Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 4 - Evidence - February 26, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:39 p.m. to examine and report upon emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: We are here tonight for a variety of purposes, the first of which I will introduce momentarily.
Mr. Moore, I will rely upon your vision to see the colleagues here with us. We can introduce ourselves, if necessary, as we go along; I will not bother introducing everyone to you. Suffice to say that these are all active and interested members.
Before we go to business, I want to call members' attention to the fact that one of the questions we asked Minister Gary Lunn when he was here was about mapping aquifers and the like. The minister sent an answer to that question in a letter, a list and an accompanying chart which, I believe, you all have received. I commend it to your attention. If you have not received it, please let the clerk know and I will ensure that everyone receives a copy. It is informative and tells us where we are with respect to the questions we asked about the continuing mapping of aquifers.
We have with us this evening, Jim Moore, Executive Director, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. It means ``Inuit are united in Canada.'' ITK represents four regions: Nunatsiavut in Labrador, Nunavik in Northern Quebec and Nunavut and the Inuvialuit settlement regions in the Northwest Territories. I also point out that ITK endeavours, as part of their 12 aims and objectives, to help protect the environment and renewable resources so that present and future generations of Inuit can enjoy their relationship fully with the land and the sea.
The committee intends to travel to the Arctic during what we have proposed to the Senate will be a Senate working week. That travel is the last week of May. I expect approval of this trip soon. Since it will be a working week, I remind everyone that we are all expected to make that travel.
We will go to the Arctic, the largest geographic area in Canada. Because it is the largest geographic area of Canada, we have asked witnesses to come before us to advise us with respect to our planned trip there; where we should go, perhaps how we should go there, what we should see, the questions we should ask and of whom we should ask them.
Mr. Moore, I hope you will entertain questions from our members. I know there will be many. In the meantime, I hope you will make some opening remarks. You have the floor. Please proceed.
Jim Moore, Executive Director, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami: Thank you for inviting me here this evening. The remarks that I will make are necessarily Inuit-centric, if I may use that term. I represent an organization which represents Inuit across Canada, not only in the Arctic but in urban settings as well. I will speak to Inuit conditions and Inuit priorities. That does not mean my remarks do not link to what is going on in the Arctic, generally. In fact, they surely do.
In thinking a bit about what subjects to look at when you travel to the Arctic, concentrate on two things: first, climate change and how climate change is impacting the Arctic and, second, economic development. Those two issues will cover the range of interests that you might have because you will see that they are closely linked.
Instead of taking a lot of time to discuss ITK priorities and, by extension, Inuit priorities, I will spend more time talking about the difficulty and challenge that Inuit face in the Arctic. However, I will leave two or three documents with your clerk. One is a copy of a recent speech that our president, Mary Simon, delivered to the Canadian Club in Calgary and, before that, she delivered it here in Ottawa. It captures the essence of the challenges and priorities.
In addition, you may recall in the last Speech from the Throne a reference to the government developing an integrated Arctic strategy. We have put together what we think is a coherent, comprehensive strategy and we have submitted that to the Prime Minister in recent weeks. I will leave a copy of that document, as well.
Senator Banks indicated our responsibility covers about 55,000 Inuit, mostly concentrated in four regions in the Arctic. They are distributed across 53 small, isolated communities.
Senator Adams: Before we proceed, chair, I think that, as with the Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, perhaps the witness can explain more at the same time. We want to know more because we have common interests between the Fisheries Committee and the Energy Committee to find out about mining, water and things like that. I want to know more about what is happing in the Arctic with the fisheries, the land and the water.
Mr. Moore: Thank you. That is helpful.
I also have a fold-up map of the four Inuit regions. It gives you an excellent visual of where Inuit are located right across the Arctic, east to west. I will leave that with the clerk.
As I mentioned, Inuit are located in small communities scattered across the North. There are larger communities; Iqaluit being one, of course. Communities are isolated. They are accessed by air or by sea. The road network is nonexistent. In all of Nunavut — the territory that is about one-fifth of Canada's land mass — there is about a quarter of a mile of paved road. We are talking about an isolated part of the country.
I want to talk a bit about some of the social demographic factors. To some extent, these factors limit the extent to which Canada can exploit the natural resources in the Arctic. The cost of living in the Arctic and in Inuit communities is absolutely staggering. You can travel from Ottawa to Hong Kong twice by air for the same price that it costs to travel from Ottawa to Pond Inlet. The cost is not only for air travel, it is for everything. A litre of milk in Nain, Labrador, which is by no means the High Arctic, is about $6 a litre. Gasoline is $2 and more in some communities. The costs are truly staggering. The data will show that the incomes are well below the mainstream Canadian mean.
One ``positive'' is communications across the Arctic. There is a good broadband network. It is improving but we believe there should be greater investment by the federal government to help ameliorate communication. In fact, if we think about business opportunities for Inuit in these small communities, one area is Internet-based businesses. Improved overall communication will help.
Senators may be aware that each of the four regional Inuit organizations or areas has settled comprehensive, modern land claims agreements. The last one, the Makivik Corporation offshore agreement, recently made its way through the Senate, as I am sure you know. We are talking about regions which benefit from comprehensive land claims agreements.
To give you some feel for some of the social conditions, on the negative side, the suicide rate is about 11 times that of mainstream Canada. It is extremely high. It is the highest of all the Aboriginal groups in Canada. Life expectancy is not increasing. In fact, it has decreased according to the most recent Statistics Canada census. The life expectancy rate of Inuit today is the same rate as mainstream Canada in 1946. The gap in life expectancy is about 13 years. That figure is a significant and telling one. The tuberculosis rate is about 14 times the national average. I expect much of that rate can be attributed — and the data will show you — to overcrowding in Inuit households. At least 20 per cent of all Inuit households fall below the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation crowding standard. Although some money has gone into housing in the North, housing remains a significant problem.
Education rates are also poor. The completion rate for high school is less than 35 per cent. The dropout rate is about 63 per cent versus about 16 per cent in mainstream Canada. There is an extremely young population; the birth rate is the highest in the country. It is the youngest population, and 50 per cent of the Inuit population is under the age of 20, give or take a couple of percentage points. A significant young population will be seeking employment in the years ahead.
Let me turn quickly to issues as they relate to climate change. I appreciate that you have heard much about this issue, so I will not cover old ground. The change in climate in the Arctic is happening faster than anywhere else on the globe. The rate of melting of sea ice is absolutely phenomenal. I am not an expert but I have heard experts talk about the rate of ice melting, and it is truly surprising.
We believe the government might want to think about a plan for climate change in the Arctic. That plan has two elements to it: What can we do to reduce emissions — appreciating that the problem is a global one, and not a local one — and how Arctic communities can adapt to what has already happened and cannot be changed.
I may have missed it, but from what I saw in today's budget I see no mention of adaptation or expenditures for climate change adaptation. I see reference to the problem of climate change and money put forward to that end.
When you go to the North, if you have an opportunity to visit some of the Inuit communities, you will find that impacts are mostly on infrastructure in these communities. The permafrost is melting so structural changes are taking place and potentially can happen to the buildings in these communities. Shoreline erosion is particularly significant in the Western Arctic.
If you go to Tuktoyaktuk in the northwest part in the Inuvialuit region — and I recommend that you do — that is a prime example of where the shoreline is being eroded, sea ice is melting and structural changes are happening to the buildings, all because of climate change.
If you talk to local hunters, whether it is in the Western Arctic or Eastern Arctic, they will tell you things like, it is windier than it used to be five or ten years ago and they are no longer able to predict changes in the climate and in the temperature. By extension, they are at risk when they go out hunting because they are not sure what kind of ice and conditions they might experience.
From a macroeconomic point of view, if you have an opportunity to visit either the Diavik Diamond Mine in the Northwest Territories north of Yellowknife or the BHP Billiton Ekati Diamond Mine, first, you will be pretty impressed with the magnitude of what you see on the ground. Second, everything that goes into those diamond mines in the way of provisions and supplies is either flown in at a tremendous cargo cost or, for the most part, it goes across ice roads.
The year before last, for the Ekati mine, there was a month where the road was out because of warm weather conditions over and above what they thought would be the case. They spent hundreds of millions of dollars bringing in supplies because it costs more to bring them in by air. Real changes are occurring that can affect the economy in the North.
There are also risks to human health, changes in ultraviolet exposure, as well as changes in migration of species. For the first time in parts of the Arctic, the Inuit are noticing birds and insects in the North that they had not seen before.
Much is changing. We recommend that the government seriously consider choosing a community like Tuktoyaktuk as a model community to study how communities can adapt to what is already happening, recognizing that you cannot turn the clock back.
We must compliment Minister Baird for coming to Iqaluit three weeks ago to talk to the Inuit, including local hunters, about climate change and adaptation.
The Chair: Did you say we should visit Tuktoyaktuk as an example?
Mr. Moore: I would highly recommend Tuktoyaktuk. You are also near Inuvik, which is the home site for the Inuvialuit regional council or government, as well as the Inuvialuit Development Corporation. Its president, Nellie Cournoyea, will be delighted to see you. She will be delighted to talk about the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the Aboriginal groups' equity stake in that pipeline — what might be at risk in the current environment there.
I will complete my remarks by saying, if you have the opportunity to go to Nunatsiavut, you will have a good opportunity to see a new form of quasi-government taking shape through the settlement agreement and through their form of self-government. It is new enough that you can see what their problems and challenges are, as well as what their challenges are with economic development.
As for Nunavut, I do not think you could get away without going to the capital. Clearly, you would want to speak to the Government of Nunavut and to the territorial folks. I highly recommend that you do not focus only on the large centre of Iqaluit. Try to get out, for example, to the community of Gjoa Haven.
I was there within the last year and I was startled, during a visit to the elementary school, to hear from the school principal that 15 per cent of the young children outside his classroom window had never set foot inside a school — never. I did not question that. Apparently, the reason relates to the experience of the parents in the residential school era. They felt the best thing to do for their children was to keep them out of school.
In the smaller communities, you might have a chance to see something a little different than you would see in a large community. You might see more profound problems as they relate to housing, jobs and economic development.
In a nutshell, if you can focus on climate change and its linkage to the capacity of northerners to develop their economy, and some of the challenges there, you will be well served.
The Chair: Thank you. I have made notes about places you suggested, and the reasons you suggested we go there. Committee members may wish you to expand on those suggestions so I will now go to questions.
Senator Sibbeston: This bill is about water and the possibility of setting up a federal-provincial agency.
The Chair: Sorry, senator, we are not talking about the bill.
Senator Sibbeston: Oh, I am sorry.
The Chair: This is about our trip to the Arctic in May — where should we go, what should we look for and what should we see? We will come to Bill C-208 later in the in-camera meeting. Right now, we are seeking advice from Mr. Moore as to where we should go in the North and what we should look for.
What we have said so far is, we do not want to go there and be a bunch of tourists. We do not want to go up there and say, ``Look at the cute little kids in their coloured parkas.'' We do not want to go only to Iqaluit, Yellowknife and Whitehorse — if we go to those places at all — because we will not learn much that way. We want Mr. Moore to help us find out what are the questions, of whom do we ask them and where do we find those things out — the things that we do not know anything about.
We have all been to the Arctic before to the usual places. We do not need to go to those same places again. That is the nature of the question, Senator Sibbeston.
Senator Sibbeston: No problem. Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Moore.
When the topic was raised about a trip to the Arctic, I, for one, asked, where do we go and who do we talk to? That was my question.
You mentioned Tuktoyaktuk and, in fact, I plan to be there next week. I am going on a bit of a tour up to the Mackenzie and Beaufort area. Tuktoyaktuk is one of the places that I will go, in addition to many other places.
Tuktoyaktuk would be a good place to visit because they have erosion.
As you say, Nunavik is good because it is the centre of the Inuvialuit and Gwich'in, and the effects of the land claims agreement, which is significant. In the eastern Arctic, I know you mentioned Gjoa Haven because it is a remote community.
Up in the Baffin area, I think it is probably wise to go to Iqaluit, but what other community would you suggest in the eastern Arctic: Pangnirtung or Pond Inlet or Nanisivik? Have you been there in the last year? Also, what do you think the reaction of people will be when a big plane comes in and people traipse out of it and into the community? I know from my past experience in government you generally go to the council meeting and deal with the hamlet council and so forth.
In this case, dealing with global warming, what do you think people's responses will be, and do you think they will be quite inviting and open to discussing issues such as global warming and economic matters?
Mr. Moore: Senator Adams probably has a better fix on how you might be received. Generally speaking, I do not think a planeload of senators arriving will be an issue. If the community has some idea of why you are coming, they will be open and receptive and anxious to engage in dialogue.
I would agree, meeting with the hamlet council is always a good idea, although you never know what kind of questions may be preoccupying them at that point in time. For sure, you would hear what is of interest and a priority for them on the ground.
As to Pangnirtung — I would think Cambridge Bay or Rankin might be considered. Pangnirtung is a beautiful area. Wonderful arts and crafts, but how much you will get on climate change, I could not really venture.
I think on issues related to climate change, you would need to bring together representatives from the Inuit governments, from the regional land claim organizations, some of whom have experts in climate change, probably some folks from the territorial governments, and there could be other Aboriginal groups, particularly in the western Arctic, who for sure have an interest and some expertise as well.
Senator Sibbeston: While we are very curious about matters in the North, I have said here a number of times that the people there are not really occupied with these concerns. They are more concerned about their day-to-day issues of making a living, going out hunting. In a sense, I said that people are not really that interested in the subject that we want to go up there and study intimately. What is your response on that? I think that is true to a certain extent, but there are always leaders who will engage you in conversation about these things.
Mr. Moore: First, from a southern — south of the 60th parallel — perspective, I must say I am struck, over the past year and a half, by the current government's preoccupation with Arctic sovereignty and what is happening in the Arctic.
We have — and in particular our president has — made the point that it is not just infrastructure and military presence, it is also doing something to improve the capacity of the people who live there, their social and economic conditions, because it is really through the people on the ground that you do in fact assert your sovereignty.
We were quite happy to see the reference in the Speech from the Throne last fall. I did not get a chance to read the entire budget tonight. There is some mention of an Arctic strategy, but it is not a coherent, comprehensive description of what needs to be done. Considering that Inuit in many places are the majority in the Arctic, the blueprint we have laid out is something that you could in fact use as a theme when you are in the North.
In other words, if the committee saw, in its wisdom, to provide recommendations to the government about a clear, comprehensive Arctic strategy — which includes climate change, economic development, education, protecting the language — that would certainly be something our organization would be tremendously impressed with. I think in the North they would be receptive to that as well.
Senator Adams: Thank you, Mr. Moore, for coming to our committee. Senator Brown and I were up there last week. We talked about two things, namely, property up there — especially that Inuit are short of housing — and homelessness in Iqaluit. Sometimes you might have a food kitchen, but the homeless have no place to eat; up to 20 to 40 people a day. Iqaluit has a population of around 7,000 people. It is things like that. People are crowded. Now our committee is more concerned about fisheries and the energy and what the future holds up in the Arctic.
Last year's Speech from the Throne talked about Arctic sovereignty, and people up there are waiting to see what will happen. They want to develop, too, and have never heard anything about the future of Arctic sovereignty in Nunavut.
I do not know how much ITK is involved with the Arctic Council and who they are reporting to.
I forget how many countries meet on the Arctic Council, once or twice a year. I do not know if he is still chairing it or not but I think the chairman is from the States.
Mr. Moore: There are eight countries, and it is a ministerial council. They meet formally once a year, and Norway is the current chair.
Senator Adams: We had representatives from Foreign Affairs and International Trade before our Fisheries and Oceans Committee two weeks ago. They said there are good relations between the Americans, the Russians and Denmark. I asked about the flag dropped to the bottom of the sea by the Russians. Mr. Kessel, Legal Adviser, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, said that pictures were being taken, that it had nothing to do with land up there. I do not know whether it is true or not.
We are talking about Arctic sovereignty. In the meantime, four countries surround the Arctic — Canada, the Americans, the Russians, and Denmark. Now we are mapping the bottom of the sea. It sounds as though the Russians did that in about the year 2000. It was a little difficult. I do not think the Russians found anything in the Russian Arctic. Maybe they did not find any gas or oil for the future. That is maybe why they put the flag down at the bottom of the sea in the high Arctic.
Is ITK concerned about things like that, other countries and dealing with people up in the Arctic?
Mr. Moore: Yes. In fact, one of the central points that Ms. Mary Simon, our president, made in her speech to the Canadian Club in Calgary is that, given the amount of potential hydrocarbons in the Arctic basin seabed, the stakes are extremely high for sovereignty in that area. The Russians, being as provocative as they were, have certainly made a lot of Canadians sit up and take notice.
Ms. Simon underscores that, once again, it is the people located there who are the bedrock for sovereignty. If you do not have those people well educated, healthy and contributing to society and the economy, then you risk your sovereignty.
I do not profess to be an expert on the international negotiations of it. I know there are two schools of thought. One is a cooperative and multilateral agreement to bargain out positions on Arctic sovereignty; the other is simply unilateral declarations on who owns what.
ITK is not involved in the Arctic Council, per se. Our sister organization, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, is. They are one of five permanent participants to the Arctic Council. With respect to agenda items that affect Inuit across the circumpolar world or Canadian circumpolar issues, they are at the table, we are not.
Senator Adams: The people up there settled a land claim in 1993. We live up there with the water, and we hunt and live off the land and the sea. I think sometimes it should be recognized that the people who have lived up in the Arctic for thousands of years own that land and the water.
It is very typical for people who live up there to experience eight months of the year in darkness — for example, in Resolute Bay and Grise Fiord. I was up there two years ago this June. At that time of the year, there is 24 hours of daylight. The sun comes up but never goes down.
With respect to the people up there — I think you know Larry. He moved up there when he was 3 years old, and now he is 53 years old. He told me one time that he found a lake about 120 miles from the community, the only lake that had Arctic char. We went in by Ski-doo, and it took us 12 hours to get there, without stopping. We had lots of daylight. The only thing that would stop us was cracked ice. We could not go over it with the Ski-doo. We would have to look for narrow parts where we could cross.
The Government of Canada has to look into this, in the same way as any other province, such as Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba or British Columbia. That is why we settled a land claim. Now the government is saying they do not know who Arctic sovereignty belongs to. It does not have to be discussed with any other country. Anything that develops in the future, such as with respect to mining, belongs to Nunavut, just like the Alberta oil sands. They get the benefit. We have the highest rates in suicide, no housing and a high cost of living. Sometimes good income comes in from resources. We should look into that kind of thing.
We are not up there just living off the land anymore. Now we have schools and such things. Last week, we heard from the Minister of Education. He has three or four people graduate every year. I know one person who took nursing, and she got a job nursing in Fort McMurray as a result of her education in Iqaluit. If we could create jobs and education effectively, we would not need help from the Government of Canada as far as teaching and getting people jobs.
With respect to the big ore mine up there at Mary River, the operator wants to operate for 12 months a year. We have to figure out how much shipping will cost per year. How do we do it? If we go up there, we will have to look into it. I do not think they will be able to go through Gjoa Haven without weighing the costs.
The committee went to Yellowknife. We had a charter, which was very good if you followed a schedule. Gjoa Haven and Tuktoyaktuk are nice communities. If one would want to go to those communities, they have to go through several places because the landscape is so spread out.
Some fisheries people came along with us in order to look at commercial fishing around Baffin Island, especially in Pang, Broughton Island and those small communities concerned about the future. They owe people $50 million because the fish up there are not going into the communities. The committee was there to look at the future economy and the future of Nunavut.
Mr. Moore: You have touched on an area that is certainly critical to the territorial governments. Both the Government of Northwest Territories and the Government of Nunavut are actively seeking devolution of federal powers to their public governments. The heart of that agreement, if there ever is to be an agreement, is a revenue- sharing deal on resource development.
The Chair: Such as the Yukon.
Mr. Moore: They would argue not as we have done with Yukon. They would argue that it is minimal and not a model to be followed.
However, certainly, if you were to visit either one of the two diamond minds in the Western Arctic, there are some pretty significant benefit-sharing deals with every Aboriginal group that is affected by the mine development as well as with the territorial government.
In addition to that, from a regulatory point of view, Diavik, as an example, before they were given a water licence, had to put up a $100-million indemnity for any destruction to the environment.
There are some good examples of deals that have been struck that make some sense. The question is whether those can be replicated across the territories. For example, at Mary River, would whoever develops it have the capacity to enter into that kind of a deal?
The Chair: Senator Adams and Mr. Moore have pointed out a really important consideration that we have to remember when we are devising — which we will do, on the basis of advice we will get from Mr. Moore and others, and from Senator Adams and Senator Sibbeston, and probably from Senator Watt — as to where we go, who we see, what we ask, and that is that we have to bear the committee's mandate in mind all the time. If we are going to answer questions of sovereignty or social development, we have to equate them, in some meaningful way, not tenuously, to the committee's mandate, which is set out in the Rules of the Senate of Canada, which has to do with energy, the environment, and natural resources. When we push the envelope on energy, the environment and natural resources bubbling over into questions of social and education matters, we have to ensure there is a strong, viable, demonstrable connection between those elements. We cannot go there, sadly, to solve the questions of the Arctic. We are going there under the mandate of this committee and we have to make those connections.
Senator Cochrane: Thank you for being here, Mr. Moore. You mention that we should also look at economic development. As the chair said, we have to tie economic development into some sort of a framework for our committee. You say do not go into Pangnirtung, but Pangnirtung is a tourism centre. Tourism ships come in there during the summertime. Would we get anything from that in regard to the breaking up of the ice and the number of tour boats that cannot come in because of climate change? Will we get anything from that if we went to Pangnirtung?
Mr. Moore: Good point, senator. You may well. What I am driving at is that, in selecting the locations you go to, you no doubt will be advised by the territorial governments where to go. All I am suggesting is do not necessarily take that at face value. You may wish to make up your own minds that you want to go to a smaller community that has not been mentioned by the territorial government. That is not to say that you are trying to run roughshod over a territorial government, but they have certain priorities and they have certain things they would like you to see and perhaps not see. If you look at the social data that I have presented here, we would be most pleased to see you visit a range of communities, including some that are better off and some that are not so well off. I do not discount what you are saying. Absolutely, you could learn something in Pangnirtung on those subjects.
Senator Cochrane: Because of the ice conditions there and the wharfage.
No more ice, in May? Because of climate change, you are saying?
Senator Adams: You cannot even fish in the sea right now. You can usually fish in the sea, with hooks and everything, about 60 miles from the mainland. Now they stopped fishing in the sea ice.
Senator Cochrane: What is the purpose of these eight countries meeting once a year?
Mr. Moore: Generally speaking, it has been constituted — and I am almost quoting — as a high-level forum for discourse between eight countries and a number of Aboriginal groups on issues that cut across the circumpolar states, so issues related to, for example, contaminants. The council has spent a lot of time looking at contaminants: how bad they are, what they are, how they flow across the Arctic and the impact that they have. They have looked at climate change generally. The council has issued a fairly current report. They have looked at the human dimension of capacity in the Arctic.
Ministers, usually ministers of external affairs, will meet once a year to set out a work plan or approve a work plan. Certain themes are selected and the countries jointly work on it. It is a consensus-based organization. I have had seven years of experience in the organization. I can tell you that achieving consensus on anything is difficult, but I can also tell you that Canada has usually put forward a pretty comprehensive and sound agenda.
Senator Cochrane: Are the reports made public at the end of the session?
Mr. Moore: Yes, they are public.
Senator Cochrane: Perhaps we should obtain a copy of the latest report.
The Chair: Not just the latest one but the last two or three, I would suggest.
Senator Cochrane: The report could be useful for us.
A couple of years ago, I was at a round table that included people from the communities up there. From what they were saying, quite a few of the older chiefs had a lot of power in these communities. Do you still see that?
Mr. Moore: Just to make a distinction: In the Western Arctic, there are chiefs. They are First Nation communities. You are talking about the Dene, the Sahtu, the Gwich'in and the Dogrib. However, when you move away from that part of the country, we are talking about mayors of municipalities, so it is not chiefs.
Senator Cochrane: They do not have the same influence, of course.
They were saying that the chiefs are very powerful within their community; a chief in one particular community outlawed smoking in any of the houses. You need not laugh, senators; these community people followed that order. Talk about powerful. That is one of the things that happened. I am thinking about all the social problems, not going to school and things of that nature. We have powerful chiefs in that area.
The Chair: There are two important points in what you said. First, we are not going there to look at climate change only; we are interested in anything to do with energy, the environment or natural resources, including climate change.
Second, as Mr. Moore has reminded us in his opening remarks, as well as just now, the Arctic is not entirely populated by Inuit; there are other First Nations in the Arctic. Hence, we might want to consider that when we go there as well, as Senator Sibbeston will be able to tell us.
Senator McCoy: We should not embark on a fishing trip. Surely, we should decide on a focus before we go. Is that not the purpose of your question?
The Chair: Exactly.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: It is very interesting to have you here, sir. My question is very much that of a doctor. I know we must establish a relationship among the three elements of our committee and our visit there, so I want to ask you this question, or perhaps our fellow senators: If we are going to meet with families, which I truly hope we will, what is their knowledge or their fear or their superstition about climate change? I would like to know how this affects their health, specifically their mental health.
Does this add to the level of despair? Does it diminish hope? We know there is despair and lack of hope, and all of the things connected with that, the gamut of mental illness. I do not like calling it mental illness; it is really well- founded despair and helplessness.
Among the young people who wonder about their future, there must be talk in these communities about the environment. That talk must be negative, for the most part. How does that affect their mental health? Would we learn something of significance by talking to these people and finding out just how they feel deep inside, discover their gut feeling about what this means for their future and for the future of their grandchildren? For example, talking to the elders and to young teenagers — would that be of some significance?
Mr. Moore: I find it daunting to respond in the presence of Senator Adams, who would know more about this, I am sure, than I would.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I hope he will respond, too.
Mr. Moore: Generally speaking, if you were to visit a family on the subject of climate change, or a number of families, you would get a varied reaction.
There are those who do not believe climate change is real at all. You will hear some of the Inuit elders tell you that they do not believe that. However, there will be those who see profound changes around them and would probably give you information and anecdotes that you will never hear or read about in the South.
I heard one from an Inuit elder who talked about the connection between changes in the moon, the tides and climate change. It was expressed in such a way that I wondered out loud about whether maybe he was on the mark.
The young people are conscious of the changes that are happening. They are concerned about it. However, when you link it to despair among some of the youth — not all of them, but some — and some of the hopelessness, it is not connected to climate change; the despair is connected to living in the two worlds, that is, the world of their mothers and fathers as recently as 60 years ago where contact was very limited with the modern world, and the world of broadband — trying to function in both those worlds. That is what appears to be, at least from our information, a real dilemma for many of them. Yet there are many young leaders — we can probably give you some names — who are trying to galvanize their people around moving that level of despair away through various methods.
I do not know if I am helping you here at all.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: This comparison just came to my mind because I was very much involved in the process of the building of the Confederation Bridge between Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. In the village of Cape Tormentine, where they lost all their jobs, the fishermen were always talking about what it would do to families, to their sons, to their future and to their way of life, and we still do not know to what degree they are right or wrong. This came up over and over again. I use that as an analogy. To some extent, it seems to have been borne out from that. That is something that had an impact on the socio-economic development of those communities.
Senator Mitchell: I am interested in the climate change issue, and I am quite compelled by your comments on that. Within the context of where we might travel and to whom we might speak, is there a group or a focus of climate change adaptation initiatives? Who is thinking about it up there? Who is developing ideas, or is it just in its infancy?
Mr. Moore: I will pass on the question, but I will certainly tell you that I do not profess to be as well informed as I should be.
There is an organization called ArcticNet that is southern-based but it does all its work up in the North. They are funded through the federal government and through Laval University. They do a lot of work. They are a locus for work on climate change.
In addition, in Iqaluit and, I believe, somewhere in the western Arctic, there are Arctic institutes that are preoccupied with climate change. I am prepared to do a little more digging for you and get you the names of all the organizations that focus on the environment and climate change. In fact, there is quite a list.
Senator Mitchell: If you would, that would be great.
Are there members of your organization? Do you have a committee in your organization? Does the government up there have a group or a department, someone who is thinking about not only climate change and its impacts on the climate but also the specific adaptation initiatives? I know the federal government has announced some money for this kind of thing, but I am wondering where the ideas for how that kind of money might be spent are coming from and how would you begin to prioritize. You cannot spend enough money to remake the ice. What do you do?
Mr. Moore: At our organizational level, we have two individuals whom I would consider to be relatively expert in climate change. We have presented the federal government with our ideas on how they might support the North in adapting to climate change. Those are public record, and I can make them available to you.
It took us, quite frankly, 18 months to get in the door in Environment Canada to get any attention. We finally do have the minister's attention, but we have no working relationship with his officials, which I find surprising. However, that is the case.
The three territorial governments will have some views on adaptation, and some expertise, but most of it would be on the science of emissions reduction.
Senator Mitchell: Do you have a position on emissions reduction? Are you advocates to Minister Baird to say that something must be done and that Canada should be leading in that respect? Is your position official?
Mr. Moore: Yes, it is. In fact, you just articulated fairly clearly what it is.
Senator Spivak: Many organizations are busy doing climate change research. The University of Manitoba is up there, and many people are doing research on the Greenland ice cores.
What do they feel is the responsibility of southern Canadians towards this issue? The people who live up there did not cause the problem, nor should they spend their energies doing research, which is being done all across the world. What is their view of what is coming to them, if there is a government view?
My other question is: What is the mileage between the bottom of Nunavut and the top?
The Chair: It is thousands.
Senator Spivak: Even if you were to think of saying a northern university, they are closer to places in the South than they are in the North.
Mr. Moore: Since this is on the public record, I would not venture to guess how many miles. I do not know. It is a great many miles.
Senator Adams: Maybe I could add to that. Last year, I left Ottawa at 10 a.m. and went north as far as Resolute Bay. We did not make Grise Fiord in one day. We arrived at Resolute Bay at 9 p.m.
Senator Spivak: By plane?
Senator Adams: Yes.
Mr. Moore: By snowmobile, it will take much longer.
Senator Spivak: You could almost go to China in that time.
Senator Adams: If you have a direct flight, you can make it in five hours. I think it takes six hours to fly to Europe. If you take a jet from Ottawa to Resolute Bay, it is a five-hour flight — at over five hundred miles an hour.
Mr. Moore: On your first question, there is definitely a perspective — and I can only speak for our own constituency, the Inuit — that climate change is not their fault. It is not of their making, just as contaminants are not of their making.
Mr. Moore: They come from other portions of the industrialized world. However, they also take the view that they have a responsibility to work with government to try to ameliorate the situation. It is not at all a perspective of, ``We did not cause it so you guys fix it.'' They wish to partner with governments, agencies and universities who are involved in trying to help with the situation, in part because the Inuit have had a long history of ideas, solutions and processes being imposed on them as the best way to do things. They want to articulate themselves how best to do it. As to duplication of research, you will find there is very little.
Senator Spivak: I want to put my question a little differently.
According to some of the latest research, the last time the poles were free of ice was millions of years ago. At that time, there were four or five times the level of carbon dioxide emissions in the atmosphere, and the consequences were unbelievable — but I will not bore you by going in to that. They were four or five times what the carbon dioxide emissions were at the beginning of our industrial age. I think we have doubled, and are trying not to go beyond a certain ceiling — because at four or five times it is game over. The seas become hydrogen sulphite.
How advanced are they in terms of looking at amelioration? Are there people there looking at this? Research is moving quickly — and there are many different and more sombre scenarios. Is there a location that looks at that and then transfers it, or do you think that is the responsibility of people from the South who are doing the research? That is the question I wanted to ask you. Are they aware of how difficult that could be, and are they following what is happening in terms of the research to guide them?
Mr. Moore: Yes and yes.
Senator Spivak: Does that include the timelines? Some of the timelines are really very short.
Mr. Moore: When you do get up there, and if you do engage on the subject of climate change generally, how much research is being done, do they understand the whole dimension of what is being done, you will get some fairly profound and intelligent feedback.
I do not profess to be an expert on it, so to some extent I am speculating. However, my guess would be that they do understand and they do know what is going on.
Senator Spivak: You say the minister was up there. In the meantime, Environment Canada is not what you would call totally engaged. The department should be looking at how to deal with this, because the North will begin to feel the effects. Whatever catastrophic effects there are, the North will feel them. Where is the plan?
Mr. Moore: Exactly, senator. There is no plan that we are aware of.
Senator Spivak: Right.
Mr. Moore: With all due respect to the department, they take their marching orders from the minister. I do not for a minute blame in a blanket way the department's officials.
Senator Spivak: No.
Senator Sibbeston: While Mr. Moore and others were talking, I was thinking back to the 1970s and 1980s and was reminded of the DC-3, a very good plane for travelling in the Arctic. It was very slow. There was an instance where a whole plane of Inuit, coming from the west and going east, met with a head wind and ended up running out of gas. The plane landed on a lake. Nothing terrible happened; everyone survived. Eventually, the committee will be dealing with planes and how to get around. Travel often involves hours and hours and hours. Eventually, there is a little dot and the plane swoops down. When I was in government up there, we used to bring cards and a bit of money. We used to play cards to occupy and amuse ourselves during those long trips. Distances are such a vast thing up there.
While we are on the subject of water, while I was in government up there, one of the biggest problems was water. Although the Arctic is a land of ice and snow, the problem of potable or drinkable water is one of the biggest issues up there. You would not think that in the Arctic. There is ice and snow that you can melt, but there is a problem getting the water into people's houses from nearby lakes. Sometimes a reservoir is required.
The Arctic people are very well informed. Everyone has a TV with access to the satellites flying around. I remember going to Grise Fiord, the most remote community in the Arctic, where everyone had a television. They were well informed on issues because they saw the world on TV in their living rooms every day. That was one of the things that I noted about the North.
With respect to pollution, it is not something that we see in the North — with all its vastness, it is so pure. We are so far away from the industrial heartland of our country. I continue to be amazed at scientists who study the contamination of the North and find all sorts of mercury — fluoride from Mexico or Texas finding its way to the Arctic.
When you travel to the North, you will not think it is polluted in any way. It looks so pristine. However, many contaminants are finding their way to the North.
The Chair: We are referring to some of that in our forthcoming report on CEPA.
Mr. Moore, I want to thank you on behalf of all senators. You have been helpful in giving us some direction.
Mr. Moore was kind enough to bring us a map that puts things in a better perspective, and this is what we are talking about. Mr. Moore, considering the factors of cost and distance, would you be kind enough to start to identify the places that the committee should visit in the North. Should we travel to all of Nunatsiavut, Nunavik, Nunavut and Inuvialuit? I would like to begin compiling some answers in preparation. You could send your opinions and thoughts to the clerk of the committee for our discussions. Senator Nolin, other members of the steering committee and I will bring back the beginnings of a framework shortly thereafter on where we should go and what we should see.
Senator McCoy: You mentioned a blueprint and called it a comprehensive Arctic strategy. I would want to read that first because there is no sense frittering the time of Canadians and the time of the committee. If we are to decide to do something, we might as well try to be strategic about it.
The Chair: Is there such a piece of paper, Mr. Moore? May we have copies of it?
Mr. Moore: I can leave this with the committee.
The Chair: Are we free to duplicate it?
Mr. Moore: Absolutely. It is a public document.
Senator McCoy: If we could do only one thing, given our limited capacity owing to the realities of cost and so on, what would you suggest that we focus on? Is that a hard question? Could you think about that and perhaps advise the Chair and Deputy Chair?
Mr. Moore: I could do that, but if I may, I can give you an answer right now.
Given the mandate of your committee, the next frontier for developing the economy of this country is North of Sixty — its economic development.
Senator McCoy: How you people participate is the real question. That would be within our mandate.
The Chair: Mr. Moore, thank you.
If we think of some questions arising from your comments this evening, I hope you will permit us to write to you and ask them of you. We would be grateful for your responses to additional questions.
Mr. Moore: Anyway we can be helpful, we will do.
Senator Brown: Most everyone here agrees that climate change is happening; there is no doubt about that. I was in the Iqaluit airport a few days ago, and I saw a sign that read: ``The climate is changing.'' With the stuff that has come across my desk during the last three months, I am absolutely bewildered by which end of the spectrum we should fall into.
I was told by some of the best scientists in Canada that our impact on the climate is 0.48 per cent of the world's impact. Therefore, we are looking at less than one half of 1 per cent, no matter what we do. Some argue that the Government of Canada must lead other countries. Our chances of leading China with its development of 500 coal-fired generation stations this year and another 500 next year are probably not that significant.
However, I have lived in Alberta all my life and I know the climate is changing even there. We used to have much tougher winters with more snow and cold. We need to do something about pollution, but I am not certain about what kind of pollution we should focus on. In Calgary, when a dome of warm air traps the cold air, it looks like someone sprayed the city with mustard gas. I am sure that happens in Edmonton every once in a while.
The Chair: It depends on the wind.
Senator Brown: Yes, and it takes the wind to blow it away and clear up to Strathmore before it dissipates. I have seen that phenomenon in Phoenix, Arizona, and it blows down to where we live in Tucson, which is 120 miles away. Definitely, we need to find ways to consume less gas and create less contamination. I cannot get my mind around where the scientists stand on this.
I will read two sentences taken from a document entitled, The Security Implications of Climate Change, from Washington, D.C. At the end of the document, there are four pages of information sources located all over the world. The following is what they have to say in the first few sentences:
. . . the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change . . . portends a world in which people and nations will be threatened by massive food and water shortages, devastating natural disasters, and deadly disease outbreaks. No foreseeable political or technological solution will enable us to avert many of these climatic impacts even if, for instance, the United States were in the near future to enter into an international carbon cap-and-trade system. Meanwhile, a technological breakthrough that would lead to a decisive, near-term reduction in the concentration of carbon dioxide . . . in the atmosphere remains far away.
. . . Thus, it is not alarmist to say that this scenario may be the best we can hope for over roughly the next 30 years. It is certainly the least we ought to prepare for.
That is the extreme version of the worst that I have read over the last three or four months of the material that has come across my desk.
The other side of the equation happened yesterday, when Lorne Gunter, whom I am sure you have heard about, apparently got hold of two working models prepared by two scientific groups working on their projections for the world. To show you how crazy this situation is becoming, they both project that we will head into a dramatic global cooling. In fact, they mentioned that measurements of the ice in the Arctic are 20 centimetres thicker than they have been in years. I was in the North with Senator Adams one week ago when it was minus 34 degrees with the wind blowing about 50 kilometres per hour so it was easy to believe that theory.
I am trying to set out the two extremes of scientific theory on this issue. I do not think anyone has a definitive answer yet. One thing we need to focus on is conservation of natural resources. We need to use less energy and protect the environment from erosion. However, the one thing we should not do is believe the paragraph I read a minute ago from the document put out by the security people in Washington, D.C., any more than we should believe that we are headed into an Ice Age. I think we should be somewhere in between those two extremes. I would like to ask for caution as we think about what is happening because I do not think anyone truly understands.
Last night in the news, the guru of environmental change, Dr. Suzuki, is quoted as saying it is wonderful that B.C. is putting a carbon cap in place. It will generate $50 billion. He mentioned three social concerns for which the money could be used before he mentioned anything on the changing of climate.
That is what I am trying to make everyone understand. I do not know whether we are doing this to effect some real change in the climate, whether we are doing it for other reasons or what the intentions are of people highly energized about climate change. They can be as scary as those who say do not do anything.
Our society is so complex in terms of its technology now; for example, if there is a power outage in a city like Calgary some people cannot get out of their apartment buildings and office towers for hours. That is part of the high- tech nature of our society.
If we start to make major changes too quickly or without deep thought about the consequences, then we could experience some of the things that are in this paper. It goes through every imaginable bad scenario you could consider from what happens in China or the Middle East, what happens politically, what happens in immigration or what happens with increasing water scarcity, all of which will contribute to instability throughout the world. This is a scary document; there is no question about it. When you get through reading this you might think the only solution is to bring out the purple Kool-Aid.
I would be happy to copy it for anyone who wants to read it.
The Chair: Everything you have said is right and caution must be observed on all sides. However, in respect to the Arctic, in particular, I think we would all agree we are not going to the Arctic to talk about how the Arctic or anyone in it could stop or reduce pollution. Rather, we are going to find out how the Arctic can adapt to the climate change that is happening for whatever reason caused by whatever reason.
As you said in your opening, there is climate change. Every ice age, I believe, has been preceded by global warming. If you go through history, it warms up, the ice melts, the oceans cool, there is an ice age. That is the scenario.
What we will look at, Mr. Moore has told us and I also think we should be going to the North for, is to find out how the North can adapt. The North does not pollute very much. However, a hell of a lot of the world's pollution ends up in the North as we have found and as we will report. We will be talking about adaptation.
You were talking generally about what we are examining and you are right. Caution is necessary on all sides.
Senator Brown: I am glad you mentioned adaptation, because I have another newspaper item. It is claiming the one answer we can be sure of on a worldwide basis is that engineers will be relied upon to show us how to adapt, how to conserve and how to stretch our resources. I am talking about engineers not only here but worldwide. We will depend on them for adaptation, whether it is in the North where we are trying to improve people's living standards and ability to survive or whether we are talking about Africa where we have problems because of water scarcity.
That is the one bright light I have read in all the materials that have come past my desk. We need to depend on and spend our money on the people who have the scientific ability to come up with the engineering solutions to every problem we have regarding energy, climate or whatever it is. We have to adapt, no matter what. Whether their institute is right and we are facing 30 years of bad weather or if they are only 5 per cent right, we still have to adapt.
Senator Sibbeston: The Government of the Northwest Territories apparently prepared a report on climate change adaptation and released it in the legislative assembly last week. I will get that document and make it available to the committee.
I heard on the news that scientists have been looking at the ice in the North. There has been a decrease of ice in the Arctic. However, apparently all of it has come back and now it is thicker than ever before because of the cold winter. We have generally had a cold winter in our country and particularly in the North. Therefore, it will be interesting when we go to the North to see people's reaction to this really cold winter. It has not been like the usual warmer winters in the past few years.
The regions of the North are quite different, and you can get to the major centres such as Yellowknife, Tuktoyaktuk, Iqaluit and Inuvik using the main airlines. However, you have to accept that if you want to visit more remote places, such as Pangnirtung, Pond Inlet and Rankin Inlet, then you have to take a charter.
The Chair: Will you make a note of the route across the Arctic and send it to the clerk, please.
Senator Sibbeston: The only area I have never been to is Nunavut and Nunatsiavut. We in the Far North do not consider that really the North. I appreciate it is on the coast and there are Inuit people living there. That is Senator Watt's area. He lives in Kuujjuaq.
The committee continued in camera.