional scientists, and reports to a Board of Directors and to the Ministers of National Defence and Environment. It conducts an active research and monitoring program on the effects of noise and other disturbances on wildlife, including caribou and waterfowl in the military training areas.

Mr. Jung, Senior Research Biologist at the Institute, advised the court that the IEMR was not even made aware of the proposed supersonic test flights. In his affidavit, Mr. Jung states that "as the senior research staff member at IEMR I am not aware of consultation between IEMR and DND with regards to supersonic test flights conducted in the vicinity of Minipi Lake nor am I aware that IEMR was provided with rationale or protocol for conducting the aforementioned research on the noise emitted by supersonic over-flights."

The Innu Nation has also sought expert advise on the utility of the proposed supersonic tests in predicting future noise levels and other effects from a future supersonic flight training program at Goose Bay. Malcolm Spaven, a UK-based military analyst, has attested that there is no reason to proceed with the tests at this time at all. According to Mr. Spaven, the test flights are "a precursor to training by British and German Typhoon aircraft. The Typhoon is currently in development trials and is not due to enter front-line service until 2004 The nature of any Typhoon training requirement at Goose Bay is not currently known Nor have comprehensive noise generation data been acquired for this aircraft. Therefore the trials are premature since they will have a low probability of capturing the data actually required for an assessment of the impact of any proposal for Typhoon operations at Goose Bay."

Mr. Spaven also notes that the trials would only be conducted in one set of meteorological conditions and in one eco-region, while actual training activities would likely occur during variety of meteorological conditions and across eight eco-regions, which would have a "significant impact on the propagation of sonic booms."

Mr. Spaven further states that "there is no indication that the profiles to be flown by the F-16 used for the trials will be representative of the manoeuvres likely to generate sonic booms or sonic events. The nature of the manoeuvres may make a significant difference to the generation and propagation of sonic booms. The sonic boom of an ascending aircraft is more or less dissipated by the time it reaches ground level, however an aircraft in a dive can produce 'focus booms' with enhanced destructive power. The proposed tests have been described by the Department of National Defence as being "runs" at 5,000 and 15,000 feet, which implies straight and level flights. This is not representative of the manoeuvres which typically generate sonic booms. In most cases military sonic booms are produced during air combat manoeuvring (ACM), or 'dogfighting', with two or more aircraft attempting to intercept and evade each other. This involves high-energy turning, climbing and descending, with rapid acceleration and deceleration. The proposed trials will have little or no value as a baseline data collection exercise if they do not replicate these manoeuvres."

Of particular concern to the Innu Nation are the potential risks of supersonic activities on Innu hunters and wildlife. Larry Innes, the Director of Policy and Research for the Innu Nation, stated in his affidavit that "Innu Nation members hunt wildlife throughout vast tracts of land in Labrador and Quebec, including in and around the Practice Training Area (where the proposed test flights are to take place). The nature of Innu hunting includes travelling over long distances and staying out on the land for long periods of time. The Department of National Defence has made no serious efforts whatsoever to contact Innu people individually, or even through the Innu Nation, to warn them to stay out of the Practice Training Area or within a distance of that area.

The fact that Innu hunters could be in the vicinity of the proposed tests is a serious matter, as Mr. Zagorski explains in his affidavit. "It is well know that shock waves can permanently damage human lungs, viscera, ears and can cause brain damage. Low level supersonic flyovers can generate shock waves which can produce irreversible damage with respect to a plane flying supersonically at 15,000 feet, I am of the opinion that a human being directly under the flight path of this aircraft would likely be exposed to sound in excess of 130 dB, [the threshold for pain] and with respect to a plane flying supersonically at 5,000 feet, I am of the opinion that a human underneath the flight path of that aircraft would likely be exposed to sound around or in excess of 153 decibels, which is the threshold for the types of irreparable damages I have described."

Despite the court action, talks are scheduled to occur between the Innu Nation and the Department of National Defence. Innu Nation is seeking full disclosure from the Canadian military and its European Allies on the full scope of proposed changes to the types of training now being conducted over Innu traditional territory. The Innu fear that supersonic tests are only the tip of the iceberg.

"A real fear we have is that these tests are only a small part of a much larger picture, one that involves air combat manoeuvres, assault helicopters, ground troops, supersonic training and tactics as well as low level flying," said Penashue. "Of course, all these activities would be integrated, so what we are afraid of is that our territory would become a battlefield for full scale simulated wars. Where does this leave our hunters and families living on the land? Will Innu be the 'civilian casualties' in these wargames, or will their rights be respected by Canada and its Allies?"

Innu Nation Land Claims Negotiator Ben Michel is hopeful that DND and the Innu Nation resolve the issues through negotiation, rather than leaving matters for a court to decide. "We are hopeful that a proper process for consultation can be put in place to resolve the issue of supersonic testing, and to deal with the rest of our concerns about DND's activities in our territory. However, if we cannot reach a negotiated settlement, then we will be calling on the courts to protect our land, our rights and traditional way of life."

For more information contact, Peter Penashue and Ben Michel
phone: (709) 497-8398 ~ URL: http://www.innu.ca

The Innu Nation

The Innu Nation is an aboriginal government representing the Innu of Sheshatshiu and Utshimassits (Davis Inlet) Labrador, who number approximately 1,700 people. The Innu Nation is presently engaged in treaty negotiations with the federal and provincial governments to provide for formal recognition of its aboriginal title to lands in Labrador and to allow its members to continue their cultural existence on Nitassinan (Innu Land).

Innu communities affected by the training

There are approximately 13,000 Innu people in eastern Quebec and Labrador (what the Innu call Nitassinan). They are based in 13 different communities - Utshimassit (Davis Inlet), Sheshatshiu, St. Augustin, La Romaine, Natashquan, Mingan, Sept-Illes, Maliotenam, Betsiamites, Les Escoumins, Pointe-Bleue, Schefferville, and Kawawachikamach. Of these, two Innu communities - Sheshatshiu and Utshimassit - are in Labrador. Europeans have labeled the Innu "Montagnais" and "Naskapi." The Innu are very closely related to the Cree people in terms of language and culture.

Innu communities with hunting territory in the two existing Low-level Training Areas (LLTA) include St. Augustin (pop.150), La Romaine (pop.800), Natashquan (pop.650), Schefferville (pop.700), Kawawachikamach (pop.500), Utshimassit (pop.500), and Sheshatshiu (pop.1200). Labrador Inuit and Settlers (Kablunangajuit - people of mixed European and Inuit ancestry) also hunt in the flying zones.

The Innu are represented by several organisations including the Innu Nation in Labrador, Mamit-Innuat on the Quebec North Shore, and the Naskapi Nation of Kawawachikamach. All of the organisations representing the Innu oppose military flight training in eastern Quebec and Labrador.

The areas used for military flight training are also areas of extensive historical and contemporary Innu land use, and are subject to the comprehensive land claims currently being negotiated by the Innu with the Canadian and provincial governments. The noise from low-level flights is very worrisome and frightening to the Innu, many of whom have been over-flown while living in the country. The Innu believe that animals are similarly affected by this noise.

For many years, the Innu Nation and its members have expressed strong opposition to low-level flight training because of these concerns. Many Innu protested on the runway, on the practice target area and in Ottawa. These non-violent protests and the arrests that followed were widely publicised in the Canadian and international media. Speaking tours were organised throughout Canada and Europe to inform people about the negative impacts low-level flying has on the Innu way of life. Military flight training is presently being conducted without Innu consent.

Training in Eastern Quebec and Labrador

Military flight training at Goose Bay is authorized up to 18,000 sorties per year under a new Multinational Memorandum of Understanding signed by Canada and participant Allied countries in 1996. Air forces training at Goose Bay include the Royal Air Force (Britain) with Tornado GR1s and F3s, the German Air Force with Tornado GR1s, MIG-29 and F-4 Phantom IIs, the Royal Netherlands Air Force with F-16s, the Italian Air Force with AMX, Tornado and Harrier aircraft, and the Canadian Air Force with CF- 18s. French pilots also train at CFB Goose Bay.

Besides low-level flight training, higher altitude NATO air-defence exercises have been conducted at Goose Bay such as the "Goose Bay '90" exercise in May, 1990, in which two Dutch F-16s were destroyed as a result of a mid-air collision. NORAD exercises involving the U.S. Air Force are also conducted at 5 Wing Goose Bay such as "Exercise Amalgam Chief" which was held on June 3rd and 4th, 1992. The Low-Level Training Area (LLTA) includes two Air Combat Training areas for mid-air intercepts and dogfighting, the Minipi Lake (Minai-nipi) bombing range, and roughly 75 Tactical Camera Targets.

Supersonic flight or the use of live weapons are not permitted within the low-level flight training area.

The environmental assessment review of the training activities

The Innu first voiced their concerns about the potential environmental impacts of military flight training in 1980 in letters to the federal Minister of Environment, when the GAF started flying at Goose Bay with Phantom II aircraft. DND did not undertake any "environmental screening" until the following year. The "screening" undertaken in the form of a 37-page Initial Environmental Evaluation (IEE) was essentially an in-house, desk-study by Major G. Landry. Not surprisingly, Landry's study gave the environmental "green light" to low-level training activities in Innu airspace in Quebec and Labrador.

In 1986, in response to public concern, the federal government announced that it would submit the flight training and the proposed NATO Training Centre to a federal Environmental Assessment Review Process (EARP). An Environmental Assessment Panel was established which held public meetings during the fall, 1986, to obtain public input into the guidelines that would guide DND in the preparation on an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).

DND submitted the Goose Bay Environmental Impact Statement to the Environmental Assessment Panel on October 31, 1989. The Panel issued a hefty deficiency statement to the Department on May 23, 1990, listing 38 major deficiencies. The NATO Training Centre proposal was cancelled, and the Environmental Assessment Panel's terms of reference were altered by the Minister of Environment limiting its assessment to flight training under current bilateral agreements. The Panel issued a revised deficiency statement on January 9, 1992, with 29 major deficiencies identified.

DND released a second EIS to the public on April 21, 1994 (at a cost of approximately $3.4 million). The Quebec and Labrador Innu retained more than a dozen technical experts to critique this new study. They found 130 remaining or new deficiencies in the study, many of a very serious nature. However, the Environmental Assessment Panel largely ignored the findings of these experts and scheduled public hearings to commence on September 19, 1994.

However, as a result of the serious deficiencies in DND's EIS as well as the Panel's unwillingness to alter its course in proceeding with its review at break-neck speed, the Innu of Quebec and Labrador decided to boycott the public hearings. This action was taken with great reluctance as the Innu had been in the review process since its inception in 1986. The Innu took this action as a last recourse only after all the available information indicated that the Panel was biased in favour of DND and was not really interested in studying the impacts of the training in a scientific manner. Furthermore, it had become clear that the Panel had narrowed its mandate to exclude the possibility of recommending against the termination of the flight training.

When the Panel issued its report in February 1995, it recommended an increase in the flight training along with a reconfiguration of the existing flight training areas. The Panel also recommended the formation of an "independent" institute to oversee the conduct of future avoidance program and impact monitoring research. While noting the serious absence of baseline environmental data, studies on aviation impacts on wildlife, and problems with DND's avoidance program, the Panel did not think that such deficiencies warranted a termination of the flight training in light of the negative impact termination would have on the economy of central Labrador.

The Innu Nation strongly condemned the Panel's report on the basis that the recommendations were made on economic not environmental criteria, and that they leave many important issues unresolved. The Panel's recommendations require no real accommodations on the part of DND, and substantially increase the impacts of the flights on Innu people.

For more information about the Innu and Military Flight Training, visit the Innu Nation Web Site. URL: http://www.innu.ca

The Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research

As one of the conditions of project approval, a body called the Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research (IEMR) was established by the Canadian Government with the mandate to:

… Focus on the protection of the environment and, within the concepts of sustainable development, support the viability of the military flight training program;
… Provide independent verification of environmental effects as well as expertise and advice in structuring adequate monitoring and mitigation measures; and … Foster a level of trust among all groups affected be the military training program.

Despite early opposition to the concept of a monitoring body without regulatory powers, the Innu Nation conditionally supports the mandate and research initiatives of the IEMR, participates in IEMR research, and sits on the IEMR's board of directors.

Information about the IEMR can be obtained from:

Institute for Environmental Monitoring and Research
Phone: (709) 896-3266 ~ E-mail: iemr@hvgb.net
URL: http://www.mun.ca/iemr

DND - Goose Bay Project Management Office

DND's Military Flight Training Program at CFB Goose Bay is managed by the Goose Bay Project Management Office at DND HQ in Ottawa. The Goose Bay Office (GBO) is a component of the Chief of the Air Staff at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, Canada. It is assigned the task of developing policy and ensuring proper management of the military training program and of related environmental measures conducted from Goose Bay, Labrador.

For further information please contact, Mr. Frank Young
phone: (613) 996-7060 ~ email: gbo@goosebay.org
URL: http://www.capitalnet.com/~pmogb/v