Science and Research Committee on May 21st, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 87 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Before we begin, I ask all members and other in-person participants to consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents. Please take note of the following preventative measures to protect the health and safety of all participants, including our interpreters. Use only an approved black earpiece. The former grey earpieces must no longer be used. Keep your earpiece away from all microphones at all times. When you are not using your earpiece, place it face down on the sticker placed on the table for this purpose. Thank you all for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. For those participating virtually, I'll outline a few rules to follow.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately and we will ensure interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute. As a reminder, all comments by members should be addressed through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the committee resumes its study of science and research in Canada's Arctic in relation to climate change.

It is now my pleasure to welcome, as individuals, Richard Boudreault, adjunct professor at the University of Waterloo and Polytechnique Montréal and chief scientist at CSMC, by video conference; Andrew Derocher, professor of biological sciences at the University of Alberta, by video conference; and William Quinton, professor at Wilfrid Laurier University, by video conference. Up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Because we have a vote scheduled for 11 o'clock and it's a bit delayed, I may at some point ask for unanimous consent to proceed until 10 minutes before voting closes so we can vote.

Go ahead, Michelle.

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

I'm not sure what's going on in the House right now, so I'm a bit loath to give unanimous consent until we—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I wasn't asking for it yet. I asked to have the TV on so we could see what was going on, because I really don't know why things are delayed.

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

Maybe we can deal with it in the moment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Yes, in the moment. At least we are here in the same building—sometimes we're across the street—so that makes it a little easier for us to scurry around.

To go back to our witnesses, up to five minutes will be given for opening remarks, after which we will proceed with rounds of questions.

Professor Boudreault, I invite you to make an opening statement of up to five minutes.

[Richard Boudreault, Adjunct Professor, University of Waterloo, Polytechnique Montréal and CSMC, As an Individual]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, members of the committee, for inviting me. I'm very happy to be here today. You can ask me questions in French, English or Mohawk.

I have been involved in climate change research for 40 years and in the Arctic for at least two to three decades, so my interpretation of all that's going on is based on this foundation.

The Arctic has had spells of temperatures in the thirties in the last two years, which was totally unobserved in the past and is a very big change. The Arctic warms up at about three times the temperature of Canada, and Canada warms up twice as fast, approximately, as the rest of the planet, so we're looking at six times the effect over the warming of the planet. Clearly, if we have a 1.5°C temperature over the 1880s, we are looking at 7°C to 8°C up north, which to a large extent has been demonstrated as well.

There are different tipping points that are owned by Canada or that are in Canadian land or very close to it. These tipping points are called, in French, points de bascule. They're essentially points of no return, where we've changed from one meteorological and environmental climate state to another. Returning may be extremely difficult or impossible.

It is having an impact on quite a few things. Let me state the five tipping points in Canada. There's polar ice melting. There's a stage at which it cannot recover. Greenland is thought to be in a meltdown process that will not be recovered. There's permafrost methane in the Arctic, which is created and put in the atmosphere. Methane has about 86 times the carbon effect of CO2. There are fires in the boreal forest. We have seen that in the last few years, and we've seen again this year that things are reoccurring. There's also the Atlantic circulation stream, the Gulf Stream, which is cooling the eastern part of the country but also managing the temperature of Europe.

All these factors are things that other nations may ask us to report on in the future. These are happening in our territory. We need to understand these effects and report situations that may not be recoverable.

The Northwest Passage is melting and mostly available. The polar vortexes are creating big changes in the temperature in Canada, the U.S. and now Mexico because of the extent of the polar vortex. The ocean temperature is also rising very quickly. Ocean temperature rises mean more environmental issues, such as typhoons and highly damaging tempests.

It's quite interesting that one of the big factors causing the ice to melt in the north is the deposition of soot. This soot is created by operating generators and by burning coal. It tends to accumulate in the north. It deposits on the snow and therefore increases the melting.

One factor that is very important to understand is that the Arctic ice is “the” tipping point. That's where all the effects are cascading over all the other tipping points, including the size of the rainforest and the capacity of the rainforest to be operational as a CO2 capture forest. Soot is very important in driving polar ice melt. We are likely to be held accountable by other countries for what is happening.

If we look at the OECD countries that are involved in the Arctic, we have between four and 15 times fewer scientists than we would need based on the square kilometres of the surface of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry, Professor Boudreault, but that's our time for now. Hopefully, during our questions, we'll get to other comments you might want to make.

[Richard Boudreault]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We'll now turn to Professor Derocher for five minutes.

[Professor Andrew Derocher, Professor of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, As an Individual]

Good day. Thank you for the opportunity to be with you today.

I have conducted research across the Arctic—in the Yukon, NWT, Nunavut, northern Manitoba and northern Norway—for over 40 years. I primarily study polar bears but have also worked on Arctic grizzly bears, Arctic seals, caribou, northern mountain sheep and wolves. While most of my work has focused on the Canadian Arctic, I was a polar bear research scientist for the Norwegian government for seven years. I have been a tenured professor at the University of Alberta for 22 years. I first addressed climate change as an issue in 1993 with the publication “Possible Impacts of Climatic Warming on Polar Bears”.

I'd like to begin on a positive note by recognizing the contributions of the polar continental shelf project of Natural Resources Canada, or the shelf. Their support has been vital throughout my work in the Arctic, most recently this past spring on the sea ice of Hudson Bay. Without shelf support, I would have left Arctic research long ago. The shelf is the glue that holds Canadian Arctic research together, and as such, it is a critical component of Canadian Arctic research infrastructure.

I have several points I'd like to make, but I'll preface them by saying that the research trajectory I have been fortunate enough to take over the past decades is likely impossible for new academics. Many of my colleagues are leaving Arctic research, and new ones view it as a non-viable trajectory in academia. I'd like to touch on funding and predictability.

I returned to Canada from Norway in 2002, as there was a stated desire to expand Arctic research in the 2000 report “From Crisis to Opportunity: Rebuilding Canada's Role in Northern Research”, published by NSERC and SSHRC. While there have been successful Arctic programs, such as ArcticNet and the International Polar Year, the ability of Canada to sustain Arctic research with a focus on climate change has been limited. Funding levels have not kept pace with research costs and expectations. By its very nature, research on climate change requires long-term commitment, yet funding is often short-term—less than five years. Without the high profile of my research species, my work in the Arctic would have ended long ago. I rely more on funding from non-governmental organizations than any other source.

Further to this, as a past member and past chair of the review committee for NSERC's northern research supplement, I found it disheartening to repeatedly underfund—or not fund—many deserving Canadian researchers. The level of NSERC funding has not changed in many years for this program. The current average northern supplement would approximately cover the round-trip airfare to Resolute for a professor and one graduate student.

From a logistics perspective, Canada is lacking the appropriate infrastructure to conduct long-term research in the Arctic. The limited number of locations from which to base research is a significant constraint. While the Canadian High Arctic Research Station, CHARS, provides support for that area, the Canadian Arctic would benefit from a hub-and-spoke model. A series of well-funded, community-supported research facilities across the north would expand research capacity and increase community-researcher collaboration.

On this collaboration point, long-term research by default is collaborative, yet there are few means of linking researchers in the Arctic with communities and research opportunities. Joint research among various levels of government, stakeholders and universities is essential to maximize research outcomes. Without my long-term collaboration with Environment and Climate Change Canada, my research would be severely challenged.

Northern researchers are sometimes criticized for a “fly in-fly out” style. However, research timing is frequently decoupled from results, making communication with communities difficult. Southern-based researchers must collaborate with northern communities, but it is challenging when research funding is insufficient to travel back to the communities when they are available to meet. Enhanced collaboration between researchers and local communities would increase Canada's research productivity, as would more integrated teams of researchers. However, opportunities to collaborate with communities vary widely depending on the research topic, location and funding. Community-based research centres would facilitate researcher-community collaborations in a sustainable, long-term manner.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much, Professor Derocher.

We'll now turn to Professor Quinton for five minutes.

[William Quinton, Professor, Wilfrid Laurier University, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My name is William Quinton. I'm a professor of cold regions hydrology at Wilfrid Laurier University in Waterloo, Ontario. I've worked in Canada's Arctic and subarctic regions since 1987.

The overall goal of my research is to improve the understanding of how climate warming is affecting Canada's northern water resources. The justification or rationale for this type of work is that it provides the mechanistic understanding needed to develop better predictive tools, forecasting models and so on so that we are in a better position to forecast what lies ahead of us as climate change continues. That, in turn, makes us better managers of climate warming and water resources in Canada's north.

Living in southern Canada but working in the north has given me a unique perspective on the stark contrast between north and south in terms of the rates, patterns and impacts of climate warming, all of which are much more obvious in the north, even to the casual observer. Since 1999, I've worked in what you can think of as the southern fringe of permafrost. It's the southern margin of permafrost that extends across our country from east to west, with my work being mostly focused in the Northwest Territories.

In this region, Canadians live at the front lines of climate change impacts. They're dealing with many abrupt changes over recent years or the last couple of decades, including warmer winters; shorter winters; changes in precipitation regimes, which drive changes in river and stream-flow regimes; changes in the frequency and occurrence of extreme events, including droughts, floods and wildfires; and other changes as well.

To put a human face on this, I think of a colleague and friend of ours who is also a former grand chief of the Dehcho First Nations in the Northwest Territories. In 2021, she and all of her community of Jean Marie River, on the banks of the Mackenzie River, lost their homes to the flooding of that year, as did many other communities nearby. She and many of her community members had to build their new homes elsewhere, and she did, in the community of Enterprise, not too far away. Two years later, that community burned to the ground. Ninety per cent of it burned, including her house. She lost two homes to extreme events within two years. I just don't see its equivalent in southern Canada, and she's by no means the only person with these types of experiences in the north.

As to the southern fringe zone, you can think of it as the front lines of permafrost thaw. It's where permafrost is sufficiently thin, at five to 10 metres. It's relatively warm—it's pretty much at the melting point temperature—and it's discontinuous. Those three characteristics make it highly susceptible to rapid thaw. In fact, in this region, permafrost isn't just thawing rapidly. It's disappearing, and it's doing so at an increasing rate. As permafrost disappears, it has profound impacts on water resources, on ecology and ecosystems, on infrastructure and, of course, ultimately on communities.

I think I'll leave it there as a high-level overview. I'm happy to answer questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much, Professor Quinton.

We'll now turn to our first round of questioning. We'll kick that off with MP Soroka for six minutes.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you, Chair.

Before I begin with questions, I have a quick comment on important business. On February 27, the chief science adviser, Dr. Mona Nemer, appeared before our committee to discuss the important work her office is doing. During her appearance, several written responses to questions were requested by members of this committee, including from the Conservatives, the Bloc and the Liberals.

Dr. Nemer later committed to providing these responses by May 10, giving her ample time—over two months—to respond. It is now May 21 and we still have not received the responses. This delay is concerning, as one of the core mandates of this committee is to review the work of the chief science adviser. The lack of timely responses undermines our ability to fulfill this mandate effectively.

I firmly request that the chair and the clerk follow up once again with Dr. Nemer to ensure these responses are produced in a timely manner, preferably this week. It is important that our questions are answered so that we can continue the vital work with the necessary information.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I have just been advised that the clerk followed up with her prior to this meeting, so you are clearly on the same wavelength.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Okay. We would like that as soon as possible, please.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Right.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I will start off with Mr. Boudreault.

Given your background in environmental engineering and clean technology, how do you see the role of scientific research in addressing climate change in the Arctic, and what innovative technologies or approaches are currently being developed or used to address these challenges?

[Richard Boudreault]

Thank you for the question.

We need to understand the environmental situation better in the Arctic. I did that as the chair of CHARS and I do that now at the research institute of Aurora College. We try to bring in new technology to provide energy, removing ourselves from the diesel generators that are putting a lot of soot in the atmosphere. We understand things a little. A big wind generator was built using a steel that did not perform well in the Arctic. There have been different types of processes. People have been telling us that we cannot use photovoltaics in the north, but that winds up being false. You can follow the sun pretty well in the north during the summertime, and it is much cheaper to use these resources than others.

The biggest problem we have—you were told the same thing by my colleagues—is that we need more study of what's going on. We need to do more in our activities. We need to work more with the Inuit, who have a set of knowledge that is critical for us. I'd like to give you an example at one time or another, but that's not the question. Clearly, we need about four times the number of scientists we have right now in Canada. We do not compare with anybody around the world; we compare only with equatorial countries. Most other countries have more people who work there. We need 1,500 more scientists. As was said before, it's hard to keep them on the job, because it's very hard to be in the Arctic and—

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

I hate to interrupt, but I will ask another question of you.

Have you been involved in the development of advanced materials and clean technology, and how can these innovations be applied to improve resource management in the Arctic? Are there specific projects or technologies you are working on that could particularly benefit the Arctic region?

[Richard Boudreault]

Yes, there are many of those. I'll just name one or two.

We were capturing CO2 from generators to reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. We need to filter out all the soot, as it has an impact on people living in it and an impact on the ice. We have also developed new technologies, such as a micronuclear reactor that would fit the bill and provide resources and energy in the north at very low cost and with very high environmental capabilities.

There are many of those. I still work on different projects in the north to generate better environmental quality.

One of them is very interesting, because the Arctic is a desert to a certain extent. There's not that much clean water available, so we have developed a technique that uses nanotechnology to extract water from the atmosphere at a very low cost, therefore providing a lot of needed materials and consumables people require to live.

[Gerald Soroka, Conservative, Yellowhead, AB]

Thank you for that.

I will go to Mr. Quinton.

What technological advancements have been most important in your research on cold regions hydrology and climate change? Are there emerging technologies that you believe will revolutionize the field in the coming years?

[William Quinton]

Given the time constraint, I will just jump into one example.

Our research is often driven by the indigenous communities we partner with. A lot of times, this is just at small scales—the scale of individual municipalities and communities. There are very practical problems arising from climate change. One piece of technology is the development of ground-freezing systems. This isn't anything particularly new. If you're familiar with thermo-siphons, which essentially allow—

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry. I'm afraid that's our time. You have the option of finishing this in a written response, because that's quite interesting.

[William Quinton]

Thank you.