Science and Research Committee on May 28th, 2024

[Dr. Kimberly Strong]

Thank you, Mr. Longfield.

Our current ask right now, our submission to the pre-budget consultations, was $15 million over six years. That's about $2.5 million a year to do the science and also to give us the funding to be able to resume the program that we had with some Nunavut communities. Funding of $1.5 million per year would kind of keep us going at a baseline level, but $2.5 million is really what we had some years ago, and that's really what we would like to have to enable us to do all the science, plus more than science with northern communities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

In terms of the science research, there are new funds now going into other parts of the Arctic .

Dr. Hik, in terms of your organization's involvement with an organization like PEARL, is there a communication path there, or is there opportunity there? I'm not asking you to approve funding at the table, but that doesn't seem like a lot of funding to do some very important research in Canada.

[David Hik]

I've worked with Dr. Strong for many years, and so we have good lines of communication. We're certainly aware of the valuable work that's been conducted at PEARL over the last couple of decades. The Arctic's a big place, so we're working together to expand some of the observational capabilities that exist at PEARL and at CHARS, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station. It will give us a better understanding of the dynamics of the whole Arctic system.

In that context, we're supporting the research work, but the work at PEARL itself, as Dr. Strong indicated, given how remote it is, has additional requirements that are over and above how remote we feel in Cambridge Bay. It's just that much further into the Canadian High Arctic to maintain those operations.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

You've highlighted one of the challenges that PEARL is quite far north of any population base. The Inuit don't go that far north. There are certainly not a lot of voters in that part of the territory.

Dr. Strong, in terms of governance for PEARL, the University of Toronto has taken the lead and really kept the organization going over the last year, when there's been a funding gap, but the University of Toronto doesn't qualify to support all of the universities up there in terms of governance.

Could you maybe talk about Arctic research having to be a collaboration of governance? How can we look to our study to support the collaborations that are required to do effective research?

[Dr. Kimberly Strong]

With PEARL, we really got started back in 2003, 2004 and 2005, when we got funding from the Canada Foundation for Innovation. That allowed us to install the equipment at existing Environment and Climate Change Canada buildings and then bring up some containers and set up two other facilities. We have three facilities at Eureka. It was the CFI that really enabled that at the beginning.

We then got six years of funding from the Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences, which no longer exists. That gave us stable funding for six years and enabled us to keep operations going and do the science.

There was a gap for about a year or so, and then we were very fortunate to get funding under the NSERC climate change and atmosphere research program, or CCAR, which was a one-off. There were seven lucky winners, and we got funding from that, which we were able to stretch out to 2021, when, because of the COVID pandemic, our expenses went down and we weren't able to travel up so far.

We also got funding from the International Polar Year in 2007 and 2008, and some funding from the Arctic research infrastructure fund.

Those were five of the big funding programs, several of which don't exist any more: CFCAS, CCAR and IPY don't exist any more.

We've also received funding—regular funding—from the Canadian Space Agency, because we do validation of satellite data. They've been a very valuable funding partner. Also, Environment and Climate Change Canada, because we're working at their facility, helps with some of the power costs, which is not an eligible expense under NSERC and other programs.

Over the last 20 years, we've written many proposals. They have not all been successful, but enough have been. The challenge is that every funding program has its own requirements, and for those that require you to have community engagement, it's very hard to do that where we are.

Our expenses are high. We try to piggyback on Environment and Climate Change Canada's monthly produce charters that bring food up to the station, but if we were to charter our own flights a couple of times a year, they're more than $50,000 a pop. Then, to have someone on site, staying at the station, which is the only place—there's no community there; it's just the weather station—costs over $450 a day for food and accommodation. When you send up half a dozen students for a few weeks, the costs add up.

Having programs that recognize the costs of being in such a remote location is really quite critical.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you so much.

Go ahead, 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 and thank them for being with us for this second hour of study.

Mr. Hik, the organization you represent plays a very important role. According to the organization's website, “Polar Knowledge Canada is responsible for … strengthening Canadian leadership in polar science and technology, and promoting the development and distribution of knowledge of other circumpolar regions, including Antarctica”.

Your colleague Anne Barker, from the National Research Council of Canada, who is also director of the Arctic and northern challenge program, said that Canada had previously been a world leader in northern research, but that it was no longer. I'd like to know why you think that is.

[Dr. Kimberly Strong]

My translation is not working.

Could someone have a quick look at this? I just want to make sure I understand properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We're going to pause because of a translation issue.

[Dr. Kimberly Strong]

Maybe you could repeat that. I'm sorry.

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

The question was for Mr. Hik.

[Dr. Kimberly Strong]

No, it's not working. Maybe I'll try plugging it over here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'll stop your time while we sort out this translation issue.

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

Madam Chair, I think I'll start again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Yes. Start your question again.

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

Thank you very much.

Mr. Hik, your colleague Anne Barker, director of the Arctic and northern challenge program at the National Research Council of Canada, talked about the fact that Canada had previously been a world leader in northern research, but that it no longer was.

From your perspective, as chief scientist of Polar Knowledge Canada, which is responsible for strengthening Canadian leadership in polar science and technology, what's the reason for that?

[David Hik]

Thank you for the question, Madam Chair.

I might not entirely agree with my colleague Anne. We work together on a number of programs. I think it's important to recognize that we can't be leaders in absolutely everything, and there are many countries that have expertise that's very complementary and overlaps with Canadian expertise. It's a relatively small science community in the Arctic, and we all work closely together.

Investments in the last 20 years through ArcticNet, through the International Polar Year— the last International Polar Year—and through a number of other programs have really built a capacity for the next generation of Arctic science in Canada. I think what's important to realize is that sometimes it's not so much what we do but how we go about doing it, and it's the way we're working with putting the priority on ensuring that indigenous and northern Canadians, who should be leading that work, are involved. That has taken a little time.

When I meet with international colleagues, I think that in many respects they look at Canada with a bit of envy that we've managed to advance on certain issues. On technical issues, there are other countries that sometimes have perhaps more expertise or capabilities than we have, but I think we are world leaders in many ways.

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

Mr. Hik, I want to make sure I understand what you're saying.

Dr. Mona Nemer, Canada's chief science advisor, noted in her most recent report, “The Polar Continental Shelf Program and the Rapid Rise of Northern Research”: 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, in much the same way it strives to be a global leader in other disciplines.

Do you agree with that?

[David Hik]

I would agree. Canada needs to be a leader in polar science and Arctic science across all of our north, not just in one area.

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

In your opinion, what would it take for Canada to become a world leader again? Why is Canada no longer a leader?

[David Hik]

As I said, I think that in some areas we are still very much world leaders. Our expertise and our scientists are sought after as partners on international collaborative programs with other countries, and certainly within our own country there are many areas in which we are leaders.

However, in a rapidly changing environment, there are unknowns. Those are the things that we need to be aware of and continue to invest in. Funding is one part of it, but there's also making sure that we create the forum to understand what the priorities are and who can bring expertise into those programs. That's an important part of the work that Polar Knowledge Canada is doing.

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

Thank you, Mr. Hik.

Should Canada have a national strategy to better coordinate northern science?

[David Hik]

Many departments and agencies are involved in supporting different aspects of Canada's Arctic science activities. Many of those organizations, like Polar Knowledge Canada, have frameworks or strategies that are focused on particular topics.

What I think you're asking is whether there should be a national Arctic strategy.

Within the Arctic and northern framework policy framework, there are a number of goals and sub-goals that specifically address research requirements. I think what's important, and what we've learned over the last years, is that those need to be co-developed with northerners, with the territorial governments, with indigenous organizations, with communities and with the various bodies of the land claims and rights holders agreements.

I don't think it's as easy as it sounds to just say that we're going to create a national policy, because there are regional and local nuances as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. That's our time.

The final member for this first round is MP Cannings for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Thank you all for being here today.

I'm going to start with Dr. Hik, if only because we go way back to the research that Dr. Hik started on the tundra ecosystems in the southwestern Yukon. He has continued that line until his very new job in the last couple of years.

This study is about research in the Arctic, especially with regard to climate change. The urgency there is because climate change is impacting the Arctic at a much greater speed than it is us in temperate or tropical latitudes.

You mentioned things like ice extent and permafrost. Some of the most important research—and it may not be the sexiest—include those long-term monitoring datasets that tackle those questions. How can we fix something that we don't know about?

I'll ask Dr. Strong about this as well, but can you talk about the importance of long-term data sets of 10, 20, 30 or more years and how priceless they are when it comes to understanding our world? I'm wondering if you could comment on that.