Foreign Affairs Committee on Oct. 24th, 2018

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

I want to return to some of the economic themes. I have two main lines of questioning. The first has to do in some ways with how this place works. We talk about having a long-term strategy for the Arctic. One of the barriers to having one is that governments change. As long as plans for the Arctic are wrapped in a really intensely partisan blanket, as it were, then when the government changes a new government doesn't want to own the strategy that was there before. We see this happening now. The Harper government had an Arctic strategy; then we got a new government and they're developing a new Arctic strategy.

What that blocks is the idea that you could make a 10-year, 20-year, or 100-year plan and that a new government would then come in and feel that it could pick up that plan and continue on the same investment plan without giving credit to the other guys. Part of it is having a really heavily executive-led plan for development.

This may be outside your wheelhouse, but I'm wondering whether you could speak to how this place can work better on this issue, and perhaps others, to do long-term planning for the country on some of these really important issues. What does it mean for a committee such as this or other committees, and the legislative branch more generally, to try to become more involved and be taken more seriously by government if we're going to do long-term planning?

Is this important, or do you see a path for...?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Absolutely. It's a fantastic question. I'm not smart enough to get into the weeds of how things work, especially as I'm not originally Canadian.

My first thought would be, is it possible to create some sort of bipartisan or tripartisan or multi-partisan committee? What was suggested from the end of this whole weekend with OP Trust was that perhaps an independent committee should be established to focus on this.

To share a vision should, I think, be something that is in the interest of all parties. Maybe it could specifically be just on the economic needs.

[Prof. Whitney Lackenbauer]

Let me jump in.

I take the opposite view. I don't think we need another committee. We've had a Canadian northern or Arctic strategy since 1970. It was articulated by Pierre Trudeau, it was continued during the Mulroney era, and it has continued right through to the present.

Yes, four pillars may go to seven pillars in the latest draft that I've seen from the Government of Canada in the Arctic policy framework, but at the end of the day, it has been about three main things. It's about people, about the environment and about development, although the order and prioritization of resources for it may have shifted over time.

At the end of the day I would love to see a truly non-partisan agreement to say that we've had a strategy in place for almost 50 years at this point. It's one that has been under both Conservative and Liberal banners and has been generated out of all-party committees including NDP representation over the years. It's Canada's northern strategy. Now let's get around to actually investing and properly resourcing that vision.

We have taken great strides. We're not all the way there yet, but we've taken strides by investing a tremendous amount in the last 15 years for redesigning governments within our country in truly innovative ways. The co-management systems and the partnerships we've developed that are allowing us to be in this moment of reconciliation have tools in the north—I think very powerful tools to proceed forward with—that are ones we have built collectively as a country.

I would say that rather than having this be bogged down in committee more—pardon the pun—I'd love to see this adopted as a truly Canadian national policy and recognize that this is something that truly is—

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

I would also argue, however, that you can have a policy that makes broad strokes. We believe in the people in the north, we believe in sustainable development, and we believe in our sovereignty. I'm talking about a specific kind of strategy that would lay out—I don't know, but we're talking about today's version of “roads to resources”—how this northern economy can fit into Canada's foreign policy and its role in the world. Maybe we can go back to the tripartite approach that I was talking about, but I think we need to go deeper into thinking about, in that specific area, how we can better think about incorporating the north of Canada into the larger economic goals that the country has.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

When we were up north, one of the things we heard was that there is interest by some private capital in developing certain projects, but the mainline infrastructure isn't there. Short of a plan that actually names roads and names ports so that private capital has some confidence that these things are going to be built within a certain time period, it's hard to attract that kind of interest.

That's part of what I'm wondering, whether, if you did have a more multi-partisan agreement on a more specific strategy—not just the general pillars but projects—it would be part of selling the idea of investment to private investors.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Yes, absolutely it would, because private investors need to know that there's a commitment and an overarching strategy with the Canada Infrastructure Bank. In one of these past Senate hearings, looking at the northern corridors project, the way it was described was that at the moment they are interested in the projects that private capital is interested in. Private capital, however, doesn't know about the north, and that's the issue. A lot of this is about education.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

The other part of this piece that I want to get to before we run out of time is about climate change, which we mentioned earlier. It's real and it's an important issue. The Arctic is a sensitive environment. How important is it, then...?

When we talk about major infrastructure investment, a big part of the debate is about certainty, about environmental licensing processes, respecting indigenous rights and having indigenous peoples on board. Professor Lackenbauer was right. Some of the structures in place for recognizing indigenous rights as part of the process are stronger in the north than they are elsewhere in the country. How important is it that the long-term plan also discuss these issues—that is, how to do projects in ways that are environmentally responsible and how to determine which projects to say no to, if they violate certain principles or if they're not good enough?

How important is it to have those things as part of that long-term plan, if we get to have one?

[The Chair]

Let me limit you to a short answer on that, because we're running a little over time.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

I would say, take them into account as a project would anywhere else in the world. There's an environmental factor whereby you have to do an environmental assessment for any project anywhere in the world. You have to build in those risks and you have to build in the long-term aspects of them.

It should be treated like any other project. We don't want to build anything anywhere that's not sustainable, having a sustainability consciousness. I would just put it in that context.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much.

Next, we're going to go to MP Wrzesnewskyj.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Professor Lackenbauer, you mentioned that the people are one of the three critical components of what the discussion should be about in the Arctic. I'd almost say that it's probably the most important of the three, in fact, even on the topic of sovereignty. Our sovereignty hinges on the fact that for our Inuit this has been their ancestral homeland from time immemorial.

One of the things that we regularly heard about was the quality of life. An example that was referenced a number of times was the Inuit communities of Greenland. We haven't heard anything about Denmark and how they've approached that aspect, the human aspect. What have they done that's so different? Across the bay, there are actually many family connections and people are commenting on the differences in the quality of life.

I was wondering if either of you would like to expand on that topic.

[Prof. Whitney Lackenbauer]

Wonderful, I agree wholeheartedly with your sentiment of people first. I think that seems to be coming out of the consultation process towards the new Arctic policy framework in terms of really affirming that message strongly. As well, I think it has come out of the northern consultations that the government has undertaken. I think they're pointing in the right direction.

Obviously, the social indicators and the health indicators in the north are dismal. This is very much a black mark on Canada's international reputation, and it's something that we should all be taking seriously. It's certainly worthy of our intention and our investment, not only in material resources but also in intellectual resources, to come up with new models of delivering.

Looking across to Greenland, realizing that it is a different colonial history—albeit a very colonial one as well—given the nature of how the North Atlantic flows up to those coastlines, a lot of those communities, ironically, even through they're just across the Davis Strait, are open for much larger parts of the season and have viable fisheries and different economic opportunities than have existed to date within the Canadian Arctic. There's a very striking visible reality when you go to a community such as Uummannaq in Greenland versus, say, one of our wonderful communities of Baffin Island. They have a different feel to them.

Again, looking outwardly, rather than inwardly as we've consistently done as a country, in looking at the Arctic and potential models I think we should look at best practices, and perhaps Greenland will be one of them. From the economic models, we can look at success stories like Baffinland and how they've made things work with limited infrastructure, and what that offers in terms of opportunity. They've undertaken quite a miraculous achievement in what they've been doing out of the Mary River mine in the last decade.

I'm not trying to dodge your question. It's just to say, again, that in opening up our aperture a bit as a country, in looking outside our own borders and at some of the comparisons, we'll be realizing that we do have a lot of uniqueness in our north, and that a lot of our challenges are in some cases shared within the circumpolar world, such as abysmally high suicide rates, rates of tuberculosis that are scandalous and, in my mind, unconscionable for a country like ours to have. In essence, we have to be careful that when we're comparing apples and oranges, we're realizing that they're both fruits, but in some cases they're different fruits.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

I would say that you really have to take the historical aspects into consideration. The governance issue is very different, I would say, in northern Canada than it is in Greenland. Greenland has great aspirations but complete territorial sovereignty. I'm not sure if that's where any of the Inuit communities are going toward.

I would argue that there are also a lot of vulnerabilities that exist still in Greenland. The human aspects are suicide, lack of infrastructure.... There are many similarities.

Rather than asking what we can learn from that model, I would think that because there are so many differences in where northern Canada, Canadians and Inuit in Canada want to go, versus where the Greenlanders expect to go in the future, maybe it's about how we can work together better. Already, Inuit in northern Canada and in Greenland are looking for ways that they can better connect.

The big issue for them is how they can do better trade. There's discussion about making a free trade agreement between Inupiat in Alaska, Inuit in Canada and Greenlanders. For them, they're looking for ways that they can co-operate better together, I think, rather than specific models. Both have vulnerabilities and advantages in their own way, I would say—apples and oranges.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Ms. Shadian, you spent quite a bit of time in your presentation discussing the economic development, particularly in Russia. There are two parts to this economic development. One is obviously what everyone is talking about: the Northwest Passage and the Northeast Passage.

I don't see them as competing, but do we have any studies that have shown what is the economic benefit and value of that Northwest Passage, for instance, to shipping to the east coast or from the east coast to Asia? What are we looking at in terms of numbers?

There are the economic benefits of the shortened supply routes, and then there is the actual development of the Arctic. You referenced Bay Street. Have there been any studies in terms of what kind of infrastructure development would be required? This part isn't the human part and talking about food safety or energy self-sufficiency in the Arctic, etc. It's just the economic potential.

[The Chair]

Once again, could I limit that answer to a short answer? We're running over.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

I would say that it's getting two birds with one stone or whatever. There has not been a feasibility study done that I am aware of, and I think there should be.

I can get into more about the discussions I've had. I've been working with a former lieutenant governor of Alaska on creating some sort of St. Lawrence Seaway idea between Alaska and Canada. I think this was brought up the other day, briefly, but there is actually some momentum for this that's gaining. We can talk about that.

[Borys Wrzesnewskyj, Liberal, Etobicoke Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair]

We're going to do two short questions with MP Sidhu and then MP Alleslev. We'll keep it shorter because we're going to finish at 4:30 to get the next panel in. It will be four minutes and four minutes, if that's okay.

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks to both of you for your testimony this morning.

Ms. Shadian, you talked about Canada Pension Plan Investment Board investing in the Arctic, not in China. On the contrary, in this committee, we studied how the Canadian development finance initiative should be investing overseas. I wonder if you can give us an insight or some sort of mechanism so that we can suggest to Canadian pension plan investment to invest in the Arctic.

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Again, this comes back to the discussion and what I was saying. Someone has to start the narrative and get it out there that the North American Arctic together works better because they're very connected—seeing it as an emerging market. Perhaps you're saying to go internationally and to put the money.... They are putting in their money. They're putting their money into China and Australia.

The conversation came up with one of the pension plans, which said, “God, this is crazy. We put so much of our money in Australia.” Australia has quite similar instances of aboriginal population and a large territory and all this kind of stuff. Why are we putting all of our money there? Why are we not doing something to put just a piece of our money in our own north?

If money is invested in the north and we could find a way to make it work, then obviously it would have benefits in many other ways in terms of improving the economy and the tax dollars that go to the north. Some tax dollars that go to having to do things that are just maintaining a subpar standard of living for people could be going to other activities.

You're talking about encouraging the money to go towards developing countries....

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

This is what we studied on this committee, actually. Investing money in the Arctic I fully understand, but we have only 100,000 people living in three territories, so where do you see this money going? Roads, bridges...?

[Dr. Jessica M. Shadian]

Yes, and as part of that, there could be ways to generate revenue if you create some sort of Alaska-Canada regime.

I'll use a Google example. Google is trying to create this Loon, right? It doesn't have to be Google. It could be anyone else. I've had someone come to me who does crazy IT stuff and a bunch of Chinese entrepreneurs who said, “We want you to help us build a Loon.” They said they wanted to provide Internet connectivity to the north.

You're not going to go gangbusters making money providing Internet connectivity to northern communities, but where you're going to make a lot of money, and what their interest is, is that if you have a Loon, what they're actually doing with all of this is collecting a lot of data. That data is very valuable and has a lot of importance.

I think we need to start thinking about infrastructure in a 21st century sort of way. There's a ton of opportunity. Smart infrastructure is the future. How do we think beyond bringing revenue back just through tolls or user fees or something else, but in a much more future kind of way...?

[Jati Sidhu, Liberal, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

For Mr. Lackenbauer, you said there's no threat to Canadian sovereignty—people coming in travelling....

My concern is climate change. Would they be respectful to our waters? Would they be polluting our waters? We don't have anything to monitor that. The first ship we're trying to put into the water is next year, if they build it in Vancouver. The second one is not due until 2021.

How do we manage that?

[Prof. Whitney Lackenbauer]

First of all, I would separate out sovereignty. My legal definition would be “the internationally recognized right to control activities in a given jurisdiction”. Canada has the right to control activities within that jurisdiction.

A different issue is the security and safety issues attendant with undertaking that role of enforcing our laws to make sure people are not polluting, and cruise tourism is being done in a sustainable way that's respectful of the environment and archeological sites and so on. I think that's a subset that comes.... Once we really recognize that we should have more confidence in terms of our sovereignty, we can instead put our energies into implementing a plan for dealing with safety and security.

I certainly think, over the last 10 years, the tools that have been developed, focusing on initiatives like the oceans protection plan, some of the Inuit marine monitoring plans, and long-standing initiatives like the Canadian Rangers—one of those great Canadian success stories in having human sensors in place to make sure that people passing through or coming to visit the region are behaving in a way that's in accordance with Canadian interests—are some things we're positioned right now to be able to take action on.

However, I don't think it's a sovereignty issue.

[The Chair]

Thank you very much, Professor Lackenbauer.

Let's go to MP Alleslev.