Evidence of meeting #127 for Natural Resources in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was norway.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Senior Scholar, University of Alaska Anchorage, As an Individual
Exactly, the permanent fund is, in essence, a sovereign wealth fund. However, in terms of the question of infrastructure, it hasn't been a focus of the permanent fund or the pool of funds generated by oil development in Alaska to deal with the issue of infrastructure or energy-related issues.
I wanted to make one other comment. It seems to me that the Arctic Council is in a perfect place to look at the issue of infrastructure throughout the entire circumpolar Arctic, at least for the like-minded states: the Nordic states, including Greenland and the Danish realm; Canada; Alaska and the United States. They could assess infrastructure needs and co-operate and collaborate in a way that helps us erase these borders that stifle the innovative and creative opportunities to achieve some of the objectives that each of the Arctic rim nation-states have committed themselves to and obligated themselves to, such as the sustainable development goals. I think there is extraordinary potential there. The Arctic Council should really look at the leadership role it can play and, state by state, make the important commitment to a pool of funds that can resolve some of these issues.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
We have had some really good philosophical testimony here, and I appreciate what you're saying, but we are trying to get to a lot of the practical stuff, the best practices that are in place. I'm going to go back to Alaska. How does the Alaska state government interact with indigenous peoples on these things? How about the federal government in the United States? What are the differences between the two? Do they get along in any useful way?
Senior Scholar, University of Alaska Anchorage, As an Individual
At the federal level, the national level, we recently had an Inuk woman from the North Slope of Alaska appointed assistant secretary for Indian Affairs, so it'll be interesting to see how that plays out, not only with the Inuit in the Arctic and the issues they're facing but also with indigenous people across the whole of the United States.
With regard to Alaska, some advances have been made. With our former administration, governor Bill Walker, there was quite a lot of dynamic dialogue and discussion about priorities. With this new administration, Governor Dunleavy, it remains to be seen what direction it will go, but I'm hopeful about sustaining the dialogue, especially in our rural communities. Unfortunately, we've had a bit of an urban-rural divide. It may be similar to a north-south divide in Canada. I don't know if that's accurate. Hopefully we can overcome some of those difficulties and do something much more responsive to all Alaskans, including Alaskan native people, as indigenous people.
Prof. Greg Poelzer
If I may, I'd like to add one thing especially for our Canadian colleagues in terms of the State of Alaska and federal relations. Most of the land in Alaska is owned by the federal government. There are some western states that have very high federal government ownership of land, which is very different from the Midwest and going out to eastern parts of the United States, where there is very little federal land ownership.
You can imagine what kinds of conflicts that brings in between the state, the federal government and the native corporations on decisions about what kinds of resource development.... Whether it's a natural resource such as fossil fuels or even management of marine mammals and so on, it makes it a much more difficult situation than you would see in a province in Canada.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'm from Quebec. I can't imagine any conflict between federal and provincial governments.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
You talked in your opening comments, Professor Poelzer, about the social impacts, not just the environmental impacts. You cited the case of Yakutia. Could you expand a bit on the social impacts and how to quantify them and how to approach them?
Prof. Greg Poelzer
Sure. Quantifying is not easy. Some might pretend it is.
If we were to separate it out, it's people focused. It's community focused. If you're looking at the impact of a pipeline coming through, the first thing in our traditional EIA process is to look at it and say, okay, let's look at what it's going to do to the natural environment, to the land and the water, and potentially the air. Often, though, what is not built into it in any kind of robust way is to ask, “What's going to be the impact on the local communities and their livelihoods, whether that's hunting or fishing—if they're involved in traditional economic activities, as it were—and on their culture?” Some places have a lot of spiritual value as well to those communities.
It's those kinds of things that need to be brought in and assessed. Some things you could measure. You could measure what the impact is on herds of cariboo or moose populations or fish. Some things you could probably quantify as they relate to those economies and what that means in terms of incomes for communities. For other things, simply not....
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes, it is.
Thanks very much to both of you for joining us today. It's very helpful to our study. We appreciate you taking the time to join us. Sadly, we're out of time, so we're going to have to end there.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal James Maloney
Yes, time is a very limited natural resource. Exactly.
We're adjourned.