Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 7 - Evidence - April 15, 2008
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 15, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 5:49 p.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate; and to consider a draft budget.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good evening. It is my pleasure to welcome you to the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources. I am Senator Banks, from Alberta, and I have the honour to chair this committee.
I would like to briefly introduce the members of the committee. The distinguished senator from Quebec, Senator Nolin, is the deputy chair of our committee. With him is Senator Brown from Alberta, Senator Mitchell, also from Alberta and Senator Trenholme Counsell from New Brunswick. Also in the room, and soon to be seated, is Senator McCoy from Alberta, so the Alberta task force is here.
Today, we are examining climate change adaptation in Canada's North in anticipation of our committee's visit to the Arctic. We have the pleasure of welcoming, in what we hope will be a school session for us, witnesses from Natural Resources Canada: Mark Corey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector; Don Lemmen, Research Manager, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, which is specifically cogent to our questions; and Sharon Smith, Permafrost Research Scientist.
We have now been joined by Senator Cochrane from Newfoundland and Labrador.
In March 2008, the department published a comprehensive assessment report entitled From Impacts to Adaptation: Canada in a Changing Climate 2007. Of particular interest to the committee is chapter 3, which focuses on Northern Canada.
We would appreciate it if the witnesses would make opening remarks to us as concisely and briefly as they can in order to get to questions, bearing in mind our purpose here is to be informed about what we should look for, what we should see and who we should talk to when we go to the Arctic.
Mark Corey, Assistant Deputy Minister, Earth Sciences Sector, Natural Resources Canada: Thank you very much for inviting us to appear before you this afternoon. We are pleased to be here to talk about the report we recently released. This is a landmark report; it is a huge volume with a lot of information.
It is broken down by regions. The areas you will be most interested in will be the overall summaries and probably the sections on the North.
I will tell you a little bit about the backgrounds of the two scientists we have with us. Mr. Lemmen is a scientist at Natural Resources Canada, NRCan. He is an expert on climate change and often represents Canada in international negotiations. He took the lead on this report, chaired the advisory committee, served as the lead scientific editor and was the lead author of the synthesis at the front.
Ms. Smith, also a scientist at NRCan, is a permafrost expert at the Geological Survey of Canada, GSC. She was responsible for the sections on permafrost and infrastructure in the Northern Canada chapter, which will be of particular interest. Ms. Smith is one of the scientists recognized by the Nobel Prize, which was awarded to authors of the report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
[Translation]
This report is a major deliverable of the Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Program. It represents a major milestone. Huge advances have been made in this field during the last ten years, particularly with regard to our ability to adapt and it is the first time in ten years that available scientific information on climate change impacts and adaptation for Canada has been pulled into a single report, making the scientific information more accessible to those who need it to support their decisions.
Production of the report took two years of work. Drafting involved the participation of 145 authors from governments, universities and NGOs from across Canada. Over 3,100 references were cited. The process was overseen by a 16 person advisory committee with representatives from governments, academia, Aboriginal groups and the private sector, and from all regions of Canada. Chapters were reviewed by 110 scientific experts and federal, provincial and territorial government officials.
[English]
As I mentioned, this is a huge work that involved a large number of people. It is amazing that we were able to pull it together into one comprehensive volume, which is available for people to look at.
Natural Resources Canada provided the overall coordination for the report and invested about $1.5 million. A lot of work and funding went into the final production of the document — translation, technical editing, layout and printing. The report was released finally to the public on March 7. It is available in both languages and is on the Internet now.
We are pleased to be able to provide the committee with binders containing the full report for your reference. I will give you some of the key findings to start the discussion and then turn it over to you for more detailed questions.
At the national scale, the report notes that resource-based and Aboriginal communities are particularly vulnerable to climate change, and this vulnerability is amplified in the Arctic.
The chapter on Northern Canada highlights several key points, including that the changes in permafrost conditions have significant implications for the design and maintenance of northern infrastructure; and that the reduction of sea ice cover and increased importance of marine transportation, which will result from that, will result in a less remote Arctic, bringing both opportunities for growth in a range of economic sectors and challenges associated with culture, security and the environment — so, again, we see both opportunities and challenges.
Adaptation is necessary because the impacts of climate change are already evident in every region of Canada. Here are some of the examples.
In Atlantic Canada, there will be more intense storms, rising sea levels and coastal erosion and flooding. Marine fisheries will be affected in transportation, marketing and occupational health and safety. Vulnerability can be reduced through planning and adaptation by coastal communities to limit the exposure to rising sea levels.
[Translation]
In Quebec, the largest changes are expected in the Arctic regions. While some impacts, such as those relating to hydro-electricity and forestry, could be beneficial, all this will adversely affect ecosystem and human health. There will be increased shoreline erosion along the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the St. Lawrence estuary.
[English]
In Ontario, disruptions to critical infrastructure are expected to increase, with water shortages becoming more frequent. Extreme heat waves may present health risks to residents, and stresses on resource-based communities are expected to increase. Ontario's strong capacity for adaptation is not uniform across the province.
In the Prairies, increased water scarcity is the most serious climate risk. The Prairies are losing the advantages of a cold winter, which will result in increases in some pests and diseases, challenges for winter forestry and energy activities and reduced transportation to remote communities because of the lack of reliable winter ice roads.
In British Columbia, there will be increased water shortages and increased competition for water use. The province's forests, forestry and forest-dependent communities are vulnerable to risks such as pest infestations — for example, the mountain pine beetle — and fire. Stresses on the fishery will be exacerbated.
In Northern Canada, which is the area I think you are most interested in, we can see changes in permafrost, sea ice, lake ice and snow cover. This has large implications for infrastructure and design. There will be shifts in species availability, accessibility and quality, affecting communities that rely on country foods. Increased navigability of Arctic seas will bring both opportunities for growth and challenges to culture, security and the environment.
As you can see, some of these impacts present challenges for infrastructure. Infrastructure is a long-term issue that takes years of planning before you can actually change the infrastructure of any part of Canada. This includes the need to start planning now for changes, and the possibility of faster wear and tear of our infrastructure. The assessment also documents some adaptive steps already being taken: building set backs from the coast, revised design criteria and improving emergency response measures.
In conclusion, there is a lot in the report. We would be pleased to begin the discussions with you tonight. We have two of our leading scientists here that hopefully will be able to answer questions on the report.
The Chair: Shall we go directly to questions or do Mr. Lemmen and Ms. Smith want to add to what you said?
We have been joined by Senator Adams, who represents Nunavut, and by Senator Spivak, who represents Manitoba.
You mentioned social issues and that is not the purview specifically of this committee. However, it seems that it is not possible to talk about adaptation in the North without at least a grazing reference to social issues there.
Those of us who live in Southern Canada, unlike Senator Adams who lives in the North, have a tendency to think of the North in terms of development — roads, mines and all of those things — without perhaps as much reference as we ought to make to the people, the Inuit.
Is it appropriate for us to take those things into account? Are they significantly important in our examination of the questions of adaptability to climate change in the North and development in the North?
Don Lemmen, Research Manager, Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation Directorate, Natural Resources Canada: That is an extremely important point. In fact, it is one aspect of the report of which we are most proud. We have really stressed the human dimension of this issue.
Most people's understanding, and a lot of the science, has been looking at the biophysical environment only. We have really made an effort to ask how this affects communities, people and economies. We have to recognize that people do not adapt to climate change. Rather, they adapt to changing conditions and climate is one of those things that is changing around them.
The North, presently, is a very dynamic environment. Globalization and demographic changes all factor into the type of adaptation that will take place in the North. Climate change will be a major factor, but not an exclusive factor. You are absolutely correct; we need to understand the communities and their capacity to adapt to changing environments.
Senator Adams: I know some people up North are not living at too high an elevation. Those living around Hudson's Bay are noticing every year the rising of the tidal waters. I mentioned in this committee previously that the people around Eskimo Point were experiencing higher tidal waters than ever before. Someone had tied their dogs up along the shore, and they were drowned by the high tidal waters.
At Rankin Inlet, we had built a small harbour, and it had never overflowed except sometimes in October when there is an unusually big tide. That is how we used to launch our boat. Now, we do not have to pull it too far from the water because of the rising water levels.
We heard witnesses from Fisheries and Oceans Canada, and from the Canadian Polar Commission about three weeks ago. We were told that some of the communities will have problems in the future, especially around Tuktoyaktuk. Some housing was built by the government too close to the shore, and every year the water gets closer. Will that be happening more in the North, Mr. Lemmen?
Mr. Lemmen: Certainly the issues of changes in sea level and water levels are extremely important. Globally, the sea level is rising and will continue to rise, probably up to half a metre over this coming century. Within the Arctic, it becomes quite complex because not only is the volume of water changing, but the land is moving up or down.
What will occur in your community could be different than communities in other parts of the Arctic. Land in the Hudson's Bay region is coming up quite quickly, whereas in areas around the Beaufort Sea, such as Tuktoyaktuk, the land is submerging and the sea level is rising. Therefore, that becomes a very important issue there.
Another important factor is changes in the sea ice cover that you will have noticed in all communities throughout the North. When the amount of sea ice is reduced, that allows wave action to become more important and more erosive along the coastline. Therefore, you will see significant changes in the coastal area, regardless of whether sea level is remaining fairly stable or is rising significantly, as it is in many places.
Senator Adams: Even in our area, we have noticed the snow has started changing in the last two or three years. I usually go out to my cabin pulling a heavy sled with my snowmobile. Now, as soon as I have a load on my Ski-Doo, it sinks down into the snow. That never happened previously. The snow is more like ice crystals instead of hard snow.
The sea ice, instead of melting from the top, it seems to be melting more from the bottom. Have you been checking the water temperatures in the sea over the last few years?
Mr. Lemmen: That raises a very important point. In many cases, it is the people on the land and the communities themselves that are, in some ways, ahead of the science community in observing many of the changes taking place.
For example, Arctic communities were reporting changes in wind direction and wind strength. Because we have relatively few climate stations across the North, there was not a strong instrument record of that. However, when we began hearing these reports from communities and looking at the information in more detail, we realized there are important changes taking place.
This report attempts to capture that local traditional knowledge and, in the case of the Aboriginal communities, the types of occurrences that the practitioners are observing, such as changes in the texture of snow, which is exceedingly important for transportation, animals and other reasons. That is an important addition to the scientific information we have.
Senator Cochrane: What impact of climate change in the North is the most urgent? Is there any one particular thing that is the most urgent?
Mr. Lemmen: It is an exceedingly difficult question because climate change affects everything from the level of individuals to regions, to the globe. Therefore, the most important issues to deal with on a community or an individual scale might be different from those at a regional or national level.
For example, most Arctic communities are located along the coast. There will be urgency in protecting the infrastructure that is vulnerable to increased erosion or sea level rise.
At the same time, however, I would caution and step back saying that there will be potential economic opportunities in the Arctic that if we do not recognize and take steps in the relatively near future, we may not be able to benefit from those opportunities. Those are issues that on a regional scale may assume a greater importance because of the relative responsibilities.
In attaching urgency to an issue, it is a question of for whom is this urgent. In the report, we intentionally did not try to address those questions because they are very complex. We have tried to make all of the information available so that individuals, policy-makers and industry can sit back and ask how it affects them and what actions they should be taking.
Senator Cochrane: What kind of opportunities for the people are you talking about?
Mr. Lemmen: Within Northern Canada, the reduction in sea ice cover will increase marine transportation. There could be opportunities for economic development, for development of northern ports and for development of a more significant road infrastructure. These could bring jobs within the natural resources, transportation and tourism sectors. These are opportunities of which some northerners, whom I have had the pleasure to deal with, are very aware. They are taking steps to take advantage of them.
The Chair: Dr. Smith, most of the coastal areas, where Dr. Lemmen has said the settlements are located, are shown on the maps in this report as being located in permafrost, but it is not so permanent anymore, is it? Will that not be a great infrastructure challenge?
Sharon Smith, Permafrost Research Scientist, Natural Resources Canada: Yes, most of those coastlines have ice-rich permafrost. That is an added factor in those areas to take into consideration in assessing the impacts that will occur.
You are right; even though we call it permafrost, it is not as permanent if the warming occurs.
The Chair: I neglected to say, ``Congratulations'' on your piece of the Nobel Prize. Do you get a little statue for that?
Ms. Smith: We are still waiting for that. We did get a nice plaque from Minister Baird.
Senator Nolin: To complete the answer to the chair's question, what are the consequences for the infrastructure in terms of what needs to be done?
Ms. Smith: The permafrost or the frozen ground does provide a fairly solid foundation as long as it remains frozen.
Senator Nolin: That is why I think the question is quite valid.
Ms. Smith: When it thaws, especially if it is ice-rich, there is a reduction in the strength of that material, so it behaves quite differently as it thaws out. If you have a load on it, such as a building, then it reduces its bearing capacity. You get settlement of the ground, and then it will have impacts on the integrity of the infrastructure itself.
In larger infrastructure, there are more consequences because you may have settling in one part of the building or the road and not in another. You will get some deformation in the structure itself.
Fortunately, we have had to deal with these issues for quite some time in Northern Canada. Just by disturbing the ground surface and clearing vegetation to construct the infrastructure or by placing a heated structure on it, you thaw out the permafrost. Engineers have developed techniques to deal with some of those impacts.
We are quite fortunate that way; we have had to deal with this over the last 50 years or so.
The Chair: To finish our class on this, tell us how many different types of permafrost there are. You said if ice-rich melts, that means water, mud and less strength. Are there other types of permafrost that are less damp?
Ms. Smith: Yes, there are. Permafrost that tends to be more in soils rather than rocks will present you with more problems as far as infrastructure stability is concerned. Fine-grain material, such as silts and clays, as found throughout the Mackenzie Valley, for example, tends to be ice-rich. In the area around Tuktoyaktuk, we get large ice bodies in the glacial sediments there. There is variation in the ice content; there are no huge amounts of ice in it where there is rock. It tends to remain stable when it thaws out. It depends on the soil characteristics.
The Chair: We will need to pay attention to that as we go along.
Senator Mitchell: Congratulations from me as well for your part in the Nobel Prize, but also congratulations for this remarkable study. It really is formidable.
I am reminded of the adage we have often heard, that the right hand does not know what the left hand is doing, where you were the left hand doing this remarkable study on the impact of global warming and the Prime Minister, Minister Ambrose and perhaps Minister Baird were the right hand. While you were completing this remarkable study of what is actually happening, did any of them consult with you before they cancelled all of the global climate change programs in place when they took government?
While they were actually denying the existence of climate change, had they consulted you or had you been able to take the initiative to tell them that they were on the wrong track?
Mr. Corey: That is probably a question that you should ask Environment Canada in terms of their programming and background on it. I can say from our perspective, however, that a large body of people were involved in this. There was a broad range of people from our department, Environment Canada and other federal departments.
This report represent the bringing together of all the people we knew of who are leading experts in this area. It is a remarkable — as you say — collection of the state of the art. If you only read one thing on adaptation to climate change, this report is probably what people would refer to right now.
Senator Mitchell: I was looking at the extensive list of people involved. There must have been huge amounts of resources and people in that department and your department. You would have to be wilfully ignorant of what was happening in your department, as the Minister of the Environment, for example, not to know what your people were doing about the explicit acknowledgment that climate change was occurring. However, at the same time, they were denying it was occurring and denying taking any steps. Worse yet, they were cancelling steps already in place to mitigate the damages. Maybe that is a question you cannot answer. It seems to me that your ministers must have known.
Mr. Corey: I might say that, in fact, the point is quite correct. The report cost about $1.5 million for which we paid. As we mentioned, a large collection of leading scientists were actually involved in this. It does represent state-of-the-art knowledge right now on adaptation.
The Chair: We can happily take comfort in the fact that the ministers do now acknowledge there is climate change.
Senator Mitchell: Yes, after kicking and screaming, whether they really acknowledge it or not.
Senator McCoy: The $1.5 million for a study of this magnitude is peanuts. You must have been doing more of a desktop exercise in all of the expensive research.
I am sort of honing in on Senator Mitchell's question.
Senator Mitchell: We Albertans stick together.
Mr. Lemmen: It is a very important point that this study is an assessment of the information that was available. We did not do original research as part of this. Rather, we were finding that there are so many different individual studies out there that when we talked to decision makers, they would ask themselves what they believe out of all that they could see, and they would judge what is important.
Our task was to take leading experts, tell them to pull together all of the information that exists for their region and distill it down to the key messages, the key facts that people need to know. Where the science is equivocal, when it does not know what will happen, it is their job, as experts, to say why we do not know and what we need to do to answer the question.
You are correct; there is not new research in here. Rather, it is a synthesis of a large volume of material available in a bunch of different places.
Senator Mitchell: I will not belabour this much longer, but I want to say for the record that it is almost incomprehensible to me that a government could cancel climate change programs in 2006 in the face of this type of information, which profoundly underlines that climate change is occurring, was occurring and has had deep and lasting impacts on Canadians and on our environment. It is truly appalling in that context that they did what they did.
Having said that, clearly there must be a context for this study, a context of how much climate change. How did you integrate what the impacts would be and what the adaptations required would be into your assessment?
For example, if we go over the two-degree limit that is generally accepted by science as a point of no return, was that the context of it? Were you thinking that maybe governments in the world, Canada included, would take actions to mitigate climate change so that the adaptation might be less onerous?
How did you factor all that into it? What level of climate change did you assume?
Mr. Lemmen: That is a very interesting point. That might be the only assumption that we made in this study, although it is not an assumption. It is a fact. It is based on strong observation that the climate is changing and will continue to change into the future.
We looked at the future but looked at it very broadly. What do a full range of possible scenarios for the future lay out for us? What are the paths we are on? This has been done with other studies as well. If we look 15 or 20 years down the line, we are pretty much committed to the track we are on. The route we take, in terms of 100 years down the line, can be divergent depending on what the community decides to do in terms of greenhouse gas emissions.
Rather than isolating ourselves in any one, two or three of those scenarios, we asked what decision makers need now. Where will they start? They will start with their present vulnerability. Where is climate giving us problems today? Will those problems get worse in the future?
For example, I am from Alberta. Drought is a huge issue in Alberta. What do the models tell us about drought? It will get more frequent and likely more severe in the future.
From an adaptation perspective, we do not need to know exactly how much more frequent it will be; we know that we must adapt our farming operations to be able to deal with drought. That was very much the focus of the assessment; namely, where we are vulnerable now and what are the actions that can be taken, rather than speculating on any one of a number of possible futures.
Senator Mitchell: I think it was in last year's budget, or maybe it was in the mini-budget in the fall, where the government made an announcement of about $7 million or $8 million that would go to adaptation in the North.
Could you confirm how much that was? Are you aware of that? Also, does it measure up to the level of adaptation required? Who made the assessment that that figure was reasonable for the amount of effort that is required or the level of the program? Have they been spending any of that money? Has anything been done?
The Chair: So that our guests understand, in this place, we do not stand on the formality of the other place. When someone asks a question, you can speak directly to them and not through me.
Mr. Corey: I believe there was an announcement, in December, by Minister Baird of $85.9 million, and one of the items was $7 million for climate change and health adaptation in northern Inuit communities. I do not have the details on that, but we could probably find out and get back to you.
Mr. Lemmen: I believe it is Health Canada.
Mr. Corey: It is a Health Canada program.
Senator Mitchell: Despite the fact that there are section after section of adaptation requirements in this chapter, the $7 million is directed just at health, is that right? I guess that is a start.
The Chair: He said that the overall was $85.9 million, of which the $7 million is a part.
Senator Mitchell: Was the $7 million the part for health, or was it for climate change adaptation?
Mr. Corey: I am reading from the news release here. Other parts of the $85.9 million that would be of interest include $14 million for a program to assist northerners in assessing key vulnerabilities and opportunities for adaptation for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada, INAC. It was just confirmed that $7 million is for a health program. There is $14.9 million for a pilot project on climate and infectious diseases; and $35 million was what came to Natural Resources Canada, and these are risk management tools for adaptation.
We are actually getting out and working with organizations, professional engineers and planners, to start building some of the adaptation measures into areas such as building codes and road building standards. There was also $15 million for research to improve climate change scenarios. Those were some of the elements of that announcement.
Senator Mitchell: Has that been implemented now? Has that been spent?
Mr. Corey: The $35 million for us will be spent over the next two years.
The Chair: We have been joined by Senator Kenny, who is a member of this committee and the chair of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security and Defence.
Senator Kenny: I came, chair, to find out what Senator Mitchell really thinks about climate change.
The Chair: Even though we all know it.
Senator Spivak: I want to make a short comment. Ignorance about climate change has not been confined to 2006, because the entire editorial board of the National Post is dedicated to denying climate change. Maybe we should send them this.
Senator Mitchell: Hear, hear!
Senator Spivak: I have a number of questions. First, did I hear correctly that within a very short period of time, temperatures in the North might go up by 10 degrees?
Second, what about the Gulf Stream current? These are really catastrophic events. With the melting of the ice caps, how imminent is that?
Third, in a much more ``microvein,'' in Manitoba where I come from, the period is getting shorter and shorter for northern roads. What will you do when that permafrost completely melts? How will you build any type of road?
I know the railway going up to Churchill has devised some way of keeping it open. Perhaps the rail cars are lighter. Without those roads, what is your solution?
The Chair: Those were four questions, so you can trade off.
Mr. Lemmen: I will start with the first couple of questions.
With respect to the rate of change of temperature in the North, certainly the North, and in particular the Western Arctic, is warming as quickly as any place in the world. Throwing around figures of 10 degrees Celsius, if one is talking about change in annual temperature, would be at the upper range of what we would expect 100 years or 80 years from now.
Winter temperatures are warming significantly quicker than average temperatures. Those 10 degrees for a winter warming might apply for a shorter time frame. That is what we find, namely, that the winters are getting warmer — more so than the summers are getting warmer.
The issue that you raise about the Gulf Stream current is certainly extremely important on a global scale. Here, I can only refer to the work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC. For those on the committee who may not be aware of the importance of the Gulf Stream, it is a way of redistributing heat within the ocean system. That is where a tremendous amount of the global heat is stored, much more than within the atmosphere itself, and it changes more slowly.
This idea of the shutting down of the Gulf Stream current reducing that heat transfer — in fact, that is the famous mechanism by which you get the scenario in the movie The Day After Tomorrow and the rapid cooling of the northern hemisphere —is considered by the IPCC to be unlikely to happen within the next 100 years. However, they do flag that the actions taken with respect to greenhouse gas emissions within the next 100 years will certainly affect the likelihood of that happening in the more distant future. If you are looking more at generations down the line, that becomes quite relevant.
Ms. Smith, did you want to talk a bit about Northern Manitoba?
Ms. Smith: If I understood the first part of your question, you were talking about northern roads. I understood that to be the ice roads or the winter roads, rather than the all-weather roads.
Senator Spivak: That is right.
Ms. Smith: In Northern Manitoba and in the Northwest Territories or in other parts of the North, there is a dependence on winter or ice roads to service resource development areas. In the Mackenzie Valley, there is a winter road that runs from Wrigley all the way up to Fort Good Hope. Between that road and the barge, that is how they ship a lot of their goods up to these communities.
With increased warming and a shorter winter road season — and we saw this a few years ago with the road that goes up to the diamond mines, when they could not get their full loads up there and had to employ aircraft to get the fuel and other supplies up to these sites — it will become more difficult over time, should the season become shorter and shorter, to service some of these areas.
Senator Spivak: I thought I heard Mr. Corey or someone say that one of the adaptations is building roads. What will you build those roads on?
Ms. Smith: One of the issues in the North is that you do have to deal with permafrost to build the all-weather roads. There are construction techniques that have been used to try to preserve the permafrost. That is using very thick gravel berms, for example, or just routing the roads to avoid the ice-rich permafrost.
Senator Spivak: That is similar to China with the train.
Ms. Smith: Yes, that would be another example.
Another technique involves using other insulation such as Styrofoam. You mentioned the Hudson Bay railway. One of the techniques they used was a thermal siphon, so an artificial coolant. That is a rather expensive technique if you have a long roadway to look after.
We have to maintain roads. Even around Ottawa this spring, we are dealing with issues of frost heave and thaw settlement. There is ongoing maintenance.
Senator Spivak: We do that, too.
Ms. Smith: It is not specific to the North. However, if warming occurs and it exceeds the original design values of that road, there will be extra maintenance involved in building up the roads, keeping them level and reducing the bumps, et cetera. It is an issue with which they will have to deal.
Senator Spivak: I read that the ring seals can survive without the ice, but the other species of seals cannot. How will this affect both the country food of the North and the polar bears? Is it true that one species of seal can manage and the other cannot?
Mr. Lemmen: First, I will state that I am not a northern wildlife expert in any way, shape or form. When we put together the teams to write the chapters that would be the type of expertise that we would ensure was part of this.
Without getting into species-specific comments, different wildlife and, in particular, marine mammals will be impacted differently. It is highly probable that some species of seals will be impacted more greatly than others.
The issue of the polar bears is addressed in the assessment. It notes the extreme stress polar bears are under now at their southern limit because of the degradation of the sea ice cover. The report makes the linkages back to the importance, not only of the polar bear, but of many species of wildlife to the sustenance of communities. It highlights the importance of these country foods in terms of the health and well-being of the community, the important cultural value of them and the complexities of looking at the issue of adaptation. You might say that there is no longer one species, so we simply replace it with something else or with supplies flown in from the South. However, most people do not appreciate the significance of that one species to the health and well-being of the communities.
Those are the types of issues that we try to raise in this report.
The Chair: Senator Nolin has pointed out to me that this specific question is referenced in the report on page 97.
Senator Spivak: Thank you. I have not had a chance to look at it.
The Chair: None of us have done our homework as well as we should have.
Senator Nolin: It is because I have a good assistant.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Congratulations to all of you on this magnificent report. As far as I am concerned, it is a keeper.
I am from Atlantic Canada, and I have been sitting here listening and, at the same time, reading the section on Atlantic Canada. I have not read anything as comprehensive.
Reading through this, I get the impression that residents turn to their provincial governments for answers on action. At the local level, apart from studies and projects, is it the provincial government that will try to help people prepare and adapt?
Also, in the fisheries section, I could not find much on lobster. You talk about crab. It is interesting how the food for some species will be missing if the waters get colder and warm-up later. I am sure this report did not address all species.
Mr. Lemmen: The report looks at what is happening now on adaptation, both within Canada and around the world. Much can be learned from others as well. We are all dealing with a lot of common challenges.
An important aspect that came out of this is that everyone has a role to play in adaptation. All orders of government, from national to provincial to territorial to municipal, as well as community associations, can play an important role. Industry also has a critical role to play.
One of my favourite parts of the assessment is the case studies that try to highlight examples of things happening or key issues. One of those in the Atlantic chapter, on page 157, looks at what a community group in Annapolis Royal, Nova Scotia did to begin to come to grips with challenges they might face with climate change. They were worried about how storm surge flooding would affect their community. With no significant investment, they took detailed maps that had been constructed a couple of decades ago and worked with people who do storm surge modelling to model how a two-metre storm surge would affect the community.
They were particularly worried about the fire department because that is where their emergency response is based. The good news of their mapping exercise was that the fire department was high and dry during a storm surge. The bad news was that it was on an island and was completely separated from the rest of the community.
On the basis of this simple work by a community group, the fire department bought a boat and started storing key equipment in the part of the community from which they might be isolated. In that regard, it was making them less vulnerable because the supplies were available.
It is anecdotal, but it is an example of how a concerned community group was able to do something significant for their community. Coming back to your key question, there are roles for everyone in this. We are starting to see examples of action at these different levels.
Lobster is, again, out of my area of expertise. However, you are right; I do not recall any specific references to lobster. That brings to mind a couple of related facts. First, marine eco-systems are one of the areas we know the least about in the way changes will be manifest. It is not only changes in water temperature, but changes in currents and a number of other factors on which we need more research.
Second, it is important to stress that I gave my authors a very specific page length. I said that we would produce something between 50 and 60 pages because I wanted people to be able to read it. Every chapter is at least 50 per cent shorter than what was originally submitted. Several of the authors are publishing longer, stand-alone documents on their region to capture the fullest amount of information.
I thought it was important when you compare our report to documents that have come from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change or the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment. I find those volumes are impenetrable to me as a scientist. I look through and read paragraphs but not the whole thing. Our goal in producing this was to produce chapters that could actually be read and used. To that end, we have sacrificed some of the comprehensiveness to try to draw attention to where the scientific information was the strongest.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: We speak a great deal about the Arctic Region, and rightly so. I would never want to put it second to anything.
However, we do not speak much about Atlantic Canada and the Maritimes. There are so many communities that are low-lying and very vulnerable. I did read here that storm surges are predicted only once every 10 years, but I think it is more often than that. Perhaps it is the definition of what a ``surge'' is according to this data.
Does Atlantic Canada — and I ask you this as part of the Government of Canada — need a lot more attention in terms of environmental change and adaptation?
Mr. Lemmen: As lead editor of this report, I hope that one of the key messages that comes through is that climate change is an issue everywhere in Canada. I have the feeling that most Canadians think of climate change as something that is happening in the North, to small islands in the Pacific and in drought-prone Africa. However, they are less aware of the significance of it in their own communities.
The examples you have drawn from the Atlantic are extremely appropriate. This report steps through each region of Canada and lists the issues and concerns, and some possible opportunities. It is trying to make the issue relevant to all parts of Canada.
Senator McCoy: I, too, am an admirer of the report. I had the benefit of Dave Sauchyn's briefing at Climate Change Central in Alberta where I am a vice-chair. He was the lead author for the Alberta chapter or the Prairie chapter. I have had that advantage. I am pleased to see that you picked up this quotation, ``We have options, but the past is not one of them.'' That is from Mr. Lemmen and his co-author.
It was helpful — and we had him to ourselves for quite a while — that he lead us to an understanding of what his section meant for our region. I discovered that it is fatal to make a generalization because that is not what he and his co-workers were saying in this report whatsoever. There is no single answer.
I will ask what you might say about the North, to bring it back to our focus here. You might help me to understand this similarly for the Western Arctic, which is the focus of our study.
In Alberta, for example, he said, ``Yes, there will be more droughts, and, yes, there will be more water.'' We thanked him but did not really understand. It sounded very scientific; just what we have come to expect from scientists. You never give us a straight answer, right? He then went on to explain. He said that part of it had to do with the area of Alberta, part of it had to do with the time of year, and, in all cases, there were fluctuations expected over the long term. He then pointed to these charts. That is where I want to go first.
What do these charts, on page 70, tell us about the Western Arctic? Can you replicate his wonderful thumbnail for us but apply it to the Western Arctic?
Mr. Lemmen: I probably cannot replicate it. I have worked closely with Mr. Sauchyn in the past, and I have great respect for his knowledge of the Prairie region.
We tried to avoid diagrams that were challenging to interpret; I recognize that these ones are rather challenging to interpret. It is important to recognize, when you look at page 70, that it is just talking about average annual conditions in the Eastern and Western Arctic for three time slices in the future; the 2020s, 2050s and the 2080s.
My first qualifier would be as follows: Recognize that this average means that all of the important variation between individual years is lost. Coming back to your examples of the Prairies, clearly we can go from extreme drought to record flooding — we can have them both in a year if we are really lucky; that tends to happen — but that natural variability is an important part of the climate system. That will always be there and is important to remember, for example, in the North when we are talking about shipping through the Northwest Passage. Yes, it will be easier, but there will still be some very bad years for ice conditions in the Arctic, even in the distant future.
To come back to page 70 briefly, I would draw your attention to the lower left of each of the plots, where there is a grey, square area. That represents what stable climate would be. As soon as we depart from those grey boxes, we are looking at a changed climate.
Senator McCoy: That is what it is today?
Mr. Lemmen: That is what it is today, and that is how the models would replicate today over a period of 100 plus years.
Senator McCoy: How many models do you have here? Are there eight?
Mr. Lemmen: We have eight models, and we run a whole range of different scenarios. On any one of these, there are probably about 40 or 50 different boxes. All of those are possible futures. We cannot predict that that will be the future, but by our understanding of the climate system, any one of those is possible.
We see that they tend to cluster; we expect the Western Arctic to be about 2 degrees warmer in 20 years, almost 3 degrees warmer in 50 years and getting up to 5 degrees warmer in 80 years than the present. As we move further into the future, we see that the boxes become far more spread apart because we are less and less certain of how climate will change. We are less certain is because we do not know what emissions path we will head down globally. We do not know whether we will keep on a near business-as-usual or a more aggressive path. That is why you see such wide disparity.
In essence, each one of those graphs is saying that, in the future, it will get warmer and wetter as we move forward. When I say ``wetter,'' I mean we will get more precipitation, but the trick there is we have more precipitation but it is also warmer. Therefore, we are getting more evaporation and evapotranspiration. It could actually be getting drier, even though we are getting more rainfall. I realize that is counterintuitive, but it is extremely important for areas such as the Prairies where precipitation may increase slightly, but we know it will be a lot warmer and drier.
Senator McCoy: It is hotter in the summer.
Mr. Lemmen: Exactly, and you are getting evaporation.
Senator McCoy: Nothing is left around.
Mr. Lemmen: That is the issue.
Senator McCoy: It is wetter in the spring, and it all rushes away to Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
Mr. Lemmen: If you turn to page 71, it takes one of the time slices and breaks it down by winter, spring, summer and fall. It is showing you that the average changes are reflecting differences within each of the seasons. Again, as I said, the most warming is expected to occur in the winter. This is the type of information you can take out of those diagrams.
Senator McCoy: If you summarize it, then, will most of the warming be in the winter?
Mr. Lemmen: Yes, that is correct.
Senator McCoy: You are saying that it is gradual. You also said, which I do not think comes up in this chart, that there will be more wind. Did you say that?
Mr. Lemmen: I said that local observations from the communities in the high Arctic, in particular, showed changes in wind direction. We often look at future climate in terms of changes in temperature and precipitation because that is what the models easily produce for us.
They do contain important information about winds, growing degree days, amount of sunshine, et cetera. That is often the type of information that is needed for adaptation. Of course, in a report of this length, it is impossible to capture all of that type of information.
Senator McCoy: I have not had a chance to read your Northern section at all. Is there any other part of the report I should be pursuing, other than perhaps box 2 that appears on pages 105 to 108? This is from the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, ITK, which was part of your study. Who else was part of your study?
Mr. Lemmen: First, in terms of the important parts to read, I personally think it is all brilliant, so it is hard to be specific.
Senator McCoy: That is a fair comment from an author.
Mr. Lemmen: We are pleased to have boxes 2, 3 and 4 there, which bring in the perspectives of three key Aboriginal groups: the Inuit of Tapiriit Kanatami, representing the Inuit of the Eastern Arctic; the Council of Yukon First Nations representing much of the Yukon and the Western Arctic; and also a fairly short piece, unfortunately, from the Dene Nation.
As part of our process, we invited them to contribute to this chapter. Their input is different than what you would find in something from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. This has not necessarily been through the same rigorous scientific review process, but it brings exceedingly valuable perspectives, particularly for a group such as you who will be going up there and investigating these issues. These are critical perspectives for understanding how adaptation will happen.
Senator McCoy: Coming back to our chair's opening question, what perspective are you looking at it from? When we talk about economic opportunities, we are using our own way of life to translate that word ``opportunity'' in connection with mining, for example, or other resource development. That is not necessarily how someone who calls the North home might characterize it.
A great deal of this has been completed by southerners rather than by residents of the North; is that right?
Mr. Lemmen: Both of the collate authors in the Northern chapter are southerners based at major universities, but many of the contributors are Northern residents or representatives of Northern Aboriginal organizations. For example, Scott Nichols was the contributor from the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Scott lives in Ottawa, but his network of contacts extends far throughout the North.
As a brief comment on your previous statement about the perspectives of what represents an opportunity and what represents a risk, we certainly tried to highlight in the report that, for example, increased marine navigation represents an opportunity for economic development — I believe that is the correct way of phrasing that — but with it brings environmental, social and cultural risks.
In my experience of dealing with northerners — and I would certainly be interested in the perspectives of others — they recognize that the environment is changing and that change is inevitable. How can one best manage this change? How can one preserve the things that are valuable to them? How are traditional knowledge and cultural heritage preserved within a changing world, which I said off the bat is not only changing climate but is changing demographics; it is globalization. The North is facing a lot of challenges, so I was pleased to hear Senator Banks' opening statement about the importance of looking at this from a social perspective.
Senator McCoy: To be clear, out of some 20 authors I saw in this chapter, I thought I saw two that might be directly from the First Nations or Inuit themselves.
Mr. Lemmen: That is probably fair. The reason behind that is that the bulk of the information in this is based on existing scientific, technical information. Again, the expertise in that tends to reside largely within southern Canadian universities.
Mr. Corey: You also need to consider not just who wrote it but who will use the report. For example, right now, Nunavut is developing an adaptation plan. They know they have a rapidly growing population and changing social conditions. This will present new opportunities and challenges for them. They are developing an adaptation plan now and using a lot of the information contained in the report. They are asking us, for example, for some of our scientific expertise in terms of terrain mapping, permafrost, remote sensing, water supply and coastal processes.
In a way, we see ourselves working in partnership with some of the Northern communities and the territorial governments to help them take some necessary steps locally. Some of this is basic science that we can help people with, and therefore enable them to do something they would not be able to do on their own.
Senator McCoy: I am struggling to remember who is taking the lead here; it is not me who lives in Calgary. We are going to the Western Arctic, which is Nellie Cournoyea. They are very sophisticated, and they will have no difficulty whatsoever welcoming the benefit of our western sciences as much as they have their own.
Mr. Lemmen: Having completed 10 chapters, sometimes I forget the unique aspects of them. We did recognize the challenge of the Northern chapter. It was the only one where, before writing a word on this, we put together the key lead authors. We had workshops, admittedly only in the larger Northern centres. We had a workshop in Whitehorse, Yellowknife and one in Iqaluit. All of the people who participated in those workshops were also subsequent reviewers of the Northern chapter. They had an opportunity at the beginning to provide input and an opportunity to comment on how their input had been utilized. We used that approach to try to increase the direct Northern involvement in the development of the chapter.
The Chair: Mr. Corey, could you expand on what you just referred to, the policy implications of this report and the places in which it might be used? Could you tell us whether you have a function of exploiting the report in that regard so that it is made most useful by particular places? I ask that in the context that you will appreciate of people who often write reports, which we feel are very important, but do not receive the attention or action that we wish they would. You talked about Nunavut, for example, having made specific use of this report. Are you mining the places in which you think this report might be more useful, particularly with reference to the North?
Mr. Corey: Yes, we are. We have a group called the Climate Change Impacts & Adaptations Directorate, which is part of the Earth Sciences Sector. Part of our role is to ensure that we are looking forward as to where this report can be used by communities, professional associations and the territories and provinces.
I will provide an example. I was at a luncheon last year, and I was sitting beside a couple of planners from the City of Calgary. I asked them what their interest was in all of this. They said, interestingly enough, most people do not make the connection. Calgary is fed by rivers where a lot of the water is glacier fed. When the glaciers start melting, this will have a huge impact on Calgary's potential water supply. The glaciers will have a buffering effect. They said that there will be less water in the summer when it is needed. It will all come rushing through at the times of the year when it is not needed as much.
I asked them what they were doing about it. They said that they are using a lot of results that are coming out of the studies we are doing and others — they are doing their work as well — to develop water management strategies. They are working with us, the Alberta Research Council and the Alberta Geological Survey. They are asking what it means, for example, if we have fewer glaciers feeding into the rivers that feed Calgary.
The Chair: That is not a hypothetical question.
Mr. Corey: It is very real. They say that it means a number of things; we may need to look at infrastructure improvements or water from other sources, or reusing storm water to irrigate public lands.
The City of Calgary is realizing that if there is glacier melt in the Rockies, this could have a big impact on their water supply. As Mr. Lemmen said, a lot of people have to work on this. That is one example, and there are many more.
The Chair: Is the Government of Canada working toward a comprehensive plan to deal with adaptation to climate change?
Mr. Corey: Yes, that is part of what we are doing right now with the $35 million funding that we and NRCan have. We are working with some of the professional associations.
As senators have pointed out, it is not just the federal government; it is the provincial, territorial and municipal governments. For example, provinces are responsible for the planning acts, which will have a huge impact on the infrastructure in the longer term.
Our role is to try to ensure they understand the science and the direction of where this is going. Infrastructure is something that often is built over 50 years. The decisions we make now will affect the infrastructure we have 50 years from now. It is very long term.
It is working with a whole variety of actors who are making decisions today that will have that long-term impact.
The Chair: When Canada is pursuing its Northern Strategy in the largest sense, are you satisfied and confident that that strategy and its development are taking what you have found into account?
Mr. Corey: Yes, we are satisfied. In fact, it is not that there will be one strategy for the North. This will affect a lot of individual decisions. It will not be that one department will come up with one strategy for adaptation. This will permeate into a lot of the decision making that takes place.
The Chair: Give me the global approach of government to the North. I know the individual departments will deal with matters differently, but there is an attitudinal aspect with respect to the government's view of the North.
Are you convinced that in developing those types of comprehensive national policies that deal with the North, that your report is informing those decisions and those plans?
Mr. Corey: It is too soon to claim victory on that yet. That is why we have a whole chapter on the North, and it plays so prominently into it. That is why a lot of the work we are doing will be with northern communities, with the territorial governments and with individuals.
As I said at the outset, some of the biggest impacts will probably be felt in the North. The capacity of the North is probably more limited, in terms of its ability to adapt, than other parts of Southern Canada. You will find it will be an area of focus for us.
The Chair: With respect to the water levels that are the result of either the ocean level rising or the land sinking, it was mentioned that Tuktoyaktuk, which is one of the places we will be going, is an egregious example of that. In the school sense, what is the background of that? Why is that happening there, and what should we look for when we go there in order that we become better informed?
Ms. Smith: I will take a crack at it, but I am not a coastal geologist. We have some fine coastal geologists in our department that could provide you with more information on this.
In that region, we have a submergent land instead of an emergent land. The land is going down and the sea level is coming up.
The Chair: Why is that happening?
Ms. Smith: This is a result of the past glaciation that happened in this area. In fact, the Beaufort Sea receded quite a bit during glaciation. The area around Tuktoyaktuk was not covered in ice. This is why it is behaving in the way that it is. As the glaciers melted, the sea level rose and the land depressed down and popped up elsewhere. We refer to it as isostatic rebound. In that area in particular, you have the two forces working in the same direction — the land going down and the sea coming up. It is an area where you have issues of sea level rise.
Also, Mr. Lemmen spoke earlier about the issues of sea ice. You have more open water as you have less sea ice. You will get more wave action in those areas, which then increases the amount of erosion that may occur. You have quite ice-rich permafrost along that coastline as well, so you get what we call thermal erosion. You get the water washing up against the permafrost. That thaws it out and adds to the erosion you already have. All of those factors together increase the loss of land that is occurring in that region. That is the best explanation I can provide.
The Chair: Is there some danger in that respect? At one time, because of matters having to do with water, we pretty much had to shut down one community and move it to Inuvik. Is there an imminent danger in Tuktoyaktuk?
Mr. Lemmen: Neither of us has done field research in Tuktoyaktuk, although some others have. The assessment for that community in the long term is not promising. They have been dealing with coastal erosion issues for decades, with questionable success in most cases. If you happen to time your visit after there has been a major storm, it is quite stunning to see how much erosion can occur in a very quick period of time.
Situations such as Tuktoyaktuk highlight the difficultly of dealing with the potential option of relocation as an adaptation measure. There are obviously very strong cultural ties to the site of Tuktoyaktuk. It then becomes a very difficult question in terms of what is being invested to preserve the coastline and the infrastructure.
Ultimately, as one looks at the larger picture of it, as it is located within the Mackenzie Delta, the sea level will make its way and break its way around. Even if the present coastline, which is reasonably well-protected, holds up, eventually the sea level will rise to break itself around the community. That will make it a very difficult and challenging question.
It is a spectacular example, but it is probably one that is repeated in less clear forms in many communities across the North. Those are the types of challenges they will be facing.
The Chair: Is that clear and present danger 10 years, 100 years or 200 years away?
Mr. Lemmen: Certainly less than 100 years. My mind is overwhelmed by the number of studies that I am trying to think about. We can find that information in terms of the projections of changing sea level and erosion on Tuktoyaktuk. I would roughly say that it is sort of a 30- to 50-year issue that one is looking at. From a planning perspective, it is relatively immediate.
The Chair: That is close enough. All predictions are wrong.
Mr. Lemmen: However, some are useful.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Smith, I am interested in the issue of how much CO2 needs to be reduced. Clearly, there are international standards that the IPCC has had a great deal to do with establishing.
If I am not mistaken, Canada's ultimate 2020 objective was to be 20 per cent below 1990 levels, but the government has established an objective of 20 per cent below 2006 levels.
Are you aware of any consultation that the minister did with your department? Is it your expertise that somehow established that 20 per cent below 2006 levels? Was it somehow defended by science or anything other than just picking a number out of the air?
Mr. Corey: We cannot honestly answer the questions on Environment Canada. You should probably invite officials from Environment Canada on that question.
Specifically, when we think of it, we think of two different factors, mitigation and adaptation; mitigation being the measures taken to slow or reverse climate change, and adaptation being the measures saying that it is now starting to happen, and we need to adapt to it.
Senator Mitchell: Ms. Smith comes here with an expertise with the IPCC, and surely she has the background to answer the question of whether or not there is scientific justification for 20 per cent below 2006 levels. That is what I am asking. She can answer that whether she is in the environment department or whatever department. She was with the IPCC, and I am asking that question. If she cannot answer, that is fine. I do not want to have this explanation about mitigation and adaptation. I know what that is.
We have a scientist before a Senate committee who has a significant resumé and pedigree. She can surely answer that question or at least answer it for herself. I would appreciate it.
Ms. Smith: That falls outside my area of expertise. I am not a climate modeller, and I am not familiar with all the models they use to come up with these types of results. It is difficult for me to comment on the science behind that.
Senator Spivak: Could I put the question in a different frame?
Senator Mitchell: Please do.
Senator Spivak: Is it accurate to say that a rise of two degrees is considered catastrophic? We are at 0.7, and everything I have read says that a temperature rise of two degrees is catastrophic.
Mr. Lemmen: I could answer that from the perspective of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment report of which Ms. Smith was one of some 2,000 contributing authors. My role in this was being part of the Canadian delegation that was discussing the summary for policy-makers since this report on that.
Within the IPCC report, there is nothing that specifically identifies two degrees Celsius as being a particularly significant threshold. The report identifies impacts as the total degree of global warming increases. Clearly, the significance of impacts increases as the rate of warming increases.
However, in terms of trying to identify critical thresholds, that is not something that is well-supported by the science that is within the IPCC report. There are a number of complexities associated with that question, as well, in the sense that any temperature that one looks at in the future can be attained through a whole range of routes. It is a complex question when one starts asking what is a future temperature target on the basis of the science. In fact, you will find that the IPCC has never attempted to answer the question as to what constitutes dangerous levels of anthropogenic climate change. They have made it very clear that here is the science information available on the impacts associated with different levels of climate change, and it is up to the decision makers around the world to take that information and make their decisions accordingly.
The Chair: This question does not relate directly to what we are talking about today, but I am curious. I address this to Mr. Corey.
There was, and we saw evidence of it from time to time in the deep, dark, distant past, a contretemps at times between Environment Canada, on the one hand, and NRCan, on the other, because Environment Canada was trying to slow down, stop, inhibit and sometimes prohibit energy development of one type or another. NRCan was trying to promote and bring about energy development of one type or another. Therefore, the two departments were not always entirely consonant with their approaches to a given question.
Has that dichotomy been erased, reduced or mitigated in some way?
Mr. Corey: At the policy level, it is all very much collaborative work between the two departments. Under the clean air agenda, under which adaptation falls, Environment Canada led the memorandum of the cabinet and the process that got the funding, part of which was the adaptation funding.
At the science level, the area we are working on, you will find that the science is collaborative. Maybe I will get Mr. Lemmen to talk about the work that happens at the scientific level between the departments.
Mr. Lemmen: It is an important and effective partnership between NRCan, Environment Canada and a range of other departments. I draw your attention to the fact that out of the four editors who put together this report, two of them were from Environment Canada, including their senior advisor on climate change.
In terms of the work I do both under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, it always involves multiple departments, namely, NRCan, Environment Canada, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Canadian International Development Agency and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. We all work effectively together in terms of presenting the issues and ensuring that the global science is properly represented in those fora.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: With regard to forestry, how actively and to what extent is the impact on the forestry industry being studied vis-à-vis environmental changes? Are you paying much attention to that? It is very important in my province of New Brunswick. I thought I would ask you that question because it is your department.
Mr. Lemmen: You would be amazed how narrow my scientific expertise is, but I am perfectly happy to note that, certainly, the work of colleagues within the Canadian Forest Service has put a high importance in terms of understanding the impacts of climate change on forests, of which there are two key issues. One is the issue around pests. We are familiar with the mountain pine beetle in Western Canada, but there are important issues across the Boreal forests and within the Atlantic associated with spruce budworm and a few other pests. That is certainly a significant concern.
Of course, the other issue that is probably more a Northern and Western issue is the frequency of wildfire in the forests. We have very good modelling work from the Canadian Forest Service, Laurentian Forestry Centre, in terms of modelling the fire hazard under future climates.
It is a significant increase for many areas of Canada, in particular, Western and Northern Canada; perhaps a little less so for the East. There certainly are challenges there.
Again, it comes back to what the vulnerabilities of our communities are. When one is looking at forest-based communities, a real-life test case being run throughout British Columbia now is looking at how communities adapt to the loss of their fundamental economic base. This is one of the questions raised in the report: The importance of adaptation, including diversification of economies where it is possible and appropriate so that we reduce vulnerability to climate changes.
Mr. Corey: We are doing a series of workshops across Canada to ensure that people understand and start using the report. You will be pleased to know that the first one takes place in New Brunswick on May 8 and 9.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Will you do it for the various sectors, such as fishing, agriculture, forestry and, obviously, municipalities? Will you extend a very general invitation to all those sectors seriously impacted by this report?
Mr. Lemmen: Yes, we will. I have not been directly involved in the development of this workshop, but I believe that we are looking at somewhere between 140 and 150 participants. It is very much targeted toward decision making within local governments. All of the provinces are keen partners in this workshop, as is industry representing the various key sectors. We are very pleased with the response we have had to that.
As Mr. Corey noted, it is something we will try to replicate across Canada. In part, this will feed some of our future program activities within Natural Resources Canada as well as hopefully stimulating activities within other jurisdictions.
Senator McCoy: There are lots of nuggets in this. I failed to say this before, but let me compliment you and all of your co-authors — 200 or however many there were — in pulling all of that together as a consensus document. It is a very useful document.
Can you now help me understand it one more time? On page 83, figure 15 talks about the typical routes through the Northwest Passage. It then says that median ice concentration is measured in tenths; in tenths of what? I do not quite understand that explanation.
Mr. Lemmen: It is referring to within any given area. I am not certain whether it is an area of a square kilometre or not. It is saying that if you took a square of area of marine water, it could have anywhere from one-tenth ice cover, which means 90 per cent of the area is free, open water to nine-tenths ice cover. As you look at that particular map — and unfortunately, my version is not in colour — we see as we start moving toward the western end, historically significant parts of the Northwest Passage have nine-tenths or more ice cover. That essentially means it is impenetrable or certainly not penetrable by anything other than major icebreakers.
The chapter makes the point that even though ice conditions are getting less severe — and 2007 was the least severe year on record — we still have these plugs at the end of these major channels. Although we get to the western end above Prince Patrick Island, it is still very difficult to get shipping through there. The top route shown on the map as being one of the options is the least likely route at present, although it is the most direct route.
The route ships take at present is the one on the far right, where they start winding their way between small islands and around Victoria Island because the ice cover is the least dense there. That is all that that map is trying to depict. Namely, that historically ice is not only a challenge, it is almost a complete impediment to the use of the Northwest Passage.
Senator McCoy: It will continue to be a challenge.
Mr. Lemmen: It will continue to be a challenge. The chapter stresses the importance of the fact that, although the extent of ice will decrease, the hazard that ice can present to shipping will still remain quite high for several decades. The ice is not fixed in place, and large blocks of ice are still drifting through the Northwest Passage. We all know examples of what a ship striking a large block of multi-year ice can do in terms of potential damage.
It is really a flag out there. When people talk about climate change, they imagine that we will be going through the Northwest Passage with sailboats. No, we will not. There will still be many challenges to marine navigation, despite the fact that the actual extent of sea ice has greatly diminished from what it has been historically.
Senator McCoy: That is very useful. Thank you very much.
The Chair: The sky is not falling next Thursday.
I want to thank our guests very much. You have been very informative. There is a possibility we may, as we sometimes do, have further questions. I hope you would permit us to write to you with whatever those questions might be and that you would respond to our clerk with the answers when you can.
I will now excuse our guests.
We will proceed with business. Honourable senators, we are now distributing copies of the proposed budgets; there are two. One is for the normal work of the committee having to do with legislation and so on; the other concerns the budget for special studies, which has been amended as per your orders last time around. I submit the budget for your consideration, discussion and, I hope, approval.
We will require, in order to do that, at the end of our deliberations here, two motions. The easiest one to deal with is the legislation budget, which has not changed from the last time. I invite, in order to get it away and done, a motion to approve the legislation budget.
Senator Mitchell: I so move.
The Chair: All in favour?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed?
Senator Kenny: I have a question. I am looking at ``Activity 3: Promotion of reports.''
The Chair: I am on ``Legislation,'' senator, the smaller one.
Senator Kenny: I will look at that, too, then.
The Chair: It does have three sections, but they are rather simple to deal with. This is the budget concerning our study of legislation, where we sit here and do that.
The motion before us is to approve that budget.
Senator McCoy: To approve this $15,000?
The Chair: That is right. Senator Mitchell has moved its approval. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? That budget is carried.
Next is the question of the special studies budget. Senator Kenny has a question on that.
Senator Kenny: On Activity 3, chair, the title ``Promotion of reports,'' in my view, is too restrictive.
The Chair: Activity 3 would be on the last page of the budget.
Senator Nolin: Yes, it is on the last page.
Senator Mitchell: There is no money in it.
Senator Kenny: If you go down the page, there is money. Under ``All Other Expenditures,'' it says, ``Promotion of reports, meetings and other matters related to committee business.'' I would suggest ``and other travel related to committee business,'' be included in the title beside ``Promotion of reports.''
The Chair: Sorry, could you repeat that? My copy now reads, ``Promotion of reports, meetings and other matters related to committee business.'' What do you think that should be changed to?
Senator Kenny: I am assuming that Activity 3 is a title and a subsection of the report. It simply says, ``Promotion of reports.''
Senator McCoy: There is no money under ``Professional and Other Services.'' For example, if you were getting some artwork or some printing done, ``Transportation and Communications'' do not allow you to travel to The Globe and Mail, which would be in Toronto. It is simply not fleshed out.
Senator Kenny: Yes.
The Chair: What is the recommendation?
Senator Kenny: My recommendation is that you have a broader description other than specifically ``Promotion of reports.'' You might be invited to give a speech in Halifax, and the topic that they want you to talk on does not have anything to do with the report.
The Chair: It makes sense, then, if you take the wording under ``All Other Expenditures'' and make that the title and this amount, and dispense with the titles ``Professional and Other Services'' and ``Transportation and Communications.''
Senator Kenny: Probably the main expenditure will be travel. You have put nothing under a heading of ``Travel.''
Senator McCoy: Why not add to it?
The Chair: I did not understand this. When we are making a budget application, must these headings be in it?
Senator Nolin: Yes.
The Chair: Even if there is nothing in them, they must be there?
Eric Jacques, Clerk of the Committee: Yes.
The Chair: I did not know that.
Senator Kenny: A new structure has been developed, passed around and arbitrarily imposed on us, if I may say so.
Senator Nolin: Out of the $20,000, what if we put $15,000 in ``Transportation and Communications'' and $5,000 in ``All Other Expenditures''?
Senator Kenny: I heard you make that recommendation sotto voce to the chair, and I was nodding my head while you were saying it. Let the record show that he nodded his head.
The Chair: If we modify it that way so that it does not change the amount and ``Transportation and Communications'' becomes $15,000 and ``All Other Expenditures'' becomes $5,000, and we are agreed that ``Professional and Other Services'' is zero in this Activity 3, then do you want to modify the title, Senator Kenny?
Senator Kenny: Frankly, I would add $5,000 to it for ``Professional and Other Services'' because when you go to Halifax, you might want to hire a flack.
The Chair: No; I do not.
Senator Kenny: Someone might, though. You might want someone to organize a meeting or to gear something up on the ground there.
The Chair: Let me begin at the beginning. With the title of Activity 3, what is your suggestion for the title?
Senator Kenny: Promotion of reports and such stuff.
Senator McCoy: With respect, we can be facetious or we cannot. My experience, in the short time have been here, is that virtually no one knows what the Senate does. The only part they have any idea that we do well on is committee reports. They then stop and say, ``Oh, yes, did not Senator Kenny do something really worthwhile?''
Senator Nolin: Yes, how much did it cost?
Senator McCoy: How do we make people aware of the good work that you and other senators have done for these 140 years? Part of my suggestion is that we need to move into the 21st century and make available to Canadians, who may be interested, the knowledge that is being accumulated in what I call the brains trust of the Senate. It is this kind of budget item that promotes that increasing brains-trust availability and access for Canadians. I think it is a very important point.
I do not know what the motion on the table is, but I would say that $5,000, $15,000 and $5,000 respectively in the three categories might be a minimal amount in order to increase the transparency, utility and effectiveness of this great institution.
The Chair: Am I hearing that Activity 3 should read ``Promotion of events and other committee business'' and that the amount under ``Professional and Other Services'' should be $5,000?
Senator Kenny: Could I suggest ``. . .and other business related to the committee's work'' or ``relating to the committee'' — something along those lines? You want to say that we are not just promoting reports; we are travelling for another reason. You want the budget subcommittee and internal economy to know that.
The Chair: What do you want?
Senator Kenny: It should read, ``Promotion of reports and other business relating to the committee's work.''
Senator McCoy: Other Senate business. Add the word ``Senate.''
The Chair: Other business relating to the committee's mandate?
Senator McCoy: That sounds very good.
Senator Kenny: Good. The tightwad across from me was suggesting $5,000, $15,000 and $5,000, and then she said this ``might be a minimal amount.'' I agree with her. Why is she not suggesting $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000?
Senator McCoy: I do not know.
Senator Kenny: Exactly.
Senator McCoy: Push me a little harder.
Senator Kenny: I am doing my best.
Senator McCoy: What shall we say?
Senator Kenny: Why not say $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000?
Senator McCoy: Yes, make it $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000.
Senator Kenny: Right.
Senator McCoy: The committee will only use this with judicious approach and in consultation. It does give the opportunity to improve access to the work.
Senator Kenny: Think of op-eds and whether you are sending out reports to enough people. Think about how much it costs to do a tour when you have a report out that starts in Halifax and finishes in Victoria and even goes to Edmonton.
The Chair: I am at the committee's disposal in this respect. I have a note from the budget subcommittee chair saying that he does not like this category altogether and that he will argue against it.
Senator Spivak: Who is that person?
Senator Nolin: I think we should stay on principles.
Senator Kenny: There are great people on the subcommittee. His characteristic is to express his objection and then turn to the other two people on the subcommittee and say, ``What do you think?'' They usually say, ``I think it is a pretty good idea.'' He then says, ``Well, then, let us let it go.'' We need to have a list available of what we plan to do in terms of promoting the report. We need to say that we tend to have op-eds done and plan to get out and visit editorial boards. We find that our communications have not been what they might be. Look at the coverage we are getting, yet we are doing important stuff. We have an objective to raise the profile of the work we are doing. All of this makes all of the other work worthwhile. There is no point in having a terrific report if no one knows about it. If the clerk puts on his sneakers and runs to the library to put it on a dusty shelf, we have wasted a lot of time. If we are to have a good report, we should find ways to get people to discuss it, debate it and put it on the map.
Senator Spivak: Could I add that this is a very inexpensive way rather than hiring professional public relations people? If you can get free publicity by going to editorial boards in small communities — by ``small communities,'' I mean Halifax not Montreal — and sitting down with them and maybe get reporters, that is great. It is not as expensive as other means. You can argue that before the committee.
Senator Kenny: Yes, you can. We also do need some professional help to get some of this done, frankly.
Senator Spivak: Yes, but I am talking about the argument that you can make to the committee of the value.
Senator Nolin: The list that Senator Kenny is proposing is an idea. We must come up with a list of what we will do with the money.
Senator Kenny: It also must be a plan. It needs to say that this person is doing that part of the country and another person is doing the other part of country.
Senator Nolin: The question is the numbers. If we use the amounts of $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000, the chair will face a war at the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration. Why not stick to $5,000, $15,000 and $5,000?
Senator McCoy: Why not put our proposition forward?
Senator Kenny: To see if he cuts it?
Senator Spivak: They will cut it down.
Senator Kenny: Let me put it this way: If we all chicken out on these things, pretty soon they will be getting me. I am being serious.
Senator Mitchell: If we have to push back.
Senator Kenny: There are two schools of thought. One is you dig a hole and hide in it until you turn the age of 75, and the other is you get out and talk about your work.
Senator Nolin: How can we ensure that this budget will pass?
Senator McCoy: There is a third attitude, and it has been evident for at least the last two years. Some senators consistently and publicly in the other place have been denigrating the Senate for political purposes. They get up and complain about specifics. They complain about money spent by some to good effect, but they do not add ``to good effect.'' They have denigrated the motivation and the work of sitting senators, with one exception. We are not using names, but a French cabinet minister said live on French television that he is a reluctant senator and only joined because that is how he would be able to become a cabinet minister.
Senator Mitchell: Let us name names.
Senator McCoy: With that sort of concerted effort to disparage one of the key institutions of a democratic Canada, it is incumbent upon the rest of us senators to do our best to have some public face that shares with Canadians the good work that we are doing. We cannot do that by using techniques that were perfected 50 years ago, or even 25 years ago. We need to get out and put forward the word that we are working, and we are working on Canadians' behalf.
Senator Spivak: Wait a minute. Are we on You Tube and MySpace? We should be.
Senator Nolin: Sold. Give us the numbers.
Senator Kenny: I want to whip you again.
Senator Nolin: Give us the numbers, Senator Kenny. We will go to war.
Senator Kenny: The amounts are $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000.
Senator Nolin: The amounts are $10,000, $25,000 and $10,000. He is going backwards.
Senator Kenny: With due respect, there is no miscellaneous in here. What genius can craft a budget 12 months ahead of time?
Senator Nolin: I do not think it would exist.
Senator Kenny: You put a miscellaneous in somewhere. I would like to see 10 per cent, please.
Senator McCoy: That is called a contingency.
Senator Kenny: The Minister of Finance does that.
Senator Mitchell: I am sure that is how the Prime Minister hired his style consultant.
The Chair: We have ``Miscellaneous expenses,'' under ``General Expenses,'' of $2,000.
Senator Kenny: That is $2,000 on a budget of $311,000, which works out to one third of 1 per cent.
Senator McCoy: The total is now $336,000. We need a $40,000 miscellaneous expense, then.
Senator Kenny: Something like that.
The Chair: This is a fairytale.
Senator Nolin: When we talk about ``All Other Expenditures'' in Activity 3, those are miscellaneous.
Senator Kenny: No, miscellaneous is miscellaneous.
Senator Nolin: No, but it is miscellaneous.
Senator Kenny: I am not trying to be obstreperous, but you should have some miscellaneous expenses in here, chair; unless you are much better than the rest of us at predicting the future.
The Chair: I have always argued that any budget should contain contingencies of one form or another. When I was asked that question by the Internal Economy Committee, my answer was that it has always been the case, as you know, that we send a bunch of money back because it is never the case that 12 senators travel on every trip. However, we are obliged to budget for 12 senators travelling on every trip. That is where we have always gotten our miscellaneous expense.
Senator Kenny: With respect, that is not a good answer. I say that as a friend. With the clawback in place, if you are only travelling with 6 instead of 12 senators, you do not get to use the savings.
The Chair: That is true.
Senator Kenny: There is no incentive in our budgeting system to save money because you do not get to keep it. If they said that they would only claw back half, we would find all sorts of nifty ways to travel a lot cheaper than we do.
The Chair: That is true. We could make great efficiencies.
I am entertaining a proposal for a contingency or miscellaneous budget. What is your pleasure as to the amount on a budget that will now be in the order of $340,000?
Senator Kenny: What about $15,000?
Senator McCoy: That is very modest, is it not? That is 5 per cent.
Senator Kenny: I recommend that you put the percentage in so people can see how modest the percentage is.
The Chair: All right, $15,000. We will then put the percentage in. Does that obviate the $2,000 on page 1 under ``General Expenses?''
Senator Kenny: I suspect the clerk will tell you that, on page 1 under ``General Expenses,'' if you put a miscellaneous in there, you cannot move it to other places. You may find that you put it in more than one place because you cannot transfer funds willy-nilly in a budget such as this.
The Chair: Miscellaneous expenses are not a miscellaneous expense?
Senator Kenny: It only is as far as general expenses go. If you are off in your estimates for professional services and so on, perhaps the clerk would like to tell us about that.
Senator Nolin: Can we have the support of the committee for the total amount?
Senator McCoy: The suggestion is to put $5,000 miscellaneous under Activity 1, Activity 2 and Activity 3. Leave miscellaneous under ``General Expenses'' but add a miscellaneous line.
Senator Kenny: With due respect, I would be putting it where I had most risk. There is a greater level of certainty about the number of dollars we will spend on books, working meals, courier charges and revising, editing and formatting. We understand with a high degree of certainty as to what that will cost.
The unknowns are if we find airfares are going up when the committee is travelling because of the price of oil, and travel to conferences, which is a meagre amount, with very few conferences — evidently, there is no interest in conferences in this committee.
Senator McCoy: Those are under Activity 1 and Activity 2.
Senator Kenny: There should be more money for conferences. The high risk is where we have travel associated with it and where we cannot predict well.
Senator McCoy: You are basically saying that there is some travel in Activity 3, which is the one we just went through. However, are you thinking that Activity 1 and Activity 2, which are the Arctic trip and the conferences, would be the least able to predict?
Senator Kenny: Right. Do we have contracts signed for the Arctic trip yet?
The Chair: No, we cannot sign any contracts until we get a budget.
Senator Kenny: Do we have prices for the Arctic trip?
The Chair: Yes, we do.
Senator Kenny: Will those prices hold in terms of flights?
The Chair: I believe so, yes. They are current today.
Senator Kenny: Okay, but do you have a price for the flight for the June 1 to June 7 trip?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Kenny: They priced it on the basis of June 1 to June 7?
The Chair: Yes.
Senator Kenny: Then there is not that much of a risk.
The Chair: It could change between now and the time we get this approved, but the only numbers we can use are the numbers they publish.
Senator Kenny: Then the question on the conferences, they come at different times during the year, is that we may see airfares go up. Depending on where you are going, you may find that hotel prices change radically because of a bigger conference happening in a specific place.
The Chair: Are you talking about a $10,000 miscellaneous in Activity 1 and $5,000 in Activity 2?
Senator Kenny: The $2,000 in Activity 1 strikes me as acceptable. The $5,000 in Activity 2 and Activity 3 is more in the ballpark.
Senator McCoy: Is it $5,000 miscellaneous in Activity 2?
The Chair: Activity 2 and Activity 3. I think you mean pages 2 and 3. Activity 1 is travel to the Western Arctic.
Senator Kenny: I thought you told me you had firm prices.
The Chair: We do.
Senator Kenny: Therefore, I take that as being a lower risk.
The Chair: Activity 2.1, Activity 2.2 and Activity 2.3, are they at $5,000 each? Miscellaneous $5,000 is split between these three. We will have a new total as a result of that.
Does everyone understand the revisions proposed? I would like a motion proposing the approval of the budget as amended.
Senator Kenny: As amended. I so move.
The Chair: Senator Kenny moves the approval of the budget as amended. All in favour?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Opposed? Seeing no one, it is carried unanimously. Wish us luck.
Senator Kenny: The ultimate answer you have, sir, is I am the servant of my committee.
The Chair: The committee is adjourned.
The committee adjourned.