Thanks, Chair.
To the witnesses, in reviewing the government's Arctic and northern strategy, adaptation is only mentioned a handful of times, and it's in the preamble. It says that at round tables, “people felt that adaptation activities should take precedence over mitigation actions in the region” because of its “small emissions footprint” and the “magnified impacts”. It also talked about how conservation issues “drew a varied response” from people in the region, and it said that some expressed concerns over the “weight of regulation and its impact on resource development”.
I'm wondering how we square these circles, because we have this strategy that notes these themes came up in round tables, but they didn't make their way into goals. From what I've taken from some of your testimony, they haven't really made it into Canada's research strategies either.
I'll start with this. Would you support a recommendation for the government to place greater emphasis on concrete Arctic adaptation strategies in its official Arctic and northern strategy? That question goes to anyone.