Science and Research Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time. Thank you very much.

We'll now turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for two and a half minutes.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

I can take more time, Madam Chair. It would be my pleasure.

You know that I have questions. I'm ready.

Mr. Allard, I would like you to speak more about the value of scientific studies and research on melting permafrost. This is happening in the north. However, as you said, this leads to the release of greenhouse gases that will directly affect the climate. Permafrost blocks microbial activity and contains viruses. I would like you to elaborate on this.

This is happening in the north. However, the impact is felt all over the planet. We need these vital ecosystems.

[Michel Allard]

Yes, absolutely.

I want to come back to Mr. Boulerice's question earlier about permafrost carbon feedback. I believe that we need to measure that in Canada. Our knowledge of it comes from international literature, which is mostly based on mathematical models and remote sensing analysis across the Arctic, but there are very few studies on the ground to measure the gas emissions that naturally come from permafrost, first of all, and degraded permafrost. The accumulation of organic matter, plant growth, all of that changes the carbon footprint of northern Canada.

I would even posit the scientific hypothesis that we may have a very useful carbon sink in northern Canada that should be protected so that it can one day be counted in the country's carbon emissions.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

In concrete terms, what are your expectations in terms of the federal government accelerating and supporting scientific research in the north and in northern communities? What are the priorities?

[Michel Allard]

Build relationships and visiting these places. My colleagues, like Dr. Cockney, know what it's like to work with researchers. Many of them come through Tuktoyaktuk and are involved in coastal erosion studies. That includes a number of my colleagues. You know that travel and meetings are very expensive. The communities have very little scientific equipment on hand. People could also develop or use technologies that make it easier and easier to collect data, take photos, observe on the ground and exchange on the Internet with Inuit observers who are on site. As much as possible, we want young people to handle that and work in their communities.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

So it would be a good idea for our committee to visit—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. I'm afraid that's our time. I'm sorry. It's the worst part of this job.

For the last two and a half minutes of this panel, we'll turn to MP Boulerice.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

First of all, Dr. Cockney, thank you for your kind words about my colleague Lori Idlout. It's always good to hear such things.

In your opinion, what should the federal government's priorities be when it comes to research in the Arctic zone? What are your priorities?

[Angus Cockney]

As far as the priorities of the federal government in the Arctic go, I think it should pay more attention because of what's happening in the Arctic. It's well known that the effects are incredibly prominent in the Arctic.

As far as our identity goes, our land claim agreements ensure that we are to maintain our cultural identity. If we were to lose our land, we wouldn't have identity. The federal government needs to put more resources into the Arctic and have the will to be there.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you very much.

I don't have much time left, but I will go ahead and ask Mr. Henheffer a question.

Mr. Henheffer, you used a word earlier that's very loaded and quite strong. You talked about a new type of colonialism in the north coming from China.

In one minute, can you explain what you meant by that? I'm asking because it's quite concerning.

[Tom Henheffer]

It is quite concerning that they're using soft diplomacy to make large investments in resource companies in the north. It's a good, legal way for them to do that.

My understanding is they've also visited certain communities in the north and have generally been turned away. If they're coming in, giving many more resources and bringing in a lot more funding at a scale larger than what the Canadian government is doing, you have to ask yourself why the communities wouldn't take their money. Why wouldn't they sell to people who are offering more?

As we've seen, they've already purchased a huge stake in a major rare earth minerals mine in the Northwest Territories. The more that happens, the more jeopardy there is to our sovereignty, especially when you consider that this is Inuit and northern indigenous land. There are land claims that belong to these people and that they have sovereignty over. Canada needs to be a good partner there and invest in resources and infrastructure, because if we don't, other people are going to, and China is already showing that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Michel Allard, Tom Henheffer and Angus Cockney, for your testimony. You've given us much food for thought. It was fascinating listening to your testimony. You may submit additional information through the clerk. Please see the clerk for any questions.

We'll suspend briefly to allow our witnesses to leave, and then we will resume with our second panel of witnesses. I will ask members attending via Zoom to please stay connected to this session.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We're back. We're anxious to get started with our second round.

I would like to make a few comments for the benefit of the new witnesses.

Please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For those participating by video conference, click on the microphone icon to activate your mic, and please mute yourself when you are not speaking.

For interpretation, for those on Zoom, you have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. For those in the room, you can use the earpiece and select the desired channel.

It's now my pleasure to welcome, from ArcticNet, Dr. Christine Barnard, executive director, by video conference. As an individual, we have Dr. Jackie Dawson, Canada research chair in human and policy dimensions of climate change at the University of Ottawa and scientific director of ArcticNet. Finally, from the centre for northern studies, we have Dr. Normand Voyer, professor.

You will each be given a maximum of five minutes for your remarks, after which we will proceed to rounds of questions. I will signal when you have one minute left.

We'll start with Dr. Barnard to deliver her remarks first.

Go ahead, Dr. Barnard.

[Dr. Christine Barnard, Executive Director, ArcticNet]

Thank you for the opportunity to speak as a witness.

As we are now seeing, climate change is happening in the north at unprecedented rates—more than two to three times faster than the rest of the world. The consequences are dramatically affecting northern communities and all of us in the south. Melting glaciers and rising oceans are affecting coastal communities, whose houses are under threat of falling into the sea. Safe access to hunting grounds is impeded due to unpredictable weather. Wildfires are devastating communities and ecosystems while acting as vectors for long-term transformation and accumulation of contaminants. These are just a few of the many dramatic impacts that demand investment in science to better understand and prepare for change and to monitor how systems are evolving and interacting, from sea ice to human health.

After a pandemic and at a time of intense geopolitical tension, we should keep in mind a few lessons.

Decisions must be based on evidence emanating from science and indigenous knowledge. Science can be humanity's exit strategy from a crisis, whether it's a pandemic or the cumulative effects of climate change.

Cross-cultural, national and international collaborations are key to developing and deploying solutions.

The need for science in understanding and mitigating the effects of climate change and biodiversity decline is the most pressing issue of our time, in my opinion. The need for indigenous knowledge is also critical in recognizing and respecting its importance in understanding the north and the globe in a more holistic way.

One of the most important lessons we have learned at ArcticNet is that research in the north is completely different from research in the south. It requires more time to build and nurture relationships, to co-develop projects and to exchange throughout a project's lifespan. It requires more travel and therefore more funds, as work in the north is tremendously expensive and can be dangerous, with people needing the right safety and cultural training to ethically work with communities.

Northern indigenous people currently have access to several funding pots, but they do not necessarily have the capacity yet, nor the pool of researchers, to apply and fulfill these mandates. The partnerships with academic institutions remain critical for upholding our commitments to achieving knowledge advancement in the north. There are certainly not enough funds for researchers in post-secondary institutions, given the realities mentioned earlier of conducting northern research and the required engagement and relationship building.

Inadequate research infrastructure is hindering the progress of Arctic research. A few great research centres are operational within the vast territory of the north, such as the Nunavut Research Centre, the Nunavut Research Institute and Aurora College, but out of 60-plus research stations, only one, operated by Polar Knowledge Canada, receives adequate funding. The 60-plus stations, which are distributed across all northern geographic regions and ecosystems, are in dire need of operations and maintenance funds. This is urgent, to ensure that safe and well-equipped stations are accessible to locals and researchers.

ArcticNet, the polar continental shelf program, the centre for northern studies, Amundsen Science and many others offer logistical support to access remote stations, vessels and sites, but again, funding does not meet the demand. Investing in northern-led and indigenous-led research has become the mantra of the north, yet we must recognize that this will take time and considerable investments. Funds must be invested in training and capacity building in the north, but this should not be to the detriment of academic research in partnership with communities. That's to ensure we are exploring emerging issues and that there are no gaps in long-term monitoring initiatives.

It should be noted that capacity and readiness are not homogeneous across northern communities, as some are extremely effective at conducting research while others are not there yet. Each nation and territory has its distinct issues and aspirations, and decisions must be made according to local, regional and cultural distinctions.

Conducting research in the north is far from perfect, but giant strides have been taken to engage more meaningfully with indigenous partners and to support reconciliation through self-determined research. How we do research in the north is just as important as what research we do. One approach that ArcticNet has seen as effective is applying the principles of the national Inuit strategy on research in our projects. ArcticNet has also created the world's first Inuit-led research program, and there are opportunities to build on this.

Investment in northern research contributes to sovereignty and national security and increases resilience to climate change and reconciliation, while upholding Canada as a leader in Arctic research and indigenous partnerships.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much, Dr. Barnard. You had a few seconds left, so that's terrific.

We'll now turn to our second witness.

Dr. Dawson, you have five minutes to give us a statement.

[Dr. Jackie Dawson, Canada Research Chair in Human and Policy Dimensions of Climate Change, University of Ottawa, and Scientific Director, ArcticNet, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

I want to begin by expressing extreme gratitude to all of you for taking on this really important topic. It's my absolute pleasure to be here today as a full professor and Canada research chair in human and policy dimensions of environmental change, as a lead author of the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report and as the current scientific director of ArcticNet.

Your committee's study is particularly important right now because Russia's invasion of Ukraine has meant that large portions of the global Arctic is now off-line for research activities. As a result, many European researchers are moving their research programs to the Canadian Arctic. Not only does this situation put pressure on Canada to ensure that we have proper measures in place to support this shift, but it also means that we have lost a substantial amount of data from the Russian Arctic region, thus decreasing our ability to accurately model climate futures and changing Arctic ecosystems.

Climate change in Canada's Arctic has and will continue to have significant consequences across local, regional, national and global scales. It is not an exaggeration to say that these changes have the potential to completely reshape and change the world as we know it. This is not just due to melting ice caps and glaciers and sea ice change, for example. It's also because of the cascading effects that these biophysical changes will have on society. For example, altered freshwater fluxes in the Arctic Ocean from melting ice will lead to variations in the Gulf Stream, which we expect will then lead to changes in the climate, not only locally but all the way to the mid-latitudes.

Conversely, the drought conditions that are being experienced near the Panama Canal and the horrific ship attacks that are occurring near the Suez Canal, combined with the reductions in sea ice that are occurring right now in the Canadian Arctic, mean that we are likely to see a coming shift in global maritime trade activity to newly opened Arctic sea routes, including, potentially, our Northwest Passage. Shipping is a trillion-dollar industry that supports 90% of everything moved globally, and a shift of this nature, although potentially economically fruitful in some regard, will also create a cascading set of risks related to geopolitics, the environment and indigenous culture.

These are just a few examples of the cascading effects of climate change. Of course, the question is, what do we do about it?

Over the past five years, Canada's status as a leader in Arctic science has grown internationally, especially with respect to indigenous peoples. Countries around the world, Arctic and non-Arctic alike, regularly look to Canada for guidance on not just what science is urgently needed, but also how science should be done. As a nation, we have made important improvements in this area through, for example, the Arctic's north2north program and the National Research Council's challenge programs and others, but there is a lot more to do.

At present, there are several competitive funding programs available to support indigenous engagement and leadership in science, but there remains a lack of training and capacity for local communities to meaningfully engage in these projects. It is important to point out that Canada is the only nation without an Arctic science strategy and that many non-Arctic nations, such as Italy, India, France and China, have Arctic science strategies. Although discussions are beginning about potentially establishing an Arctic science strategy, which is different from an Arctic strategy, we need this sooner rather than later. The lack of leadership in this space has already caused geopolitical and diplomatic challenges over this past year alone, and this is likely to continue.

One way that Canada is beginning to assert some leadership in this space is through the emerging Arctic pulse initiative, which is a Canadian-led international science mission that is planned between 2024 and 2030, with a major field season to occur in 2027. The initiative will link together existing projects and seeks to leverage additional resources to ensure that Canada can play a leading role in this space.

In conclusion, supporting a coordinated and connected Arctic science ecosystem in Canada that is underpinned by strong government supports, including a national Arctic science strategy that leads us, sets priorities and connects various institutions together, will be fundamentally important as we move forward. It will help us ensure globally relevant discoveries, economically vital innovations, self-determined approaches to sustainable development, strong international relationships among like-minded nations, indigenous reconciliation and urgent solutions for climate change mitigation and adaptation in Canada and around the world.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You're right on the button. Thank you.

Now we will have an opening statement from our third witness, Dr. Voyer.

[Dr. Normand Voyer, Professor, Center for Northern Studies]

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Thank you for giving me a few minutes to talk to you about the challenges facing the people of Canada's north in terms of science and research.

My name is Normand Voyer. I'm a chemist and a full professor at Université Laval. My specialty is the chemistry of natural products in Canada's far north. Today I represent the Centre for Northern Studies, or CNS, which was founded in 1961. Based at Université Laval, the CNS is part of a strategic research network together with other Quebec universities.

The Centre for Northern Studies is an interdisciplinary group of 61 research teams. It has more than 500 researchers. We have a network of seven research stations in Nunavik, in addition to two other research stations in Nunavut. We operate a network of unique environmental measurement stations from James Bay to Ellesmere Island.

We and members of northern communities are therefore privileged witnesses to the significant impacts of climate change. As has been said a number of times, the far north is the fastest-warming and most warming place on the planet. This is due to a phenomenon called Arctic amplification. I won't go through the effects of climate change, but for a comprehensive view of climate change in the Arctic, I recommend that you read the excellent review paper by my colleague, Professor Warwick Vincent, which I have submitted to the committee.

Do the people of the Arctic and the north have the research infrastructure, tools and funding to participate in the research? The short answer is no. Our work and our interactions clearly show that the communities themselves are seriously lacking financial and human resources and instruments. As a result, they are unable to conceive and carry out research projects that immediately address their concerns and allow them to train their future generations to actively participate in research.

For example, they have no laboratories equipped with the necessary instruments to validate water safety and the safety of medicinal plants. The same is true for labs and instruments to measure emerging pollutants, such as per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances, or PFAS, and microplastics in the Arctic.

Moreover, many projects of interest to the communities require very fine environmental data at the local level. This strategic data is vital for monitoring environmental change and making decisions. This data exists virtually everywhere, but one of the issues is that research stations and environmental measures are aging and require major investments to maintain and bring them up to standard. Unfortunately, no programs in Canada are specifically tailored to meet this type of need.

In addition, because funding sources are very limited, they do not allow indigenous and non-indigenous researchers to work closely together to analyze and put the data into perspective.

There isn't enough cooperation with local and indigenous communities on Arctic science and research.

There are some great examples, such as the Kangiqsualujjuaq Inuit Imalirijit project in Nunavik, carried out in conjunction with scientists who came to communities to study pollution in the George River, which is essential to traditional activities. We also have a joint initiative with the Cree and Inuit communities of Whapmagoustui-Kuujjuarapik to characterize the natural substances in Labrador tea, a widely used medicinal plant in those northern communities.

However, there are very few examples because joint projects with northerners come with enormous challenges due to distance, transportation costs, limited access to the Internet, as well as a lack of human resources and spaces to build collaborative partnerships. We scientists lack the resources to build partnerships on the ground with the communities because northern logistical initiatives like the polar continental shelf program are underfunded, and the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, or NSERC, also provides limited funding.

Building collaborative research partnerships with the communities is the only way to develop significant projects that truly meet their needs. They must be given the means to do so. We must give ourselves the means to do so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You were under your time. We're doing great with the timing. Thank you so much.

Now we will open the floor to questions, and we will kick that off with MP Michelle Rempel Garner for six minutes.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

There's so much to touch on. Where to begin?

I'll start with you, Dr. Dawson. You made a really important point about the lack of an Arctic research strategy. I've looked through the recently released defence strategy, which says it's going to advance the goals of the Arctic and northern policy framework. When I look at those two documents and the whole concept of data and data analysis, research and research presence and what Dr. Barnard said about the maintenance of research facilities and their presence, there's no harmonization of that whatsoever.

Would you recommend that the defence strategy and Canada's northern policy framework be linked together with a formal research strategy?

[Dr. Jackie Dawson]

Those documents should be harmonized, period, and yes, I strongly feel we need a clear and formal research strategy that comes from the federal government and directs the science community and sets priorities. Most other nations have this. It helps you decide what to do and helps you work together as a global community.

There are many research stations and many researchers, and we're all doing priority-setting exercises. At ArcticNet, we would love some guidance on that through a strategy.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

I knew of ArcticNet even prior to politics, when I was in academic research admin. Were you consulted by the federal government either on the defence strategy or—

[Dr. Jackie Dawson]

No.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Do you think there's an opportunity, as we are getting more pressure as a country from NATO allies to increase our NATO spending, to target some of that work or those expenditures on research and research presence in Canada's Arctic?

[Dr. Jackie Dawson]

Absolutely, and that's a very strategic way to go because we are required to do that. We absolutely need to do that, and we need to be thinking strategically about all our research. All research should be multi-purpose. That doesn't mean I don't believe in pure, fundamental scientific research. However, in the Arctic, what we need is applied science that is multi-purpose for infrastructure development, defence needs, etc.