Science and Research Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you to all our witnesses for your testimony so far.

Ms. Barker, you talked about the vision specifically that you have in terms of the Arctic and northern challenge program, and you referenced that it would be guided by northerners, the daily lives of Arctic and northern people, and it would be to ensure that their lives were improved through applied technology and innovation. You mentioned some specific areas you were looking at, such as housing, health, food and water.

Could you give us some practical examples of some research that's been funded that has shown some practical recommendations for improvement and perhaps where these have actually been implemented?

[Anne Barker]

Certainly.

I will say that, as mentioned, this is only year three of a seven-year-long research program, so our projects are still under way. Our first suite of projects is shortly coming to an end.

These are projects that were developed under the Canada-Inuit Nunangat-United Kingdom research programme, which is a collaboration with United Kingdom Research and Innovation, Polar Knowledge Canada, Parks Canada, Fonds de recherche du Québec and Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami.

Some of those projects.... For example, there's the Sikuttiaq project. Some of you may be aware of SmartICE. This project is looking at the effects of climate change on hunting routes over sea ice. It's partnering remote sensing with drone technology as well as on-ice evaluation of ice conditions to create safer ice conditions and safe passage for northerners as they are getting out onto the ice and onto the land. Again, all of this comes back into an application, with the data being owned and operated by SmartICE offices.

We have other projects. I mentioned working with NNC, the Nunavut renewable energy corporation. That is a project looking at very small-scale renewable energy technologies specifically for hunting cabins. Hunting cabins in the north are an essential part of livelihoods and a way of life, but they are often exempt from funding availability because they're not a primary residence. This project is looking at very small-scale hydrokinetic opportunities—wind, solar, as well as some retrofits—for hunting and what that could look like.

Similarly, we have projects looking at search and rescue. As climate change decreases sea ice conditions, we may see more search and rescue requirements. That is partnering the Canadian military and the Coast Guard with regional search and rescue auxiliary members and Rangers. They are coming together for stronger collaboration and coordination in the event that there are more search and rescue considerations.

We have other projects looking at the decreasing air quality, whether that's from wildfires, and what that does on a very engineering scale to your ventilation and your indoor air quality in homes, and what that looks like.

We're also working with the hamlet of Tuktoyaktuk in looking at planning. As we all know, that community is very much struggling with the effects of climate change. What do we do from a planning perspective for housing infrastructure?

These are the types of projects we have under way at the moment. We're looking forward to doing more starting in the coming years.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Thank you.

As you said, you're in year three of a seven-year granting process.

Will you be evaluating the results in some way? In other words, will you be creating some sort of feedback loop to know, for example, that you're seeing progress on something, but you need to do something else in addition? Is that part of your mandate?

[Anne Barker]

Yes, it is, very much.

In addition to our internal processes within NRC, we have a mid-program review to see how things are moving along.

We're also doing a bit of a pilot project right now with Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. For that CINUK program I mentioned, those projects will be coming to an end.

We also want to do an evaluation by the people that this research is supposed to be developed with and carried out with. What do they think of it? How did we do? Where can we improve?

We also have a program advisory committee made up of northern representation, including territorial science advisers and northern industry, to help us on our way. We meet twice a year with them to help correct our course and look at how things worked or did not work. All of that will be part of the process for the program.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Do I have some time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Yes. You have a minute and six seconds.

[Helena Jaczek, Liberal, Markham—Stouffville, ON]

Dr. Hewitt, I'll follow up on where I think Mr. Lobb was going.

You're a member of the tri-council. What mechanisms are there to ensure that there isn't duplication between the various granting agencies for research, in this case in the north?

Ms. Barker talked a little bit about collaboration, networking and so on. Is there any sort of formal way of ensuring that there isn't duplication?

[Ted Hewitt]

I think that in the preparation of grants—and this is primarily where applications come from—individuals who are working in the north or with northerners develop proposals. They're doing some of that work from the start. If you're preparing a proper proposal, you're verifying, first off, that there aren't other people doing that. That's part of the peer review process that's undertaken after that.

When the applications come to the granting councils, the peer review committee, representatives from different disciplines and people who work in the north or have knowledge of that would certainly be assessing to see, right off, whether or not projects are duplicating earlier work. If they're not, that would certainly almost always indicate that a project was less worthy of funding than another, for not having caught that.

I think that's part of the key process that we all engage in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

That's our time.

Thank you so much.

Now we will turn to MP Blanchette-Joncas for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I welcome the witnesses who are here today.

My first questions are for Ms. Barker.

Ms. Barker, during your opening remarks, you stated that the National Research Council of Canada is the biggest research network in the country. Of course, it’s a federal government organization.

I’d like you to tell me about government investments, more specifically about the $22 million investment over seven years. Do you think this investment is enough, compared to investments received by countries located closer to the Arctic Circle?

[Anne Barker]

That's a good question.

However, we are performing research in a very particular area, which is applied science and technology and engineering. This is not the scope of all the research that is happening globally.

Of course, there are many different disciplines that need to come together for that research. I'm sure, as you've heard before, more funding would be wonderful. However, we can still be impactful with what we have.

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

You’re saying that federal government funding is insufficient for research in the Arctic, specifically.

What are the immediate and tangible consequences of underfunding northern research?

[Anne Barker]

In terms of underfunding of Arctic research, I suppose, in my opinion, there can be challenges in terms of who's filling that space to fund research. However, there are also opportunities, as I mentioned, such as the Canada–Inuit Nunangat–United Kingdom research program. By doing that collaboration, we tripled the amount of investment that we put in, because the United Kingdom was very interested in supporting climate change research.

There are also opportunities for partnerships, for bringing countries with similar priorities together.

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

Have members of your organization already communicated with the department or members of the government to try and convince them to invest more into northern research?

[Dr. Shannon Quinn]

As a departmental corporation, we do benefit from significant appropriations. The National Research Council receives approximately $1.5 billion in annual appropriations. This funds a vast array of scientific activities. To give you a flavour, we have 24 installations in 10 provinces, and we also support small and medium-sized enterprises so that we can also see innovation coming out of our small businesses across the country.

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

Ms. Quinn, I think you misunderstood my question. My question was not in fact about determining the number of facilities or the amount of funding you received.

I will ask it again. Did members of your organization speak with members of the government to tell them the lack of money meant that Canada was unable to conduct research near the Arctic Circle?

In the eyes of our scientific colleagues from other countries, we look like we’re uninterested because it’s not a government priority. Canada is unable to be as present as other countries located closer to the Arctic Circle in terms of scientific research activities and research intensity.

[Dr. Shannon Quinn]

In my own words, I would say that the activities that we're doing in the north are very significant, very impactful. Dr. Barker has already told us about a number of projects that are making a real contribution to the north. I think we have taken many opportunities to disseminate to all Canadians aspects of the research that we're doing in the north. However, more broadly, the research that we undertake in climate change in our labs across the country also has very significant implications in terms of what is offered to the north in technologies.

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

Very well.

I will come back to the main point of my questions, which is funding. I don’t doubt the effectiveness or the importance of the research you do. When we talk about countries located around the Arctic Circle such as Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland and Norway, we are not talking through our hats. These countries invested more into research than Canada.

I want to understand why the federal government’s biggest research network is underfunded. Do your scientific counterparts from countries located near the Arctic Circle talk to you about the fact that federal state funding is insufficient?

[Anne Barker]

I think we do talk about it.

There was a recognition in the 2018 ministerial mandate to create a research program on the north to take these funds to create this research. It should also be noted that the NRC does do a lot of Arctic research outside of our programs as well. We work very collaboratively with the military and the Coast Guard.

There is other funding happening. I suppose there's nothing to stop us from being one of many asking for additional funds. However, right now we feel quite fortunate with the funding that we've received to have a very dedicated, long-term funding program, which is also critical. Something that we don't often see outside Canada is that recognition of the time required for these research programs.

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

Okay. I understand.

I’m also trying to understand the connection between your research and what the Chief Science Advisor wrote in the report entitled, “The Polar Continental Shelf Program and the Rapid Rise of Northern Research”. It reads as follows: “Canada has one of the largest territorial claims in the Arctic. It should aspire to be a leader among circumpolar nations in terms of northern research …”

What can you tell us on the matter?

[Anne Barker]

Could you repeat the question? Are you talking about the Arctic Council?

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

Yes, that’s it. What is the nature of your collaboration with the organization, specifically regards to the program?

[Anne Barker]

We do a lot of collaboration internally with federal government departments, academic organizations, Arctic and northern peoples and municipalities.

At an international level, we do coordinate in particular and by choice with the United Kingdom. In terms of the other polar nations, most of that is through networks, research dissemination and having conversations about how we can learn best practices from each other, because technologies and tools that may have been developed, as you mentioned, in Norway, Sweden and Finland may not work in the Canadian Arctic. They have access by rail to their northernmost regions. That's not going to be a factor for our regions, so we need to coordinate with them, understand how we can learn from each other and look at opportunities like CINUK to enable that international collaboration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

We will now turn to Mr. Cannings for six minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you all for being here today.

I'm going to turn to Dr. Hewitt.

SSHRC is one of the funding agencies, and you touched on the coordination aspect of that. It's not really an inherent thing; it happens organically through your funding processes.

You also mentioned a couple of other agencies or groups that may provide more of that coordination. I'm just wondering what part you play in them. One is ArcticNet, which, from what I understand, is a big network of people working in centres of excellence across the country and coordinating around the world.

What kind of role does SSHRC play in ArcticNet? Perhaps you could comment on ArcticNet and its role in coordinating Arctic research specifically about climate change, which is what we're talking about here today.