Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources
Issue 9 - Evidence - May 8, 2008
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 8, 2008
The Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources met this day at 8:33 a.m. to examine and report on emerging issues related to its mandate.
Senator Tommy Banks (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: My name is Tommy Banks and I am a senator from Alberta. I have the honour to be the chair of Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources.
Before we begin, I should like to briefly introduce the members of the committee with us this morning. Senator Dennis Dawson is from Quebec; Senator Ethel Cochrane, from Newfoundland and Labrador; Senator Bert Brown, from Alberta — the only sort of elected senator who we have in the Senate. From the Northwest Territories we have Senator Nick Sibbeston; from Nunavut, Senator Willie Adams; from Manitoba, Senator Mira Spivak; and from Ontario, Senator Lorna Milne.
We are continuing our study today so that we can be better informed for our forthcoming visit to Canada's North, during which we will be studying two subjects: First, climate change adaptation and the environmental impact of economic development in the North; and second, climate change adaptation in the North in general.
To continue assisting us in our preparation we have the pleasure of welcoming today Dr. Martin Fortier, Executive Director of ArcticNet, and Mr. Bernie Boucher, President of JF Boucher Consulting Ltd. and Chair of the Board of Directors of ArcticNet.
Thank you for taking the time to appear before our committee today. We would appreciate hearing opening remarks and we hope you would be susceptible to questions by senators thereafter.
Martin Fortier, Executive Director, ArcticNet: Thank you, senators, for inviting us to speak to this committee. I have been reading the minutes of the recent meetings you have had with people I know well who are part of ArcticNet and this is an important and timely issue for you to tackle.
I will begin by explaining ArcticNet and what we do and then it would be a pleasure for us to answer any questions you may have.
ArcticNet is a network of centres of excellence of Canada. These networks are funded by the three granting councils of Canada. There are only 18 of them in Canada tackling all kinds of issues, from vaccines to cancer to automobiles, and we are the only one tackling the Arctic issue.
We are funded for seven years with a potential to renew funding for another seven. We have a 14-year window to tackle those issues. This is an unprecedented amount of time for university funding in Canada, but it is what is allowing us to develop all these partnerships and relationships with stakeholders to tackle the issues of climate change.
Last month, you were presented with the contents of this report, the recent assessment by Natural Resources Canada on the latest scenarios on impacts and adaptation, especially on the northern chapter. Therefore I will not be making the formal presentation that I usually do on climate change in the Arctic. You have been well briefed by members of ArcticNet, Chris Furgal and Terry Prowse, the co-authors of those chapters, as well as Mark Corey, the ADM of Natural Resources Canada. They are all part of ArcticNet, either as board members or researchers.
These impacts of climate change and modernization on the Arctic are really the raison d'être of ArcticNet. ArcticNet was funded in 2004 when the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment was released. It had a huge impact and was an important piece of work that summarized the circumpolar impacts of climate change, especially for Canada. Since then, we have witnessed many more impacts and causes of climate change, especially in Northern Canada.
The objectives of ArcticNet are broad. We are a large network. One of our main goals is to build a synergy among the different science sectors. Natural science, health science and social science all need to work together to tackle the issues. These are large ecosystem issues we are facing in the North and everywhere else.
One of our main challenges is to change the way research has been done in the Arctic by involving the stakeholders in that research. That change will begin in northern communities, Inuit organizations and Inuit communities. As you will see, ArcticNet focuses mainly on the coastal Canadian Arctic, which is predominantly the territory of Inuit in Canada. Also, we try to establish bridges with industry and government organizations to try to work together to tackle these issues.
One of the main challenges not only of ArcticNet but of the Canadian Arctic community is to start to increase observations. As you know, the Canadian Arctic is a huge area, about 40 per cent of our country, and is larger than most countries. We have very few observations right now to be able to follow the changes that are actually occurring in the Arctic. This has been increasing with recent investments in research in recent years but we need to do much more in the future if we really want to tackle this issue.
One of our big challenges in building research capacity is that during the 1980s and 1990s we did not train new, young scientists; it was a tough time for Arctic research. The costs, as you may know if you are planning a trip to the Arctic, are huge. It is difficult for young scientists to be kept within science. There are great issues but they are costly and it is easier to make a name for oneself outside of Arctic science. We need to change this environment to help keep those new people who we are training in Arctic research.
Finally, our major goal is to truly contribute to the development of that knowledge and to try to disseminate the knowledge to policy-makers and decision makers to try to prepare for the changes in the Arctic.
ArcticNet is a research network. We now fund 30 research programs covering the entire coastal Canadian Arctic in all fields of Arctic research. We now have over 110 researchers who are university professors or government scientists. They are connected and operate out of 27 universities all across Canada and in five federal government departments. These scientists are training over 450 graduate students, which we call ``highly qualified personnel'' in the jargon of the granting councils. It is refreshing to see those young graduate students and future researchers. We are building the capacity to address the issues of the changing Arctic, but we really need to create the environment to try to keep them and encourage them to do so.
When we talk about Arctic change and climate change, it is an international issue and not a Canadian issue only. We must look at it internationally and we do have large international collaborations, especially this year with the International Polar Year where Canada has made major investments and ArcticNet is involved substantially.
In relation to infrastructure and accessing the coastal Canadian Arctic, as you know the Arctic is huge. If you were to try to access it by air alone it is almost impossible. The Canada Foundation for Innovation provided us with funding to refit a Canadian research icebreaker, which is the Canadian research icebreaker Amundsen. Since 2004 it has been our main research infrastructure and has greatly increased our presence in the North, at least in the maritime Arctic and not only for natural scientists but also for health research.
This slide shows an example of the breadth of the research program and the different types of projects we have. Theme 1 is focused on the High Arctic. We have researchers from Manitoba, for example, Dave Barber, working on the question of sea ice and the dramatic changes in the northern hemisphere, specifically in some regions of the Arctic. Then we have researchers working on the effects of contaminants on the coastal fisheries and on the health of northerners. There are also people like Michael Byers looking on sovereignty issues, as well as people working on the exact mapping of the Northwest Passage. It is a multidisciplinary, trans-sectoral research network that we are working on.
I mentioned the Amundsen. That was a large investment by the federal government through CFI and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans since 2003, which allowed us to increase our capacity to research the Arctic.
This slide illustrates the breadth of ArticNet's presence in the last four years. We cover a huge area. Each of these lines indicates annual expeditions, which range from 15,000 to 25,000 kilometres, to give you an idea of the size of the country that we must cover.
The stars on the map indicate our long-term research or observatory sites. We have some on land, stretching from the northern most tip of Canada on Ward Hunt Island, where we are seeing dramatic changes in the ice shelves and in the sea. We have some observatories all the way around Hudson Bay, and we are now active in Nunatsiavut or Northern Labrador. In addition, researchers make annual trips to most Arctic communities to look at social sciences and social issues. We are gaining a huge amount of research results and have over 1,000 publications in scientific journals, but we need to transform this information and make it available to policy-makers.
One of the strategies we are adopting is we are forming integrated regional impact studies to provide input and guidance at the regional level and, eventually, the community level. The Arctic Climate Impact Assessment that you were presented with, which is a national assessment, is great. The northern chapter is also fine, but at the community and regional levels, want us to downscale those predictions and projections. As we know, there is large scale heterogeneity in the impacts in different regions of the Arctic, and we want to tackle that as part of ArcticNet, working in collaboration with the regions.
Finally, on the research effort, this year is International Polar Year, which started last March and will end in 2009. Canada invested about $156 million in those programs, the most of any country and many of the programs are led by or involve ArcticNet researchers. It is a huge influx of research effort in Canada in an international context. There are currently no plans to continue this afterward, or there is no real legacy identified for IPY, apart from the recent announcement of a High Arctic research station in the latest Speech from the Throne.
We are working hard to ensure that this much needed investment in Arctic research is continued in the future to allow for a legacy for these people and young researchers that Canada is now forming.
In conclusion, and to lead to questions, there is no doubt that climate change and industrial development, especially in recent times, are already having major impacts, both positive and negative, on the environment and on the people of the North. These impacts will surely increase rapidly in the near future.
The recent investment in Arctic research, whether it is ArcticNet, the Amundsen or IPY have rejuvenated our Canadian Arctic research presence, but much more is needed to prepare for the Arctic of tomorrow.
The networking approach that we are preaching and developing in partnership with industry and regions and international collaboration is the way to go. That has been proven now in many countries, and Canada needs to follow on and address this in a collaborative networking environment.
One thing that is lacking, especially when you talk about climate change and industrial development, is the creation of better links between industry and the research sector. Industry normally will hire consultant firms, while the best research is being done in university or in the government sector. There is no reason why we should not be working more together for the common good of planning and development in the North. This needs to be worked on. We are trying hard to work on that in ArcticNet, but it needs to be encouraged.
If we are to tackle the issues of climate change, we also need to make major investments in the way we monitor climate change in the Arctic. There are few weather stations in the Arctic and little research effort. All of the modeling efforts in Canada are in the southern area; there is little in the North. That must change if we want to know what is happening in the North and maybe plan for adaptation. We need to know what to adapt to. Right now, our capacity is limited on that subject.
Regarding DFO, NRCAN and Environment Canada, these federal departments need to start reinvesting in Arctic research. They have been witnessing divestment in Arctic research, and it needs to stop quickly.
We need to find a way to create a legacy for Arctic research. Canada has regained its role as a leader in Arctic research, given our responsibility as one of the largest Arctic countries. We need to be more present not only in Canada but also in the international effort to try to understand the changes taking place on the planet.
I will leave it at that. You have been provided with our latest annual report. There is much more information in this and also all the links and websites that are available.
We would be happy to answer questions in any language — not Inuktitut, sorry — but in French or in English.
The Chair: Soon you will be able to receive translation in Inuktitut if our project proceeds.
The Chair: Before I go to the list of questioners, we always hear about the bad stuff such as the sky is falling, the ill effects of climate change and the environmental disasters that are sure to come. You mentioned there are beneficial effects of climate change in the North. What are they?
Mr. Fortier: There are economic effects, and again, you must always weigh them. Some people would think that economic development is great for jobs and employment. At the same time, you will find people saying, that is fine, but everyone is working in the mines and we have job shortages in other areas. There is also increased tourism. Depending on how you see it, there are positive aspects of climate change for the North and elsewhere. However, what is changing, especially in the North, is the traditional way of life. It is not only being changed by climate change. Climate change is one of the factors affecting the traditional way of life of northern peoples. People who are realistic know it is coming, and they are preparing for it. One of the mandates of the committee is to ensure that development is done for the greater good of the northern population and that they take advantage of it.
Senator Dawson: I can understand Senator Adams' frustration on the question of translation. Here I am, a guy from Quebec City, from Laval University, talking to a guy who comes from Laval University. For practical purposes, I could speak French and make a message of it, but I want to recognize what a frustration it can be for people who have to communicate to make things practical. Pragmatism is always useful. Yesterday, Senator Spivak was a witness at the Standing Senate Committee on Transport and Communications and we had translation issues. I spoke in English and I will do the same today.
Senator Spivak: That was only because of my ear. I speak French very well.
Senator Dawson: I know, but I am being practical. I will be practical again today. I wish to welcome Mr. Fortier.
All politics is local. I studied at Laval University. I pass in front of their research centre every day when I am in Quebec.
[Translation]
I am proud of my university, of my city and of the people there. I am also proud of this research project that the Université Laval has been doing over the past few years. What concerns me most is the funding.
[English]
This is a practical project. You have seven years to do your work. That is what is important. Normally, all of these research projects have short-term funding, and you start getting somewhere and then you spend more time getting to the next phase of your funding instead of doing the research for which you are being funded. If I understand it, in 2011, which for you, in practical terms, is tomorrow, the funding stops.
Mr. Fortier: To clarify, we are funding for seven years. We have a mid-term review in the middle of that term. We just went through a successful mid-term review that released the last three years. In 2011, we can apply for another seven years, so we have the possibility of funding until 2018.
What you said about always having to write a grant proposal instead of doing research is true. We just received our mid-term review approval, but already we are preparing for renewal in 2011, which we must provide by 2010. That is not only for ArcticNet. As you know, it is part of the entire research agenda here in Canada, especially university research. Actually, we are lucky. Seven years is very long in university research. I used to run research networks from Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada and they were five years. Again, we had mid-term reviews and reporting; and we spent a lot of time doing reporting and writing proposals, instead of doing the research. I guess some people have to focus more on this and others have to focus more on the research.
The difficulty in trying to build these programs is that you do not know if you will be funded tomorrow. We worked hard to establish relationships with Mary Simon, Duane Smith, and other Inuit leaders who sit on our board of directors.
It is the same with industry. You need to show that we will be around tomorrow; that it is worth putting the effort into establishing those relationships and collaborations. You need to have this long-term funding. That is difficult to get now in the actual context in Canada.
Senator Dawson: Mr. Fortier, can you tell the committee which department funds the Amundsen.
Mr. Fortier: That is a good question. The Canada Foundation for Innovation funds infrastructure, but not the operations of the infrastructure. We received $30 million to refit the Amundsen, but we are still scrambling every year to get funding to run it. We deal with fuel costs too. We have two million litres of fuel in the ship every year and we must pay for that out of our research money.
The ship is there; they provide the money. It is a different budget and different competition but ArcticNet is the main client of that ship now, except this year, where the ship is in the Western Arctic as part of the IPY program. It is a big challenge for us to try to find the money every year to be able to take that ship north and do our research.
Senator Dawson: I am sure you can the count on this committee when the time comes that you feel you need to apply pressure. Whether it is this government or any other government in the past, you need political support for these projects to succeed.
I would be interested in a progress report on these questions. If you feel at any time that we should be informed, perhaps through the chair, you can tell us that you have received a favourable report, instead of waiting too long to ask for help.
I want to offer my support and I think that most of the people around the table at the end of this meeting will be there to do the same thing.
Senator Spivak: Hear, hear.
Mr. Fortier: I appreciate that. Funding and long-term funding is a big issue for us, as well as most large research infrastructures in Canada. Even though they are extremely successful, it is difficult to find funding and to plan for the future.
The Chair: Before we go on, I would like us all to be better informed about the funding part of the ship.
Obviously, you cannot do serious research in the North without an icebreaker. The icebreaker is a Coast Guard icebreaker, but you are talking about getting the money to operate the Coast Guard ship. Explain it, please.
Mr. Fortier: It is a complex issue, I suppose. To answer your question about not being able to do serious research without an icebreaker, I have colleagues who would be angry at that suggestion. You can still do very good terrestrial research and we are lacking in that area too. For the marine effort, however, we need a Coast Guard icebreaker; they are the only icebreakers we have. We have the Louis St-Laurent, which is the largest icebreaker, but most icebreakers in Canada are not adapted for research. The Amundsen is the only icebreaker that received specific funding to completely transform it — equip it and mobilize it for scientific research. It is one of the best research icebreakers in the world now. That icebreaker was left for scrap by the Coast Guard. It was named Sir John Franklin and it was decommissioned. Because of CFI money and our request to CFI — the $30 million — they brought it back into the fleet. They invested also to completely refurbish, modernize and equip it for science. We have a cost-sharing agreement with the Coast Guard. They still use it for their winter operations in the Quebec region — seals and de-icing. From May to October, however, the operation of the ship is controlled by the scientists. We need to pay 100 per cent of the cost for those days to operate the ship. We pay for the salaries, the fuel, the food, everything. This year, it cost about $45,000 a day. Science must come up with that money to operate the icebreaker. That is extremely difficult and a challenge for us. There is no base funding for operating those ships for research within the Coast Guard or anywhere within government. Other countries have this baseline funding, so their scientists can focus on getting the money to do their research, not also putting fuel in the ship. As an organization, we now have both challenges.
The Chair: You are paying the salaries of the Coast Guard officers, is that correct?
Mr. Fortier: We pay their salaries during the summer months only, because the ship was not in the plans for the Coast Guard. They added that ship to their budget. That is an agreement we have. In the summer, if anyone wants to charter the Amundsen, they must come up with $45,000 a day, which is a challenge. This ship was funded through the international initiative, so we have international collaborators. ArcticNet has core funding for operating the ship — about $2 million a year — but that is not enough. We must get partners and that is a lot of work for us.
Senator Spivak: Which department does that Coast Guard ship fall under during the summer? Does it fall under the Department of Fisheries and Oceans? Where is the mandate for that summer operation?
Mr. Fortier: The mandate is with the science consortium that received the grant to refit the Amundsen. The consortium consists of about 20 universities and some departments, including DFO, which is a large department. The ship is still owned by the Coast Guard but the mandate to operate it is within the research consortium that received the grant to do the research on board the Amundsen. It involves many departments. As with ArcticNet, federal departments do not lead the research done on the Amundsen, university-funded researchers lead the work in partnership with departments such as DFO and others.
Senator Spivak: Has there been any work or advocacy done to look at that, because this should be government funding?
Mr. Fortier: There is a lot of pressure within the granting councils to get better input from some of the departments that are collaborating with us to pay for the ship time. As you know, other departments have other issues and funding issues to deal with. There are also other ships doing research in the North that they are mostly operating. The Amundsen is perhaps the exception. In the summer months, it is apart from the actual cost of the fleet of the Coast Guard and it is operated by science.
Senator Sibbeston: I am glad to hear that there are Inuit people involved and on your board of directors. People of the North always feel that the people in the South do things to them politically. That is why the first question that I asked you this morning is where are you situated?
I am glad to hear that there is Inuit involvement. Obviously, that gives them an opportunity to state their concerns and maybe influence the type of research and where it is done. That is positive.
My specific question relates to the oil sands development and its effect down the river. Eventually, the waters from that area get into the Mackenzie River and up into the Beaufort Sea area. I understand that a couple of years ago, there was some research done by your ship which showed that there was a higher level of mercury than ever before.
Certainly, for the western part of the Northwest Territories, apart from the general issue of climate change, the biggest concern was the pollution from a big project like the oil sands. What effect is it having and is it going to have on the Northwest Territories — the Mackenzie River basin and the Beaufort delta area? Is that something you are looking at in your research work?
Mr. Fortier: Yes. In Canada, apart from ArcticNet, we closely collaborate with the Northern Contaminants Program, which is under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. That is one of the world's best programs. It is a 15-year long program and we work closely with them.
To answer your questions, we focus on the coastal Arctic. However, as you mentioned, we are downstream of the Mackenzie River, which is the largest river flowing in Canada, and it has a large impact on the Beaufort Sea. The Beaufort Sea is and has been a large part focus of our research.
Some people in Fisheries and Oceans Canada lead the research. They did not directly link it to the tar sands. For the Mackenzie River, the issues are coastal erosion climate change, permafrost melt and more input of sediment into the rivers being flushed into the Beaufort Sea. They have witnessed that. They are also working specifically on incorporation of contaminants in marine mammals, specifically beluga whales that are in the Western Arctic, and they have seen anomalous increase in beluga contaminant relative to what is in the environment.
This is very recent work, which has just been published. We are looking at this. Right now, as you may know, the Amundsen is actually frozen in the Beaufort Sea. It spent the entire year there as part of the largest program of IPY in the world, led by a Manitoba professor, Dave Barber. You must know about that. It got a lot of press. They are looking at these issues on a year long cycle. In Canada, we do not have the capacity to study the Arctic for a full year. Northerners call the scientists geese because we come up in the spring and leave in the fall, and they are right. Your initial comments are certainly true, and we have to work more on better involvement and better presence in the North.
For your specific questions on the Beaufort Sea, it is true there are increases. I certainly cannot say it is because of the tar sands. I am not aware of a link.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: I thank you for being here today and for bringing forth this very informative discussion. I would like to ask about the Inuit health survey that you did. It was one of the perhaps as many as eight or ten you have conducted as part of your ArcticNet research and monitoring effort. I am a physician, so I am very interested in that study.
Mr. Fortier: I am not a physician, but I will elaborate as best I can. This is certainly one of the great successes of ArcticNet and the Amundsen and the collaboration so far. In 2004, in partnership with the Quebec Ministry of Health and Social Services and the regional organizations, some ArcticNet researchers led by a university professor from Laval took the Amundsen as a floating clinic or laboratory and visited all 14 Nunavik communities. As you know, almost all Inuit communities are on the coast, so the ship is the best way to visit and to have these large facilities. We had clinical trials, blood sampling, carotid thickness, everything. The ship was transformed into a floating lab with analysis being done on the spot, and there were services provided like breast cancer screening tests, which is not available in some communities. That was not the focus of the study, but a service that was also provided.
It was a huge success concerning participation. We had over 1,200 adult participants out of a population of about 14,000, and it was a big sample size. The results have just been published in 17 thematic reports, and I can provide the link for that, on all kinds of issues — not only on illness or emerging diseases but also on mental illness, over-housing and effects of contaminants. They did not conduct just clinical tests but conducted interviews on habits, food habits and changing habits. The teams learned that Inuit are not accessing traditional foods because of change of culture and climate change. They observed the benefits of traditional food such as fish, seal and muktuk for some of them, and obviously the real inconvenience of drinking three Cokes a day for kids.
This was part of an international cohort study, and we showed that performing the work on the ship was a great way to go. Now, Denmark has followed with a ship and a survey of their own on the East Coast of Greenland. This year, as part of the International Polar Year, the second largest project is funded on the Amundsen, and the health survey is expanding to all regions of the North. Starting last October, the ship visited all of Nunavut. They started in Churchill, did Rankin Inlet and Fox Basin, Baffin Island, all the way to Grise Fiord, and they stopped in Resolute, and now the ship is over-wintering. Starting this September, they will do all the coastal communities of the Inuvialuit and do the Northwest Passage communities of Nunavut again, and in October 2008, they will also do the Nunatsiavut communities.
In the last four years, because of the Amundsen and the investment in health research, we will have had surveys of all coastal Inuit communities in Canada, which is something we should be proud of. It is a huge effort, and we need to continue it because it is a cohort study. They want to repeat this every five to seven years to follow the evolution of the health of northern Canadians.
As to specific results, I could lead the committee to the actual reports.
The Chair: If they exist, could you let the clerk have a copy?
Mr. Fortier: Yes. They were presented to the communities themselves first for ethics reasons, and they were approved and are now available in 17 different reports available online in both official languages.
Senator Cochrane: What are the specific results coming out of this work that you are doing over the four-year period? What action is being taken as a result of what you found?
Mr. Fortier: Obviously, the results are just out, and they need to be fed into the policy sector and different governmental levels. For example, there are many misconceptions with contaminants and the safety of country food in the North, and people will not eat food that they should be eating that is very beneficial to their health. Past studies have recommended that pregnant woman eat Arctic char. Tobacco has made a large impact on the people of the North and an equally large publicity campaign is trying to limit that intake. One of the most striking situations is suicide in the North. The suicide rate for young males is three or four times higher than in the rest of Canada. That is a huge issue that relates to health and mental health.
As far as programs, we can feed these results, but sometimes the capacity to intervene in some of these remote communities is not there. Even if they are informed, they are overwhelmed, so that is certainly a challenge. The results, specifically when they come in these reports that are not scientific jargon, are aimed and have recommendations and policy recommendations. They need to be fed into the system. There is obviously a lag in doing that. It is the same for climate change. We have seen the impacts of climate change and we have reported our observations, but this committee knows better than I do how long it is before action is taken; however, we need to keep on acting.
Senator Cochrane: There is no point in doing research unless it generates some action.
Mr. Fortier: I agree.
Senator Cochrane: Who are your stakeholders? You spoke about the training of the next generation of young Arctic specialists. Who are the next generation of Arctic specialists, and how many northerners are engaged in this training? What outreach is taking place to attract the northerners to careers of specialists like yourself?
Mr. Fortier: That is an excellent question, and it is one of our major efforts. Our co-chair, Mary Simon, is the president of ITK, and that is her main goal. Her main message is education and youth. As far as ArcticNet is concerned, we are a university-based network, and there are no universities in the North, which has a very high dropout rate. This issue is not only for ArcticNet to tackle, but we do try to encourage involvement of northerners and try to entice them into Arctic research. We developed a program called Schools on Board, where we bring high school students on board the Amundsen for periods of about two weeks. Out of the six or seven schools, we have always had three or four from the North. Over 20 students have now come on board. I am normally chief scientist there and can see how it opens their eyes and how putting them in front of the situation and giving them the environment would really help them. That is what is needed but support is lacking in the North.
We are making efforts through different types of programs to increase participation of northerners into a southern- based style of education but that may not be the way to go. Encouraging them to attend Arctic colleges would be a good first step. Again, until recently, the government funding did not support funding for colleges so they could not apply for NSERC-type scholarships, for CFI money. If they can, it is still difficult for them to compete with professional grant writers in the South, so that is something we have to increase. As a research organization, we are working hard towards that but there are limitations. The entire education system needs to be looked at in the North and not only the research. Very few young Inuit have a B.Sc. in Canada; you can probably count them on one hand. That is either because the system is not well adapted or because we should be looking at some other means of training scientists in the North other than going to university.
Senator Cochrane: Some of these young Inuit are at our universities now. Are we looking at the ones who are there and maybe we can encourage them to get into a project like this?
Mr. Fortier: Yes, and some have; Jason Akearok, for example, from Iqaluit, is now working with Fisheries and Oceans Canada and he is a great person. He is a hero to have reached that level. It is extremely difficult. The hurdles are huge.
Senator Cochrane: We need heroes.
Mr. Fortier: Yes, we do. We certainly do.
Senator Adams: You are obviously familiar with our work here and I thank you for that comment. We have questions about the research operations in Nunavut, especially on the Amundsen. It came into Rankin late last fall from Quebec and had to go back to Ottawa and then back its regular work in September.
I think you are doing good things; however, my concern lies with more work for the Inuit people in Nunavut, Inuvialuit, Nunatsiavut and Nunavik regions. I am familiar with the beginning of the research and I am aware that the University of British Columbia started the process for future work. Some scientists have been in the Arctic, especially on Ellesmere Island working on climate change issues. Every time I talk to them they say they do not have enough funds or equipment to do their work. There are mostly foreigners from other countries up there who help them out because they do not have any equipment themselves from the Government of Canada.
Are you concerned about the government not funding for research on climate change in the Arctic?
Mr. Fortier: Yes, and I am probably in a conflict of interest because I am asking for more money for research. From all the witnesses you have heard that this is the age of the Arctic, and I could say that too. We are not putting enough effort and we are sort of waking up. Unfortunately, it is because of the sovereignty issue that we are waking up and putting more money into it. Indirectly this may be putting more money into research and that is good. Any way we go at it, whether it is because climate change is happening or because we want a greater presence for sovereignty impact, we need more investment in the North.
In the latest Speech from the Throne there were about two pages on the Arctic, and some on Arctic research, and for research scientists who are much older than me that was a first. With the interest in the Arctic and the mention of building a new High Arctic research station to serve the world; those phrases were very exciting for Arctic scientists. Now there are all kinds of issues, do they want a big, shiny building or disburse real investment in an Arctic capacity. That debate is taking place now and we are involved in that too.
It is a great initiative and even though it was not in the latest budget, it was in the Speech from the Throne, and I think there is a cross-party will to invest in Arctic research. There is a process now going on to establish it, but given our responsibility and the richness of our country we do invest less than some very small countries like Norway and others that have much larger capacity in the Arctic even though they are a much smaller country. However, they are also much more advanced than us in oil and gas exploration. I see Norway as a bit of an example for things to come in the future for Arctic Canada.
There is a lack of money. We need more investment. We have had good recent investment. I am worried about the legacy. We need to continue this investment.
Senator Adams: NASA has researchers up on Devon Island. I know they have a few Inuit employees studying how to live on Mars. I hope the Inuit people will be able to become scientists and work on the Mars research. I was there a couple of years ago and they said this year they are going to build a greenhouse where they can grow plants that might survive on Mars. Are any Canadians involved in that research, or is it mostly Americans?
Mr. Fortier: No, it is a NASA-led program. However, there are many Canadians working in this program, and not only on Devon Island. There is also the McGill Arctic Research Station on Axel Heiberg Island, which is run by Wayne Pollard who is also part of ArcticNet. They also do work for them on that program for preparation for exploration on Mars.
In relation to the whole Canadian Arctic, it is a huge part of the Arctic and is extremely attractive to many countries and to not only the other circumpolar countries, but also countries such as Japan and China. Whether these countries are investing because of oil and gas or because it is an important area to understand the global earth system, they are investing a lot of money to come to the Arctic. Canada needs to welcome them, given all the regulations that need to be done. Canada needs to encourage this international participation because we cannot tackle this issue alone. We need to open our borders to international collaboration in the Arctic.
Senator Spivak: First, I am really happy to see you here because Canada has a fabulous resource and it is called brains; it is not just oil and gas. What is your time frame? When looking at research — and the chair asked about the positive aspects of climate change — long term, let us say 20 years, there are not very many positive aspects that are out there that are being discussed in the journals and press that I read. Is your research oriented to various time frames in terms of how the climate change issue is being addressed? Of course, I know there are variable factors, business as usual or not. That is my major question.
Mr. Fortier: The time frame is the thing. As we mentioned, the time frame for conducting research, because of the funding environment, sometimes is pretty short-lived. When we talk about climate change, any scenario, whether it is the IPCC, we always have to look to the future at a much longer time frame.
I believe you heard from Rob Huebert last week. I do not know how in-depth he went into this, but the most striking factor of Arctic climate change is the sea ice because we can actually see it with our own satellites for the last 30 years. When talking about the impacts of climate change, sea ice and opening sea routes, we are talking 20, 30, 40 years. We are talking about a century, whereas politicians are normally talking about four years. Therefore it is difficult to convince people that in the next three years there will be impact but the major impacts are coming in my lifetime, maybe not in everyone's lifetime, but in my kids' lifetime, and we always plan that way for climate change impact and adaptation because we have to think long term. It is the same with development. Development is coming very quickly and it is increasing.
Senator Spivak: The sea ice is melting twice or three times as quickly as they thought.
Mr. Fortier: Even the most pessimistic scientists were completely awed by the loss of sea ice last year. We have been losing about 10 per cent sea ice per decade; last year we lost 25 per cent in one single season and things are not looking much better for this season.
You may have heard that the ice this winter grew again to its normal extent but that is thin, first-year ice. The multi- year ice, the ice cap that does not melt, is even less than last year. According to the world's leading experts, they expect a 60 per cent, so we will break the record again.
We are going in a very steep decline in sea ice, with all the major implications for economic development and sovereignty. Basically, in the long term, we are looking at a new ocean. There will be a new open ocean north of Canada. We say from coast to coast to coast and that will be true. The northern coast of Canada, which is protected now by the thickest, heaviest ice in the world, will be ice-free in many people's lifetimes. We have to deal with that; that is long term and we have to address this change.
To answer your question, the specific research and observations are short term. We are putting a lot of pressure to government to establish these monitoring stations because we need these types of monitoring to be able follow the changes. If we had not invested in these satellites 30 years ago, we would not know what has been a catastrophic change in sea ice. We need more investment in monitoring, in addition to basic research.
Bernie Boucher, President of JF Boucher Consulting Ltd. and Chair of the Board of Directors, ArcticNet: From an economic perspective, five years, ten years and fifteen years from now, it will be very different. The Inuit population will have new opportunities in economic development. Certainly, there will be challenges to that; for example, the sailing season will change.
In northern Manitoba, it is now totally different. Last year, they had the first ship in from Murmansk. It always takes the first one and it will forever change things in the global economy. There will be huge pressures in mining, exploration, gas and the shipping lanes. Everyone will be in the game and they are already preparing for that. It will be a total change; we need to be prepared for that. The policy-makers need to look at it very quickly.
Senator Milne: Very briefly, you have $6.4 million per year for seven years; that is all you can depend on, and then another after that, hopefully.
Mr. Fortier: To clarify, that is the base funding given to us by the NCE program. Individual researchers may have separate grants that they put toward ArcticNet, but the core funding is $6.4 million. As you will see in our annual report, we do attract in kind and cash contributions but that is the base funding without which ArcticNet would not exist.
Senator Milne: That $156 million to the International Polar Year, does that come out of your funding?
Mr. Fortier: No, it is in addition; this is new money and that is why Canada has been making a good effort. Canada invested new money. Out of that, about $100 million was invested in research. Given our large participation, we can say that maybe about $50 million will be directly or indirectly related to ArcticNet. The data will come into our database and we are really involved. However, it is a short-term, one-year investment.
Senator Milne: What percentage of your grant monies goes into preparing for the review that you have had, your four-year review, and now your reapplication and running a ship like the Amundsen? What percentage actually goes into real live research?
Mr. Fortier: Running the ship, I would argue, is research. In the Arctic, you need to calculate the cost of actually operating, but the ship costs about $2 million a year. We have about $3 million a year for directly funded research programs and research activities. It leaves about $1 million a year out of $6.4 million to run the administration centre, my salary — it is not $1 million a year — the entire staff and some other partners that we need to invest. The effort of doing the renewal is not really monetary; it is the effort of having people like me and Louis Fortier, who is the head of our network, involved in it.
Senator Milne: You are losing your time on research.
Mr. Fortier: You are losing scientific minds that could do research, who are writing proposals instead. That is the name of the game, unfortunately, not only for us, but for Arctic research in Canada — or research in general in this country.
The problem with the Arctic research community is that it has very few members. Most of them are well-established people and they are being asked to serve on all committees. They are the expert on this and that. I am sitting on about six or seven different panels — for IPY, et cetera — and it is the same for others. The community is small and it is overstretched.
That is why it is so refreshing to see this new generation of people coming. If you come to our annual meeting, there are about 400 people every year. There are young students, mostly female now — over 60 per cent, which is a big change. The older scientists come to our meetings and they are in awe. It is not the old boys' club of research scientists that used to characterize Arctic research. Now you have this really dynamic group, and they also have a much different way of doing research, trying to involve Northerners.
Senator Milne: This is very encouraging, but I would still like to get a breakdown on what percentage of your grant monies goes into scientific research.
Mr. Fortier: At least 80 per cent, if you think about the ships also being research money and if you think about fuel being research money. The thing is that without the fuel, the ship does not go to the North and then we do not do the research. It depends how you see it. The actual research grants that we give are more than 50 per cent and then there is the ship, which is a big chunk of it. However, that allows a lot of the research to be conducted.
The Chair: We are talking about what sounds like a lot of money — $6.4 million and $136 million. However, in the scheme of things — and I know I am asking a biased question — relative to what other countries are doing, you have mentioned that we are really not pulling our weight in this respect, or in respect of the burgeoning things that are going to happen there. To use Mr. Boucher's words, are we going to be at the table? Are we going to be in the game; are we players?
Mr. Fortier: I think we are. I do not want to paint too grim a picture. If we would not have invested in IPY, we would have missed the boat. The recent investment in the International Polar Year really showed leadership. Even though $150 million may not look like a lot of money, when you look at the general involvement, Canada took back sort of a leadership position in Arctic research through the International Polar Year. However, this is a one-shot investment for two years of research. It is the basis that needs to be there.
ArcticNet is not the answer to everything. It is a research network that focuses on some aspects but there is much more investment needed. I am rather positive that things are going the right way, and Canada is certainly at the table. In my young career, I used to walk into meetings with my tail between my legs and now I can walk in with my chest pumped up. That has changed dramatically in the last 10 years.
The Chair: We have to keep it that way.
Mr. Fortier: Yes, because other countries are starting to invest. Other countries like China are going at it in a big way. Russia obviously does not invest as much in their research as they should. They were a powerhouse before, but when you go to Russia now and visit their research institute, you can see a real crumbling taking place. Nevertheless, they own a lot of data and have access to a lot of the regions, so that is a challenge for us and the international community.
It is also an advantage for Canada. Russia is not accessible to international science. They close the borders to international science and Canada does not. If you want a lab to study the Arctic, Canada is it now. We should take advantage of this, build this station and attract the world to Canada.
Senator Trenholme Counsell: Picking up on what you said about Russia, you mentioned ``crumbling.'' Could you elaborate on that to give us a bit more information about how you see Russia's participation in Arctic research?
Mr. Fortier: There is a great history of Arctic research in Russia. However, I was in St. Petersburg last year at the Arctic and Antarctic Scientific Research Institute and it was like a ghost building. There is very little recent investment in Arctic research. Then you would open a door at the end of a very grim, dark corridor with people smoking and stuff, and walk into modernity and a beautiful lab. This lab was funded by Germany and Norway through international collaboration. That is probably how they are trying to do it again. They have a huge amount of research and capacity infrastructure. They have nuclear icebreakers. As far as infrastructure, Russia is way ahead of anyone else. We think we have trouble with training a new generation; they certainly have a large problem with that as well.
We are trying to increase their involvement. For example, with the current project on the Amundsen, we have asked for money from Canada to be able to invite Russians to participate. If we do not pay their way, they will not be able to come. They do not have the money to do that type of research. When we go to international forums, Russia is always absent. They have a huge amount of mostly grey, unpublished knowledge that is very difficult to access.
ArcticNet is collaborating with Russians to look at circumarctic changes, but we go through offices in Alaska, which comes with money. It is very rare that a Russian-led and paid-for initiative will attract international collaboration.
Perhaps I used the word ``crumbling.'' I do not want to sound negative. However, they play such a huge role, and, with oil and gas, they are the ones now. We need to make efforts to try to bring Russia onboard this international effort.
The Chair: We must stop here. As you can tell, gentlemen, we would like to be with you for another hour, but, unfortunately, we cannot. Mr. Boucher and Mr. Fortier, thank you very much for being it with us. We may have more questions. I hope you will allow us to contact you with those questions.
Mr. Fortier: Please do so. Thank you very much. Good luck with your trip to the North.
The Chair: Senators, continuing our information for our own benefit on the North, and dealing now with climate change and environmental impact of economic development in the North, is our guest is Mike Vaydik, General Manager of the NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines.
Mike Vaydik, General Manager, NWT and Nunavut Chamber of Mines: Thank you. I am happy to see two northern friends here, Senator Sibbeston and Senator Adams. Both are old friends.
The Chamber of Mines represents about 1,000 members who are engaged in exploration and mining in the North. These include the operators of the mines, the junior exploration companies, most of which are based in Toronto and Vancouver, and the service sector that provides the mines with all kinds of services. We get right down to individual prospectors and other entrepreneurs who participate in the mining industry.
The mining industry today is quite different from the one that we see in the pictures of people digging a hole in the ground with water dripping on their hat with a light. We do have underground mines, but they are much different than the ones that we too often see in the popular press.
Mines do have a finite life. Our diamond mines have about 15-20 years left. They are bringing incredible benefits to the generation that is working there now and to those who service those businesses. We need to grow that to a multi- generational industry that can provide community economies for the future.
Mining relies on exploration to sustain it. Mines all close some day, and the only way we can have a sustainable mining industry is to continue our exploration efforts.
This is a risky business. It takes considerable time to find a mine, and the best recipe for overcoming the challenges that we have is to ensure that we have lots of exploration going on to increase our odds of discovery.
Attracting lots of exploration requires an attractive investment and operating climate. Unfortunately, in the North today, we face a combination of land claims uncertainty, alienation of too much land for protected areas and parks, and regulatory concerns that hamper orderly development.
I want to give the committee a snapshot of the economic performance of the diamond mines and a bit of history. The mining industry has led the modern economy of the North since the 1930s when the development of reliable aircraft made exploration possible.
Port Radium Mine on Great Bear Lake, along with the development of the oil wells at Norman Wells, saw the beginning of the industrial age for the North. All of these mines that operated in the past, with the exception of the diamond mines, are now closed. They go back to the gold mines in the Yellowknife area, the Rankin Inlet nickel mine, Pine Point lead-zinc mine south of Great Slave Lake, and Nanisivik and Polaris, which operated in the High Arctic.
I thought I would put in my pitch for the mining industry's role in northern sovereignty. The largest Canadian flags that ever flew in the Arctic were on the roof of the Polaris and Nanisivik concentrate shed. They were a huge symbol that Canada was there. There were ordinary people there doing fairly ordinary things.
These mines, while they are closed now, provided generations of us with training and business opportunities, and revenues to government through royalties and taxes, and had some spinoff benefits that may not be as apparent. The barge system on the Mackenzie River that we all use today was the result of a requirement to ship oil from Norman Wells and supplies and concentrate in and out of Port Radium. Our electrical power generation — really all the hydro power that we have in the North — comes from the requirement to service the mine at Pine Point and those in Yellowknife. That low emission type of power generation was driven by the mining industry.
Referring to the ocean-going vessels that we heard about from your last witness, the only ocean-going cargo icebreaker that we are aware of was developed to service the mines at Nanisivik and Polaris. It has since gone on to service other mines. The port at Nanisivik will be converted into a military base to sustain our sovereignty. The railway into Hay River, which allows cheap goods for all the Northwest Territories and the western half of Nunavut, was the result of the Pine Point mine.
Since the discovery of diamonds in 1991, the buzz has been about the incredible performance of the mines and the unprecedented exploration efforts to find additional deposits. The latest Statistics Canada release about a week ago shows that diamond mining contributed $1.2 billion to the economy of the Northwest Territories in 2007. This allowed the Northwest Territories to post the best GDP growth in Canada, at 13.1 per cent, followed by Nunavut at 13 per cent. These are figures that we could not have imagined 10 years ago.
Northerners know that the mining industry has also driven the construction and transportation industry. It has been responsible for an unprecedented growth of non-government capital investment. Over $7 billion of investment by the diamond mining industry has provided a boost to businesses throughout the North. About one third of that investment has gone to northern Aboriginal business, one third to other northern business, and about one third to southern business. You can see there is quite an impact throughout the country, but mostly the positive impact has been for northerners.
Cumulative employment in 2006 as a result of the diamond industry has been about 10,000 person years, so there have been incredible employment opportunities also.
Exploration plays a major role in the northern economy. Last year, over $500 million was spent in both territories, $322 million in Nunavut and $178 million in the Northwest Territories. These are spent on goods that northerners can provide: aircraft and helicopter charters, drilling contracts, consulting contracts of all types, camp services and a plethora of other employment and business opportunities. These sectors employ many northerners at all skill levels.
Next, I will speak a bit about environmental performance. We know that some senators of this committee and some other senators have been on a tour of Diavik and the Ekati diamond mines and have seen first-hand the care that is taken on the environmental front at those operations. We are proud of the record of our modern mines. While we admit to the mistakes of the past, we know that the industry today is very different from the one that gave us the legacy of the Giant Mine, which will require a huge cleanup.
The diamond mines today operate to the highest environmental criteria — the international ISO 14001 standard. There is no higher standard to operate to.
In spite of our climate, isolation and other challenges, the companies operating the northern mines are meeting the highest standards for industrial safety. The safety records of our modern mines have set a new awareness of what is possible and other sectors are being challenged to follow suit. Two of the diamond mines were recognized last week with Canada's highest safety award: The John T. Ryan award.
I would also like to talk about Aboriginal involvement because you do not do anything in the North without involving Aboriginal people. The Tlicho government — these are the communities to the west of Yellowknife — have realized incredible benefits from the diamond mining business. In 2007, Tli Cho Logistics — one of their companies — passed $60 million in business with the diamond mines. They employ over 300 people. This is in communities that, 10 years ago, had almost no hope of steady employment or well-paid, full-time jobs. These companies have branched out to work on many different projects, including the Colomac mine cleanup. Their safety record is impressive, too. They have passed one million hours without a lost-time injury.
An example of the positive secondary effects of development — and this is one that I have noticed — is the post- secondary school enrolment rate in the Tlicho communities last year. In 1998, when the Ekati diamond mine opened, there were three people from the Tlicho communities in post-secondary school. This year, there are over 150. That is an incredible increase. We credit that incredible increase to strong community leadership; education commitment by the community; scholarships provided by the industry, and, very important, the opportunity of having a real chance at a real job.
Baker Lake in Nunavut has seen the benefits of development at an early stage of mine construction with Meadowbank Gold Project. During construction of a road to the mine, many local people were trained and hired to participate.
In answer to a question at a recent public forum on the impacts and benefits of development, the President of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, the manager of the Nunavut Land Claims, said, ``Bring it on. We are ready.''
The Government of Nunavut and the Nunavut Arctic College are constructing a new trade school in Rankin Inlet to assist in providing new training opportunities. The industry is already in discussions with them about some programs.
Another example of the northerners' readiness to meet the challenges of development is the engagement of the Nunavik Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, on the uranium issue. In the 1980s, in a response to concerns about uranium mining near Baker Lake, a moratorium was put on uranium development in the Kivalliq region. Since then, the land claim has been settled and a new regulatory system is in place to help communities feel empowered to make their own informed decisions about uranium. NTI developed a discussion paper and held a series of consultation meetings to openly discuss the issues surrounding uranium development. The result was a vote lifting the moratorium and a willingness to engage in strategies to enable uranium exploration and mining, provided always that it is done in a safe and environmentally sensitive manner.
Mining and advanced exploration have had a major impact on the employment and business climate in the Kitikmeot region also, with the Hope Bay gold mine development. In Baffin region, we have been reading about Baffinland Iron Mines Inc. at Mary River. That mine has the potential to provide the northern part of the Baffin region with jobs for many, many generations. It is a fabulous resource that needs to be developed. Once you start an iron mine, it lasts for several generations.
I want to highlight the Mine Training Society of the Northwest Territories, which has trained many Aboriginal northerners for jobs in mining that are also transferable to other sectors. This was done with Aboriginal Skills and Employment Partnership funds. I participated in the strategy development, and we are very proud of the fact that it was actually used as a template for other funding initiatives right across Canada. The North led a national program in terms of setting out the criteria. We are training people for real jobs. Too many youth have been through rotating training programs, and when they come out the other end, there are still no jobs. We focused our efforts on jobs that we knew would exist. We think it has been very successful. We know that similar projects are underway in Nunavut with mining and exploration companies already in discussion with the training people.
One of the challenges that we are facing in the North, in particular in the Northwest Territories, is the development of national parks. I want to talk a bit about that. The Nahanni National Park Reserve, which started life at about 4,700 square kilometres — and we know that the Prime Minister of the day was very instrumental in its formation — has now grown to over 42,600 square kilometres. This expanded area is almost 10 times what it started out to be. This makes it about 77 per cent the size of Nova Scotia. This would alienate from development forever an area of known high mineral potential along the Yukon/Northwest Territories border. The recent mineral and energy resource assessment identifies these areas of high potential but it has been inadequately discussed with members of our industry who have the knowledge to understand the geological concepts, which are often quite difficult for non-technical people to understand, with the communities and with other parties in the North who are interested in the economic future of the North. A socio-economic assessment, which would translate those geological things into the things that people can understand, for example, jobs, business and training opportunities, and maybe infrastructure development, has not been completed. Yet, the government seems in a hurry to establish a park boundary and declare a park. We think there is time to have that fulsome discussion with informed decision making along the way. The interim withdrawal is in place. There is no development in the proposed park area. There does not seem to be any rush to keep development out, so why not take a little more time to have an informed discussion about it?
Another park reserve that has grown incredibly over the past year is the east arm park proposal on the east arm of the Great Slave Lake. This grew from a land withdrawal of 7,400 square kilometres in 1970 to 33,000 in the last year. In addition to the land forever alienated from development within the park — and we know there are considerable mineral resources within the park — because of park rules concerning roads and power lines and so on going through parks, it would alienate another area of the Northwest Territories from development just because of its location. Developers would not be able to get by it efficiently or economically to develop beyond its limits. It really does alienate not only the area in the park but has some implication outside of it.
In addition to the park proposals already discussed, there are a number of protected area proposals of various sizes that total 275,000 square kilometres. Admittedly, the Northwest Territories has lots of land, but it would put about 28 per cent of our land in parks and protected areas. The next jurisdiction in Canada in terms of protected areas is British Columbia with 11 per cent and the Yukon with 10 per cent. There is an equity situation here.
The other conservation zones in addition to those parks and protected areas, which are a result of the regional land use planning process, put another 43,000 square kilometres beyond the reach of exploration. This means that, with that 28 per cent of the land in parks and protected areas, the total land alienated in the Northwest Territories is 318,000 square kilometres. For comparison, the three Maritime provinces comprise about 134,000 square kilometres. We are over twice the size of the three Maritime provinces.
These are the areas where geologists and prospectors will no longer be able to look for mineral deposits. We want to emphasize that exploration requires a lot of land to look for deposits which might be mined, but only about one in 10,000 good mineral showings ever results in a mine. Exploration itself is low impact. Most of the operations today are helicopter-supported, and they move the drill with a helicopter so they are not dragging things through the bush. There are few areas to cut lines through the trees and even less disturbance of the land on the tundra.
Mining which does impact the land takes very little area. All of the mines that exist or ever existed in the Northwest Territories and Nunavut occupy only one three- thousandth of 1 per cent of the land. That is a pretty small dot. Admittedly, the impact is significant, but we are doing better at environmental performance all the time. However, we do need room to look, and there is very little impact from looking. When we see the benefits that mining can bring, northerners and the federal government also need to be concerned about the amount of land withdrawn from exploration.
Another impediment to orderly development is our regulatory system in the North. The current system is the MacKenzie Valley Resource Management Act in the Northwest Territories. There were 17 boards created under this act and various land claims in the North to govern the regulatory process in a territory of 40,000 people.
The Chair: Mr. Vaydik, can you tell us if the act to which you just referred is an act of the Northwest Territories?
Mr. Vaydik: No this is a federal act. It is about 10 years old and even obtaining the board appointments has been proven to be very difficult. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appoints board members, and it is difficult to find people from such a small talent pool who are interested, have the time, and are qualified for the job.
Overlapping and confusing systems result because of these regional regulatory authorities and overarching environmental assessment authority. We have had cases where explorers have a permit from a regional land and water board and were told that they still could not do any work by the environmental impact review board. There is confusion.
We have just participated in a review of the regulatory system. We have been asking for a review for 10 years. Our 70-page brief is available on our website, miningnorth.com. I will not go into what is in it. Mr. Neil McCrank is the special representative for the minister, and he is expected to release a report any day now. We are hopeful that it will be useful.
That review, while it was about the whole North, really focused on the Northwest Territories, because that was seen as the greatest challenge. In Nunavut the problems are a bit different. Nine years after Nunavut was created, key components of the legislation are not in place. The legislation to enable the Nunavut Impact Review Board and the Nunavut Planning Commission to carry out its mandate has not been drafted, to our knowledge.
This causes uncertainty for regulators and developers alike. The rapid pace of exploration in Nunavut is really outstripping the abilities of the existing boards to respond to requests for reviews and licences and permits. Staff training and capacity are always major issues in Nunavut.
In the North, we need a vision that provides northerners with the certainty that mining can provide meaningful benefits in jobs, training and ongoing opportunities for our children and grandchildren. We need a system and a vision that guarantees public and Aboriginal governments' commitments to create an attractive regulatory environment to provide support for public education and training programs and that clarifies which land is open to exploration and development and which is not.
We are hoping that together we can build an approach that has been taken by our diamond mines. We hope to create tangible and meaningful opportunities and benefits for northerners; create trust by bringing governments, communities, and industry into solid, meaningful dialogue; create opportunities by investing in critical transportation and other infrastructure; and invest in geoscience to encourage the discovery of new mineral resources that can be developed for the benefit of all Canadians.
Senator Milne: Mr. Vaydik, you spoke about the impact upon Tlicho teens where in 10 years attendance has gone from three in high school to 150 in attendance.
Mr. Vaydik: Those numbers concern colleges, technical schools, universities; post-secondary institutions.
Senator Milne: Have any studies been done on the suicide rate in Tlicho communities to see if that has dropped in comparison?
Mr. Vaydik: To my knowledge, the Tlicho communities have not had a significant problem with suicide. It seems to be accepted in other cultures. I would not be aware of that statistic.
I have been doing some work with a PhD candidate who is doing a thesis on the impacts of the diamond mines on the communities in that area. She has defended her thesis but it is not published yet. There will be some in-depth study. She followed workers and their families through two and one half years, to get to know the challenge of working at a remote mine site, being away for two weeks and then coming home. It is a challenge for families, no question.
Senator Milne: That leads right into a question about expanded social problems in these communities where there is higher employment now because of mines. Is the mining industry doing anything to follow through on that, to do any sort of outreach into the communities to help solve social problems that might arise?
Mr. Vaydik: As part of the licensing requirement for the diamond mines, they were required to enter into impact- benefit agreements with the communities. These are private arrangements between the company and the community, so I really do not know the details; no one does. I am aware that the communities affected have a considerable amount of funding to run their own programs. I know the communities, particularly in the Tlicho region, have spent a lot of time and attention on things like cultural pursuits and the preservation of the Aboriginal language. While the companies do not directly do it, they fund it through the impact-benefit agreements.
Senator Milne: How is climate change affecting the way mining is being conducted in the North?
Mr. Vaydik: I think it is twofold. Obviously the technical aspect of planning for reduced levels of permafrost is a technical engineering consideration taken into the design of the mines. I think an ice-free Northwest Passage opens markets to mining projects. There probably will be an increase in interest in base metals, particularly, in the Arctic islands and along the Arctic coast.
The Chair: Will the costs of developing operating mines — not of exploration but of actual mining — be substantially impacted by the reduction, or maybe the disappearance, of ice roads?
Mr. Vaydik: Yes, we have had our problems with ice roads at the diamond mines. The shorter season two years ago caused a failure of the ice-road system to supply the mines with fuel and explosives, which are two of their major supplies.
The Chair: They have to have those things.
Mr. Vaydik: I believe the freight bill was in the order of $130 million to fly fuel, equipment and explosives into some of the mines. It is a major concern and will be addressed through planning for a road from the Bathurst Inlet region in the central Arctic, south to the mines. That is the Bathurst Inlet Port and Road Project. There is another road under a feasibility study, which would go north along the route of the existing ice road, but it would be on land. It would be a seasonal road; not used year round, but for the winter only. The major crossings would not be put in; it would only be ice crossings to get across some of the bodies of water. The idea would be to extend the road on land from the south until we get to the barren lands where there is a longer ice season.
Senator Sibbeston: I agree with Mr. Vaydik in some of his views, particularly concerning the Nahanni National Park Reserve. I think if southern environmentalists and park people had their way, all of the North would be a big park. Honestly, this is what they think. They have wrecked the South and now look to the North as a place where that could be kept environmentally clean, pristine and preserved for the future, but not conscious of the fact that people in the North need work.
On the issue of the Nahanni expansion, I have written letters to the people in the Dehcho First Nation, warning them to be very careful. I have warned them not to give away the land to Parks Canada, because once that department has the land it will control it like a little fiefdom. They become kings and princesses of these lands that no one else can use except them and people from the South who come in to the North for a few weeks every year.
Unfortunately, the park expansion is continuing, and I tell our people we have to think about the future because some day we will need these resources for our own development. We will need the resources and monies to run our own government when we have control, when we have self-government and control of everything in our area. Unfortunately, people have not thought ahead IN that way. There is still a bit of an anti-development mentality in some areas of the North.
I know Mr. Vaydik was born in the North and has been around a long time. Has the mining industry seen a change in attitude of the people of the North towards mining and such development, endorsing it and benefiting from that activity in the last years?
Mr. Vaydik: I believe it is happening, but it is happening slowly. As an example, the federal and territorial governments set up the Northwest Territories Protected Areas Strategy. That strategy is run out of the environment and conservation part of the government, so we know what the government people are going to say when they go to the meeting. There are no representatives from the economic development or mineral resource development side of the government at those meetings. The responsibility falls to my little organization, which until very recently had two people and now has three. I cannot attend all the meetings. Our organization cannot afford to be at them.
The pressure is there. The southern-based environmental NGOs — World Wildlife, Canadian Parks and Wilderness, Ducks Unlimited, et cetera — are at the meetings; they are well funded. Do not get me wrong, these are well-meaning, committed people and good organizations, but my issue is that the communities often are only hearing one side of the story. We are trying to get that out. It is taking a while, but we are seeing some turnarounds in maybe some surprising places such as Déline, which went through a long period of uncertainty over what health affects the Port Radium uranium mine had on them. The federal government conducted a study and they became aware of the real impacts on their community, which were very tiny if any, and they now are embracing an exploration sector in or around their community. There is quite a bit of activity there. Again, it is not without debate. The latest thing was that there is a moratorium on new uranium exploration, so we will be engaging those communities.
One thing I found most incredible and frustrating, and it did not really revolve around my industry, was when the pipeline discussions were happening up and down the Mackenzie Valley. There was a young group that showed up at virtually every community hearing. I believe it was called the indigenous peoples youth committee. At every meeting they would say, ``We do not want the pipeline but we want jobs and business and training opportunities.'' I was very frustrated, and it is very short-sighted of us not to be engaging those youth. We need to be there and talk to them and try to come to some understanding with them. One of my big frustrations in terms of engaging the youth is that we just cannot be everywhere at once.
The Chair: While we are on the youth question and you mentioned the Mackenzie Valley, does your organization, Northwest Territories and Nunavut Chamber of Mines, represent oil and gas explorers and extractors?
Mr. Vaydik: No.
The Chair: They are separate.
Senator Adams: I am not a stranger to Mr. Vaydik. We worked together in Rankin Inlet. I am not sure whether it was the Department of Public Works.
Mr. Vaydik: Yes and local government and the executive. I got around.
Senator Adams: That was before I had grey hair. Thank you for coming. I have known Mike for over 40 years.
I glad you are talking about parks. You did not mention Tuktut Nogait National Park. I tried to help Falconbridge. They wanted extra for the oil they found. He knew it once spanned up to Nunavut and we said you have enough; and the caribou, we do not go there every year, maybe once in a while. Have you an idea what is going on there?
Mr. Vaydik: There is continued interest in exploring in that area of the Tuktut Nogait National Park that spans the Northwest Territories/Nunavut border on the Arctic coast. It really could almost represent a microcosm of the park's issue. The park was under development for a number of years. My predecessor at the chamber of mines wrote a number of letters to the Inuvialuit about the fact that the largest gravity anomaly in Canada underlies that area. No one knew what this gravity anomaly represented. We still do not, but it has the potential to be 10 times larger than the Sudbury Basin. This is huge. You know how many people have lived their lives in the Sudbury area because of the mining business there.
However, through the decision-making process it was determined where the park boundary would be, and it was only at the very last minute when a company expressed some interest in exploring to the people in the nearest community to the park, which is Paulatuk, that suddenly some second thoughts were had about that park boundary. The community asked that the park boundary be moved I think 20 kilometres, which would tend to take it out of where this huge gravity anomaly was. It still would protect the caribou, to the best of anyone's imagination, but at that time it was too late. The park went ahead, and I think the people of that community got a little lesson in not rushing into things; make sure you have all the information and understand it. Our challenge is to ensure that the information gets out there.
Senator Sibbeston: Also park lines are forever. Once park lines are shown on maps, they are like diamonds; they are forever.
The Chair: There is a precedent. Banff National Park, the first national park and the jewel, was originally contemplated to be considerably larger than it ended up being because a mountain of limestone was found. You and I drive past it all the time, Senator Brown. There are two mountains of limestone, so the park boundary was moved to accommodate that, but there were not any people there at the time.
Senator Adams: I have a couple more questions. There is gold mine at Baker Lake. Fifteen years ago people at Baker Lake — that mine was once owned by a Japanese company, and now it looks like it will go ahead and be approved and there will be mining there in the future. It is an open mine, is it not?
Mr. Vaydik: It would be mostly underground, I think, but there are some areas that would be open pit. The company told me they would hope to file their project description so their project can go to an environmental assessment some time this year. That would probably be in the fall.
Senator Adams: At Pond Inlet, the ore mine had a little trouble that the RCMP straightened out. Some of the contractors working for the company brought in a lot of drugs. I think the RCMP put a sniffer dog at the airport to check the people coming in.
Mr. Vaydik: I do not know the details, but I can report on what is going on at the operating mines in the Northwest Territories. They have a very strict no alcohol or drug policy, zero tolerance, at their mine sites. The result of infractions is instant dismissal. There are no questions asked. This is for safety considerations, as well as others.
We have all heard the stories that if there is more money in the communities, there will be more drugs and alcohol. The drugs and alcohol are there now, whether there are jobs or not. I think we all know that drugs and alcohol are a huge problem in certain communities in the North. We hope that with the development of our industry and the development of a trained and educated workforce, it will help to alleviate some of those problems rather than magnify them.
The Chair: Is there any evidence of that happening? You have talked about employment, people are working. Among those folks who are working, is there less of a drug and alcohol problem?
Mr. Vaydik: I do not know that there are any statistics on it, but my friend that is doing the family research indicated that, in her experience with the two-week in, two-week out, it sometimes did increase the binge drinking when the worker got home for a couple of days; but that overall, drug use had gone down because people tested for it. The result of having a positive drug test is you do not get to work.
Senator Cochrane: Do you know something about the management of the parks? They are managed by Parks Canada. Do you know whether the management and requirements for Banff National Park are the same as the requirements for Nahanni and Paulatuk up North?
Mr. Vaydik: I could not comment on that directly. Banff is a whole different thing. It is really not a pristine wilderness anymore, it is full of tourists. Their management problems might be quite different there than in an isolated park like Tuktut Nogait or Nahanni. Probably Senator Sibbeston knows the numbers, but there are very few people that visit these parks. They tend to be wealthy foreign tourists, Germans and Japanese, and some southern Canadians.
The parks people like it that way. I do not ever see a road or highway going through them. Once they are parks, I think they will stay that way. I suspect Banff would not have a road through it unless the road was there before the park was created.
Senator Cochrane: In other words, there is not much activity in those parks.
Mr. Vaydik: That is true.
Senator Cochrane: I think it was about 15 years ago when Senator Christensen, Senator Sibbeston and I —
Senator Sibbeston: It was six or seven years ago.
Senator Cochrane: I am older than I thought. At that time, the requirements for Banff were the same as for the parks up North even though there was no activity in them. We were told there may be four or five visitors to these parks in a year. At that time, they were trying to get Parks Canada to look at these parks to see how ridiculous it was.
You, sir, said the exact words. How can you compare Banff to Nahanni? They are different altogether. I cannot understand why we have the same regulations for Banff as we have for Nahanni. Has that changed?
Mr. Vaydik: No, the Parks Act is federal legislation and it is pretty strident about what you can and cannot do.
The Chair: A park is a park is a park.
Senator Sibbeston: They do the same thing in the south as in the North. In one park, they had six visitors one year, but Parks Canada officials still do the same thing. They dress up their park officials in nice uniforms and they act as if there is going to be a big banquet but no one comes. They have the same process of touring around, checking on the boundary of the park as if there would be a mass intrusion. They operate on southern management styles that do not work in the North.
Senator Cochrane: My concern, senator, is that we are trying to help the Northern people to have investment, to better themselves, to educate themselves, to have industry where they can provide for themselves. I cannot see expanding the boundaries of the park. As you said, it is unbelievable — 28 per cent parkland in the Northwest Territories.
The Chair: When did that expansion occur? It used to be called Headless Valley when Nahanni was first established. When did that expansion occur?
Mr. Vaydik: The land withdrawal was within about the last year and a half in terms of Nahanni, and east arm was within the last year. These were quite a surprise to us all. Both of the original land withdrawals, the park reserves, have been known about for a long time and were accepted by industry; but the new expanded areas were quite a surprise to us all, particularly when you are looking at a known area of high mineral potential. It is listed in the geological report as either high or very high. We are not talking about what we in the mining industry call ``moose pasture'' that maybe does not have anything; these are areas that we know have high mineral potential.
Senator Cochrane: I have made my point. That is my concern, because I want the people of the North to become self-sufficient. That, to me, is a great objective. I want our youth to stay there. I have a feeling that this is the way of the future; the North is expanding and I like to think of it as a place that I will go to.
The Chair: Actually, you are going to the Eastern Arctic.
Senator Cochrane: I know; I should not say I am going to go. I would like people to say, I am going to go up North. We are going to have tourists and the people will have flights going in and out. It will be very productive. It may be far out, but I do have a vision of the North.
Senator Adams: You did not mention that some of the organizations want to get into more investment, with shareholders and so on. I believe NTI bought some shares at Baker Lake. It would be better for our committee to know how the mining system works in the North. Canada needs to join forces with investment people in the community.
Mr. Vaydik: The Government of Nunavut has been very supportive of the mining industry as a way to build its economy. The government does not see many other opportunities. By definition, it will never be in the forestry business, although global warming might have an effect. The tourism industry requires significant investment and, typically, provides mostly seasonal jobs. There is a big challenge to develop a tourism industry in the North that can operate year-round and provide sustainable, well-paying jobs for people. Obviously, it is a major component of the future of Nunavut.
The Government of Nunavut sees mining, and possibly oil and gas, as the future industries to sustain the government. Certainly, the premier and other people have spoken highly of the potential in the mining industry. We are quite buoyed by the fact that the premier is so supportive.
The Chair: Before we adjourn, I wish to ask you the rude question: You talked about the fact that the current mines have a small ecological impact, if any, and that they are left in good shape when they are closed down.
We have heard from the previous Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, and you referred to it in respect of the Giant mine, for example, about the devastation left behind and the clear and present danger posed by tailing ponds left overflowing from mines that have been closed and abandoned without a recovery effort. There is no one left to address the issue because the mines have gone out of business and therefore, it becomes a public undertaking. You will agree that there quite a number of them across the North. Is it the case today with respect to mines in the North that, before the undertaking is made and the work is done, there is an understanding and contractual responsibility on the part of the mining company when it closes to pay for the cleanup so that the public is not left footing the bill for the cleanup?
Mr. Vaydik: Yes, the Mackenzie Valley Resource Management Act and the supporting regulations lay out the terms of security deposits that must be posted before a mine opens. These are quite stringent requirements. The security deposit for the Diavik diamond mines was $127 million, which is cash available for the cleanup. The figures are based on the worst-case scenarios that the government develops before the mine opens in case something goes wrong and the company walks away. We all understand the reasons for that because there are about 350 orphaned and abandoned mines across the country. Our industry must try to do better in the future.
The Chair: Mr. Vaydik, you have been most informative and helpful. If we have additional questions, I hope you will permit us to write to you for your response.
The committee adjourned.