Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic
Issue No. 9 - Evidence - May 7, 2018
OTTAWA, Monday, May 7, 2018
The Special Senate Committee on the Arctic met this day at 6:56 p.m. to study the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 9 of Part 6 of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.
Senator Dennis Glen Patterson (Chair) in the chair.
The Chair: Good evening and welcome to the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. I am Dennis Patterson, a senator representing Nunavut. I am privileged to be the chair of this committee. I wish to welcome everybody with us in the room and viewers across the country who may be watching on television or online. These hearings are open to the public and also available online on the Senate website at sencanada.ca.
I would ask senators around the table to introduce themselves, please, beginning on my left.
Senator Oh: Victor Oh, Ontario.
Senator Pate: Kim Pate, Ontario.
Senator Neufeld: Richard Neufeld, British Columbia.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, and thank you for your patience.
Tonight we are continuing our study of the subject matter of those elements contained in Division 9 of Part 6 of Bill C-74, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures.
I’d like to now welcome, from Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Mr. Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Affairs, Northern Strategic Policy Branch; Mr. Patrick Barthold, Director, Northern Affairs, Northern Governance Branch, Northern Governance and Partnerships Directorate; and Mr. Daniel Pagowski, Legal Counsel, Legal Services, Negotiations and Northern Affairs.
From Environment and Climate Change Canada, we have Mr. Robert McLean, Director General, Assessment and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wildlife Service; and Mary-Jane Roberts, Director, SARA Management and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wildlife Service.
We also have with us, from Polar Knowledge Canada, Dr. David Scott, President and Chief Executive Officer.
Thank you all for joining us. I invite you, please, to proceed with your opening statements, after which we will go to a question-and-answer session. I would suggest all presenters go ahead before we go to questions.
I understand we are starting with Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, Mr. Walsh.
[Translation]
Wayne Walsh, Director General, Northern Affairs, Northern Strategy Policy Branch, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Good evening, Mr. Chair and honourable senators.
[English]
I want to begin by thanking you for the invitation to appear before the committee this evening. As the chair has indicated, I am here with Patrick Barthold and Mr. Pagowski, legal counsel from the Department of Justice. We are here this evening to brief you regarding matters relating to the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act and the Nunavut Act, which are included in Bill C-74, Part 6, Division 9.
[Translation]
The Department of Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs is leading the construction of the Canadian High Arctic Research Station in Cambridge Bay, Nunavut. Once finished, the station will be Polar Knowledge Canada’s headquarters. The campus consists of the main research building, the field research and maintenance building and two triplexes to accommodate visiting researchers and scientists. The station’s main rooms include research labs, centres for technology development and knowledge sharing, and facilities for teaching, training and community engagement.
[English]
The campus will be a world-class focal point for Arctic research, will provide a year-round presence in the region, will help build partnerships across the North and strengthen innovation and economic growth in the North.
To date, CHARS campus construction budget has contributed over $58 million to an Inuit benefits plan as part of Canada’s obligations with regard to the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, through contracting, employment and training. The station is currently largely operational, with the testing and verification of the systems and equipment expected to be completed this summer.
Transfer of the land and research station from Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada to Polar Knowledge Canada is a final step in creating the newest federal research organization.
The Federal Real Property and Real Immovables Act describes two situations whereby the transfer of federal real property from one federal organization to another can take place from one minister to another or via an agent corporation such as a Crown corporation.
Polar Knowledge Canada is a departmental corporation and the minister responsible for the organization is also the minister of the department holding the real property that is to be transferred. Therefore, neither scenario is currently met.
The proposed amendments to the act would address this inconsistency by allowing Polar Knowledge Canada to be treated as a Crown corporation solely for the purposes of transferring the real property.
[Translation]
The Nunavut Act establishes the territory of Nunavut and the Government of Nunavut’s legislative powers. The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut has legislative powers over most matters typically managed by the provinces.
[English]
Subsection 23(1) of the Nunavut Act lists the legislative powers conferred upon the Legislative Assemby of Nunavut. Paragraph 23(1)(s) of the Nunavut Act empowers the legislature to make laws in relation to the preservation of game in Nunavut.
Section 24 of the Nunavut Act restricts the legislature from making laws under section 23 that restricts or prohibits Indians or Inuit from hunting for food, game or other than game declared by order of the Governor-in-Council to be game in danger of becoming extinct.
The order of the Governor-in-Council referred to in section 24 is an order originally passed in 1960 under the Northwest Territories Act entitled Game Declared in Danger of Becoming Extinct.
In 2014, the order was repealed under the Northwest Territories Devolution Act. An unforeseen consequence of the repeal of the 1960 order is that the Legislative Assemby of Nunavut may no longer have the clear authority to restrict or prohibit Indigenous people from hunting food for game. The following four species were listed on the order when it was repealed: polar bear, barren-ground caribou, muskox and wood buffalo.
This situation creates a regulatory gap and uncertainty for the Government of Nunavut in its ability to manage wildlife. Therefore, the proposed initiative would clarify that, despite the repeal of the 1960 order, it is deemed to have continued to be in force and to apply in Nunavut. This would provide the necessary authority and would cover the period from the time of the repeal of the 1960 order, which is April 1, 2014, forward.
This retroactive provision would ensure the validity of the legislative actions taken by the Government of Nunavut under the Nunavut Act and ensure greater certainty in relation to wildlife management for the benefit of Indigenous peoples and all Canadians. It would contribute to the efficient and coherent management of wildlife in the North.
[Translation]
In conclusion, I would like to thank the members of the committee for their interest in studying these measures related to the Canadian High Arctic Research Station Act and to the Nunavut Act, which, as of April 1, 2014, retroactively confirms the legislative powers of the Legislative Assembly of Nunavut, in the interest of the Nunavummiut and of all Canadians.
Thank you for your time, and I am happy to take questions.
[English]
Robert McLean, Director General, Assessment and Regulatory Affairs, Canadian Wildlife Service, Environment and Climate Change Canada: Good evening, senators. Thank you for this opportunity to say a few words about species at risk in Nunavut and Environment and Climate Change Canada’s role in the protection and recovery of these species.
Nunavut is home to a number of Canada’s most iconic wildlife species. Many of these are shared with other countries. Habitats in Nunavut, such as the breeding grounds of many of our migratory bird species are important to the conservation of these shared species. Importantly, many of these species are central to the culture, traditional activities and well-being of the Nunavummiut.
Currently, 21 species are listed under the federal Species at Risk Act, or SARA as it is commonly called. Those species are found in Nunavut. In addition to such well-known species as Peary caribou, polar bear and populations of fin, bowhead and beluga whales, there are less well-known species such as the Red Knot, which flies to the southern tip of South America to winter.
[Translation]
The purposes of the Species at Risk Act are to prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife species at risk as a result of human activity and to manage species of special concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or threatened. The act recognizes that the responsibility for wildlife conservation in Canada is shared among the governments and that it is important for them to work cooperatively. The act also recognizes that all Canadians have a role to play in the recovery of at-risk species.
[English]
How SARA’s provisions apply in Nunavut depends on the type of species, its risk status and where it is found. When an endangered or threatened species is listed, SARA “general prohibitions” immediately protect individuals of these species and their residences on federal lands under the authority of Environment and Climate Change Canada, as well as lands under the authority of Parks Canada. These would be national wildlife areas and national parks.
The act also provides for the protection of critical habitat on those federal lands. For all other lands, non-federal lands, SARA’s “general prohibitions” protect individuals and residences only of aquatic species and migratory birds protected under the Migratory Birds Convention Act. Other species at risk are not protected on these lands, nor is their critical habitat, unless subsequent to listing the species an order applying the prohibitions is made by the Governor-in-Council. No such orders currently apply in Nunavut. In terms of species of special concern, SARA’s protections do not apply, although a management plan must be prepared.
[Translation]
The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, established by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, is authorized to act as the main instrument for wildlife management in the Nunavut settlement area. The board is made up of members from regional Inuit organizations, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the federal government and the Government of Nunavut. Conservation is the board’s key principle. The board’s objectives include protecting wildlife habitat and maintaining wildlife populations that meet harvesting needs.
The Species at Risk Act requires that consultations be held with all those that have a role to play. This includes consulting the wildlife management boards when species are added to the list, and when recovery documents are written. Consultations are also to be held on the orders that aim to protect listed individuals and their residences, as well as to prohibit the destruction of critical habitat on non-federal lands.
[English]
To ensure effective and meaningful collaboration and cooperation with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, in 2008, a memorandum of understanding was signed, setting out actions and timelines for fair and efficient consultations in listing decisions for wildlife species that meet the requirements of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act and SARA. Building on 10 years of successful implementation of the MOU, discussions are under way to secure its renewal.
Our department collaborates and cooperates with the Government of Nunavut for the protection and recovery of species at risk. The Nunavut government is involved in all phases of SARA, including assessment of the status of species, listing species, recovery document development and implementation.
I would be pleased to answer any questions that senators may have about the Species at Risk Act. Thank you, chair.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McLean.
Dr. Scott.
[Translation]
David J. Scott, President and Chief Executive Officer, Polar Knowledge Canada: Thank you, Mr. Chair. It is my pleasure to give you a little update on our progress with our activities on the Cambridge Bay campus.
[English]
As we were recently at the committee here, I will not spend too much time on our mandate. Suffice to say the four main elements are advancing knowledge of the Canadian Arctic to improve economic opportunities, environmental stewardship and quality of life for northerners and all Canadians; promoting the development and dissemination of knowledge of the other polar regions, the rest of the Arctic and the Antarctic; strengthening Canada’s leadership on polar matters; and, of course, operating this new research hub in Cambridge Bay, the Canadian High Arctic Research Station.
The CHARS campus, as our colleagues from our minister’s department, INAC, have indicated, is nearing a state of construction completion, at which point, as has been indicated, we will look forward to the transfer of ownership of the campus from the minister’s department to Polar Knowledge Canada.
The use of the campus has begun in phases. We have started to use the buildings as they have been completed. We have started by occupying the accommodation units. We have had up to 1,800 person nights of accommodations and are expecting that to grow in this coming field season. We are quite busy. We have been based on the campus year-round in an office setting in the smaller of the two buildings, the field and maintenance building. We are eagerly awaiting the imminent completion of construction in the more complex main research building so we can begin to migrate our staff into that building and really bring the entire campus to life.
Prior to the full occupation of the campus, we have a number of occupational health and safety requirements to take care of. We have engaged a professional on to our staff who is in the process of completing an occupational health and safety program to ensure full compliance with the legal requirements of Canada Labour Code Part III and to demonstrate our due diligence that we not only take this seriously but we have put into place all the expected standards and procedures to ensure the health and safety of our workers.
The code is the legislative framework for occupational health and safety in Canada in the federal sector of employment, and it includes the Canada Occupational Health and Safety Regulations, under which we function.
Polar now has an occupational health and safety committee that has been established with a dual function: first, as a policy committee under the code to deal with policy and program issues specific to our organization across the entire organization — both our residents in Cambridge Bay on the CHARS campus, as well as our satellite office here in the National Capital Region — and, second, as a workplace occupational health and safety committee to deal with actual operational issues, when and if they arise.
We have taken a phased approach, as I mentioned, to the occupancy of the campus. I will now go into more detail in our approach to occupying the final and most complex building, the main research building.
Our first phase will be to move approximately 25 staff into the office portion of the building, the illustration on the sixth slide. That is the area in green. These are relatively low-risk positions and functions. We will then finalize our work of the areas in blue, the public spaces. We referenced that in our last presentation. Approximately one half of the footprint of the building is open to the public. That is a important feature that distinguishes this research facility from all others in the polar regions in that it is welcoming of members of the public; is not limited to scientific expeditioners only. Through time, we will then occupy the more straightforward labs, followed by the more complex and specialized ones down the road.
The public spaces are very much key to assisting Polar in delivering on its commitment to engaging with local Indigenous people. As I had referenced in my previous appearance, the Knowledge Sharing Centre will be central to the exchange of knowledge and different ways of knowing, very much listening to Inuit, as well as other Indigenous groups, to share their knowledge and interact with visiting researchers and our own staff. This will ensure that many ways of knowing are brought to our research program to create the best new knowledge as we move forward.
We have a translation room, which will allow us to function in multiple languages simultaneously in the public spaces, as well as facilities that will help us record traditional knowledge in a professional sound space.
In terms of laboratories, one of the first we will bring on is a computer lab that handles geographically referenced information, such as traditional travel routes, as well as any other place-specific information. We will be working in partnership with Nunavut Arctic College to assist them in their teaching of the Environmental Technology Program through use of the GIS, or Geographic Information Systems laboratory. We will subsequently move into the more complex and specialized laboratory areas that will focus on elements such as the dissection of deceased animals — necropsy, as it is known — the use of various chemicals to treat samples for subsequent analysis, and of course the archiving of materials that have been studied.
In closing, I would like to once again emphasize our efforts to engage with the community of Cambridge Bay, which is our host community; other communities in the Kitikmeot region, which is that westernmost part of Nunavut; as well as starting to reach out across Canada’s North. We have a couple of examples, in the ninth slide in the presentation, of interactions around traditional knowledge, sharing place-based information, in this case with regard to Arctic CHARS, and then a slightly more light-hearted photograph from this past weekend, when our staff volunteered to decorate one of our vehicles as an umingmak, which is a muskox in Inuktitut, and participate in this year’s edition of the spring festival, the Umingmak Follies. We are trying, on multiple levels, to be engaged with our home community, as well as the other communities of Nunavut and the other regions of our North.
I, as well as my colleagues, would be happy to answer your questions.
The Chair: Thank you. Dr. Scott, you didn’t say anything about the budget implementation act, 2018. I guess you let Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada speak to us about that?
Mr. Scott: I can add a little bit of information, senator, if you wish.
The Chair: Maybe. That’s what we’re here for.
Mr. Scott: Okay, very good.
The Chair: Thank you for the update on CHARS.
Mr. Scott: In the current act that has been tabled, the Budget 2018-19, we had sought, and have received approval for, funds to operate the campus on a go-forward basis. Those funds are approximately $5.1 million per year, ongoing. That is in addition to approximately $2 million per year, ongoing, that we already have to operate the campus.
In the fullness of time, in this very complicated construction and operation project, a number of increasingly high-resolution studies were made of the exact operating costs. It was really not possible to fully and accurately estimate the cost until some of the buildings were actually physically finished and operating. In the case of the heating system in the main research building, it is particularly complex and was quite difficult to model accurately. We are quite pleased that we now have a sufficient level of funding to physically operate the campus on a year-round basis going forward.
The new funds will start flowing at the beginning of fiscal year 2019-20. It is our minister’s department who is continuing to ensure the campus operations are taken care of as the construction phase winds down during this fiscal year. Polar Knowledge Canada will pick it up, with those new funds allocated in Budget 2018-19, on April 1, 2019, and onward from there. We’re very grateful the campus will be appropriately funded for operations without us having to use some of our previously dedicated programming funds to ensure the complete operation. We’re pleased the minister’s department has been able to assist and move this forward.
The Chair: This provision in the budget implementation act will make that all legal?
Mr. Scott: That is correct.
The Chair: Thank you.
We will have questions from senators, beginning with Senator Neufeld.
Senator Neufeld: I think it is all fairly straight forward, but will Polar Knowledge Canada now be a Crown corporation? With the transfer, does that classify it as a Crown corporation, or is it already a Crown corporation?
Mr. Walsh: Part of the challenge is that Polar Knowledge Canada is a departmental corporation. I will defer to my esteemed colleague from the Department of Justice. The way the federal act works is that there was a loophole in the original drafting of the CHARS Act. What we are proposing is that only for the consideration of ownership transfer will it be considered a Crown corporation. Overall, Polar will continue to be considered as a departmental corporation.
Senator Neufeld: The building itself is Crown, and the operation of it is still a federal research organization. Would that be correct?
Mr. Walsh: We have to make a distinction between the organization and the building. The organization, moving forward, will be, and continues to be, a departmental corporation. For the purposes of taking on the legal title of the building, under the Federal Real Property and Federal Immovables Act, it will be considered a Crown corporation.
Senator Neufeld: All right. I’m fine with that.
On the Species at Risk Act, it is mentioned that barren-ground caribou, muskox, polar bear and wood buffalo were added in 1964 to SARA, the Species at Risk Act?
Mr. McLean: The order that is referred to here is not under the Species at Risk Act at all. The Species at Risk Act was passed by Parliament in 2002. It entered into force in 2004. On species such as the barren-ground caribou, we are consulting now with respect to potential listing of the barren-ground caribou under the Species at Risk Act. Muskox has not been assessed by the independent, arm’s-length committee of scientists that assesses the status of species. That is the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada. Polar bear has been assessed. It is listed under the Species at Risk Act as a species of special concern. Finally, wood buffalo is also listed under the act, wood buffalo not being found in Nunavut. It is found in Alberta, the Northwest Territories and Yukon.
Senator Neufeld: That was going to be my question about wood buffalo. I appreciate that because I was wondering, but you never know. They could have wandered over.
You say polar bear is already listed?
Mr. McLean: Under the federal Species at Risk Act, yes, as a special concern. The prohibitions, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, do not apply for species of special concern. We do need to complete a management plan for the polar bear. We’re in the process of doing that with our provincial and territorial colleagues.
Senator Neufeld: None of that is sure. You are still doing all of the work with Nunavut before you bring them in as species at risk?
Mr. McLean: The polar bear itself is already listed under the act, so the legislation applies to the polar bear, but in only a very specific way. That specific way is an obligation for us to produce a management plan for the polar bear.
Senator Neufeld: Are polar bears still hunted? Do people still hunt them?
Mr. McLean: Yes, they do. It’s on a population-by-population basis. The conservation status of the different populations informs the setting of what is referred to as “total allowable take” of polar bear. There are some subpopulations of polar bear that are healthy, and, working through the wildlife management boards, not only the Nunavut wildlife management boards but the other applicable wildlife management boards, total allowable take limits are established for the different subpopulations. If, for whatever reason, there maybe a conservation issue with a subpopulation, that total allowable take would be reduced. If the subpopulation is a conservation concern, there might not be any harvest at all. It is variable across the different subpopulations of polar bear.
Senator Oh: Thank you, witnesses, for your very good information.
Mr. Scott, I just want to get it right. Did you say that the operation cost for CHARS is $5 million, plus the $2-something million, and your total operation is about $7-plus million a year?
Mr. Scott: The total operating cost of the physical campus is currently estimated to be about $7.1 million a year. That covers several million dollars worth of fuel to heat the campus, as well as contracts for maintenance and other consumables. Our overall budget for the organization is now approaching $29 million per year, so approximately 25 per cent of our overall budget, as we move forward, will be operating costs of the physical infrastructure on the research campus in Cambridge Bay.
Senator Oh: Will CHARS be open to Canadians thinking about going up there to have a look? Is it open to the public?
Mr. Scott: Much of the physical infrastructure and the main building is open to the public, and we hope to be able to use that space to educate visitors who come to Cambridge Bay. As you may be aware, there is significant seaborne tourist traffic. As various tourist ships come through, many of them stop in Cambridge Bay. We look forward to bringing as many of those tourists as possible into the campus to see what we do and understand something about the land that they’re briefly visiting.
I know there was a second part to your question.
Senator Oh: Would the tourists be charged a fee to help to operate the CHARS?
Mr. Scott: No. This is a Government of Canada facility that has been paid for by taxpayers and is now funded to operate into the future. We will welcome them as guests to come and learn.
We will also be welcoming scientists and visitors from across Canada who will join us to do research from the campus, as well as international visitors who can help us work on those questions of most importance to Northerners and other Canadians and have global significance: how the sea level is rising; how the glaciers are melting; and how the animals are behaving and changing.
These are globally significant questions that we can address with Canadians and international partners at the CHARS campus and elsewhere across Canada’s Arctic.
Senator Oh: There will be different programs operating throughout the year?
Mr. Scott: Yes, year-round operations.
The Chair: I had the privilege to visit the facility unofficially in March. It’s a fabulous place, and I hope members of our committee get to see it.
Senator Coyle: I apologize very much for being late. I was in Quebec City with the Fisheries and Oceans Committee. We were actually on the icebreaker, the Amundsen, today and learning about the scientific research that takes place in the Arctic facilitated by that vessel.
It’s wonderful to have you back, Mr. Scott, and also to see the group here. I’ve read briefly through all of your remarks.
My questions are building on yours, Senator Oh. I know this is a Canadian gem being built and has been operating on a minor scale in Cambridge Bay but is soon to be operating to its fullest.
I’m very interested about this whole issue of community interaction. There’s local community CHARS interaction and then there’s public CHARS interaction, if you like. I like to make a bit of distinction there. Tourists coming is one thing. I think it’s fabulous and very important for people to learn about what’s going on in the Arctic and the important scientific research that’s going on.
I’ve done a lot of work internationally in what you would call inreach. There’s outreach, but as I understand it one of the main purposes of this public space is also inreach, where you’re bringing people from the community into the facility and interacting in meaningful ways upon the scientific knowledge that both holders of that knowledge have. Am I right?
Mr. Scott: Very much so.
Senator Coyle: I’m just trying to make sure there is more than one function. There’s broader public education and also education for schoolchildren in the area, et cetera.
I’m curious to know, other than the residents of Cambridge Bay and other than the people who might come on tourist vessels, how will people get there? For instance, how will the Inuit of the region get there? How will that work? What are the plans?
Mr. Scott: Thank you for the opportunity to share some additional information. On the first part, you were very accurate. The window in time annually when folks arrive on tour boats is really just several weeks, and it normally occurs in late August to the middle of September. Those are very important visitors, but that’s very much a broader, external engagement.
It’s year-round that we engage with our host community members in Cambridge Bay and increasingly with those in the Kitikmeot region, in westernmost Nunavut. The connections, other than the resupply vessels and tourist ships in the summertime — the open water season is only three months. The rest is by air.
Physical visits are expensive but they do occur. There are programs that assist aspiring youth in the region and across the North. We are increasingly being asked to participate with support and help deliver educational programming. We’re very pleased to do that. We’ve worked with some of the promising leaders from the Kitikmeot region on a number of occasions in the past months when they visited from those regional communities to Cambridge Bay.
Often these are led by the regional Inuit association but they always look to include us as a source of inspiration for kids in school to continue to learn, bring the knowledge they have and gain additional knowledge. We’re looking forward to continuing that.
Once we’re fully connected via the Internet, I ought to mention that part of our operating costs currently are approximately $300,000 per year for an Internet connection that we would expect to pay about $100 for here in the connected south. We are linked via satellite. It is a thin connection and it is an expensive one to have a dedicated link.
Once our bandwidth increases we will be able to reach out more virtually to other communities across the North and around the world to bring others virtually to Cambridge Bay and bring Cambridge Bay and what we do across the North and around the world.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. I was going to ask you about your broader outreach via technology.
I also have a question about your teaching labs. It’s a space for teaching science and lab techniques to groups of people. Who will be doing the teaching and who will be taught?
Then a question also about that local steering committee. Who are the local steering committee, and what will its function be once you’re operational? Will that change?
Mr. Scott: Let me start with the second one first. The origin the local steering committee dates back to the original consultations our ministers undertook. There are a few people in the room who were involved from the beginning. The idea was to ensure we do things in the most relevant and appropriate way from the community’s perspective in terms of how the construction would roll out.
You’ve pointed out a very important recent change. With the winding down of the construction phase, there is just as strong interest in the operational phase of the campus. We are continuing to meet every other month. Membership in the committee is completely open. By consensus, we have agreed that at one meeting we will come to sort of an agreement on what the subject of the next meeting will be and we can make that widely known and quite often different people show up for each meeting depending on the subject.
We’ve given updates on our operational plan. The meeting to be held this month will focus on alternative and renewable energy and how that might be more applied to some of the questions from the community. We have people who join us in official capacities from various organizations in town. We have quite a number of private citizens who just show up because they are interested in what we’re doing.
The setting of the agenda is as much as possible by consensus and membership is open to anyone who wishes to participate.
Senator Coyle: And the labs?
Mr. Scott: We expect to be doing quite a bit of the teaching. Our first target audience will be the students of Nunavut Arctic College’s environment technology program. They already have in their curriculum a number of things we can support. The current laboratory facility associated with the campus is aging so they’re looking forward to work with us going forward.
As our inreach to our community increases and we get better at it, we foresee being able to hold science camps for kids. Once we get our health and safety protocols in place and some additional content to teach, we anticipate having, for example, summer camps for kids, and not only in Cambridge Bay. We would like to bring some from the regions and some of the things would be hands-on in our teaching lab. It will be made safe for them, but again we want to leverage this Government of Canada facility to its fullest to do everything from leading edge research with international partners and Canadians to helping inspire the next generation.
To the extent we can, we will be broadcasting that across the North so all Northerners can participate virtually. We’ll get as many of them to our campus as we possibly can to share the inspiration that can lead to better ways of knowing across the North.
Senator Coyle: Thank you very much. I wish you well with it. It’s an exciting moment.
Mr. Scott: It’s very exciting and a little overwhelming at times. The potential is huge.
The Chair: This is all exciting stuff, colleagues, but we are here to talk about the provision in the budget implement act that allows Polar Knowledge Canada to be treated as a Crown corporation for the purpose of transferring federal real property.
Senator Galvez: Thank you very much for putting us on track with the subject. I think, of course, this is a wonderful idea. I’m excited and I hope we’re going to visit with the committee.
The Chair: If it is possible.
Senator Galvez: I want to be in the action and the substance of the two issues here under discussion. I have a question for SARA and for CHARS.
Concerning SARA, only 21 species out of how many are protected? In the past ten years, what did we achieve with this act?
Mr. McLean: Thank you for your question. I don’t know how many species there are in Nunavut. I would need to double-check and get that information back to the committee.
More generally in Canada, we think there are about 80,000 species in the country. Nearly 600 of those species are listed in one of the different categories under the Species at Risk Act. In comparison that’s a smaller number of species under the act itself.
The last question was what has been accomplished in the last 10 years. Our focus in what we referred to as the SARA cycle has really been on what we would characterize as the front end of the cycle. That cycle is to assess the status of species, list them, produce recovery strategies and then move to implementation.
We’ve listed most of the species that have been assessed by the committee on the status of endangered wildlife in Canada. We’re virtually up to date. Similarly, we’ve caught up on a backlog of recovery documents. We are more or less complete on that, but we do have additional work to do.
Senator Galvez: Could you just pick one species like the polar bear? What happened with it?
Mr. McLean: The polar bear, we will complete within the next year the management plan that’s required under the Species at Risk Act. Just because the species is not listed—maybe I can speak more generally; there are many species not listed under the Species at Risk Act — it would be a mistake, if you will, to conclude there aren’t actions for the conservation of species. There are many other laws in the country that provide for the protection and conservation of species. I wouldn’t want to mislead the committee to be concerned that if a species isn’t listed under SARA it’s not protected. In fact, there are other laws that protect.
On the polar bear, the other activity is very active management of the harvest to make sure the polar bear populations are healthy and that harvest is sustainable.
Senator Galvez: CHARS is incredible. I like what you are saying about using it to its full capacity. I want to have an idea of what is its full capacity. How many staff, and what type of professions and professionals are going to be employed?
Right now its equipment is not being operated. When equipment is going to be operated and your online things, you’re going to need massive energy. I want to know your plan for energy efficiency, fitting the building with which type of energy and if it’s sustainable.
About your analytical lab, you said you wanted to welcome researchers. Researchers need more than the teaching lab. What is your analytical capacity?
Mr. Scott: Thank you, senator. At present, we have approximately 25 staff in Cambridge Bay in a full range of capacities, from our chief scientist to the scientific team, as well as the knowledge management and engagement teams. Some corporate service folks are helping us out as well.
The projected total number of staff for the organization is currently 58, and at this point we are on any given day somewhere between 45 and 50 staff. Approximately half our staff is in Cambridge Bay. The remainder are here in the Ottawa office. We projected most of our growth will be in Cambridge Bay, and at the end of our full staffing, we anticipate having approximately 40 people in Cambridge Bay and as few as 20 here in our liaison office taking care of things such as appearing at committees and so on.
The total capacity of the main research building is probably around 100 people. We will bridge from the 40 we anticipate will be our staff up to 100 through visiting folks, whether it’s a graduate student spending the winter or a professor on sabbatical or staff from other federal departments. We are a Government of Canada agency. There are many federal departments and agencies that have operations in the North. We’ve started discussions with a couple of major players, Fisheries and Oceans Canada and Environment and Climate Change Canada, to find ways that we can support their work because we have a Government of Canada infrastructure in the North. We are very much looking forward to assisting other federal departments and agencies, visiting scientists from the academic community, the Canadian community, or the international community, depending on their specialties and how those specialties contribute to our research agenda, which is, of course, driven by creating benefits for Northerners first and all Canadians.
In terms of energy sustainability, the campus has been designed to what’s called “LEED gold standards” — not platinum. My understanding from what I’ve learned from our minister’s department was that it would be exponentially more expensive to achieve platinum standards given the logistics involved in the location where we’re building, where everything would have to come in three annual sea-lift voyages and you went for the subsequent 12 months with what you brought in on that shipment. It was particularly complex.
Passive solar gain was a big part of it. We have solar panels on the south-facing wall that are part of an experiment to see how much solar energy is available is at 69 degrees North, given the sun is below the horizon for three months or so. In those twilight months in spring and fall, there is still a significant amount of energy to be gained from photovoltaic panels, which function particularly well when it’s cold. We have cold in Cambridge Bay in the winter.
The rest of the energy comes from a more conventional source, which is diesel fuel imported annually. The equipment that burns that fuel to create heat is state-of-the-art high efficiency. However, we are very interested in moving towards renewable or alternative sources of energy. There’s ample wind in the Cambridge Bay region, and again there is some solar energy.
As part of our research program, we are looking into wind density in Cambridge Bay and other parts of the North to determine the cost-benefit for some alternative technologies, such as wind, if they can be adapted to the colder climate.
For now, our sustainability is based on imported diesel, which we are, of course, looking to reduce, and our research program reflects that interest in finding sustainable, renewable or alternative ways of creating energy in the North.
The Chair: I take it no one is concerned about the provision in the budget implementation act because there have been no questions about that.
Senator Coyle: There was the question about the Crown corporations.
The Chair: Yes, sorry, Senator Neufeld asked the first question. I think we’re all satisfied with that provision.
Senator Pate: I’m interested in the fact you’ve had to introduce a retroactive provision because of the expiration of the 1960 order. I’m interested in a couple of things in terms of what the consequences will be legally, particularly for those people who may have been doing things that will then be considered to be restricted. Will there be charges against them? Is there some policy to ensure that doesn’t happen? How do you see the regulatory process being implemented in a way that isn’t discriminatory for whom there was no regulation since 2014?
Mr. Walsh: What’s being proposed is a deeming clause. Simply stated, it’s deemed the Government of Nunavut had the authority to make and pass regulations in this area since that time. We’re essentially closing a legislative or legal gap, I guess.
We’re not aware of a lot of activity that’s taken place in this area since April 1, 2014. It’s more of a technical amendment at this point. It’s one that the Government of Nunavut is quite interested in closing to avoid further legal uncertainty.
In terms of the specifics you questioned, we are not aware of any regulations or prohibitions that have been passed that would put people in conflict.
The Chair: If I may, Mr. Walsh, on page 2 of your presentation, bottom paragraph, you said that this retroactive provision would ensure the validity of legislative actions taken by the Government of Nunavut under the Nunavut Act.
Were legislative actions taken?
Mr. Walsh: I’m not aware of any that have been taken since 2014. There may have been legislative action taken prior to 2014. Any legislative act that the Government of Nunavut has passed since its inception in 1999 would be affected by the repeal of the 1960 order.
The Chair: If I may follow Senator Pate, without taking over here, the thing I don’t understand is this deeming justifies an order published in 2006 as having been in effect since that time. Nunavut was created in 1999. There’s still a gap where there was no order in effect.
Mr. Walsh: The original order was passed in 1960. You’re well aware of this, senator, when Nunavut was created, they essentially mirrored the N.W.T. Act, which is why you’re finding things in the Nunavut Act like jurisdiction over timber that you wouldn’t normally find in a jurisdiction like Nunavut.
The 2006 act was an amendment to the 1960 act, which I understand added wood buffalo to the order. Prior to 2003, the order consisted of those three species, which were muskox, polar bear and barren-ground caribou, and was amended in 2006 to include wood buffalo. The deeming provision brings it all back.
To make a long story short, what was in effect between 1999 and 2006 was that original 1960 act. The order in 2006 was amended to include wood buffalo.
The Chair: Thank you.
Please continue, Senator Pate.
Senator Pate: That was good to know. That is fine.
The Chair: I have some questions. Maybe I can just begin by saying that I’ve reviewed the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. Article 5 is about wildlife, and I’ll quote subsection 5.1.2(h):
(h) there is . . . an effective role for Inuit in all aspects of wildlife management, including research;
Paragraph 5.1.3(b)(ii) fully acknowledges and reflects the primary role of Inuit in wildlife harvesting. Section 5.1.6 states that:
The Government of Canada and Inuit recognize that there is a need for an effective role for Inuit in all aspects of wildlife management.
We know because of its constitutional protection under section 35 of the Constitution, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement prevails over any other legislation where there is any inconsistency or conflict.
Having said that, Mr. Walsh, you mentioned Inuit once in your presentation, but I haven’t heard anything about the Inuit in these presentations. I want to know if Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs consulted with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, created under the land claims agreement. I thought they managed polar bears, not the Canadian Wildlife Service. If not, why not? Also, did Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs has consulted with Nunavut Tunngavik on this proposed change? If not, why not?
Mr. Walsh: The short answer is “yes” to both of those questions. I will hand it over to Mr. Barthold, who can provide a more detailed background as to the consultation record on this provision.
Patrick Barthold, Director, Northern Affairs, Northern Governance Branch, Northern Governance and Partnerships Directorate, Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada: Good evening, senator. Yes, we did consult with the designated Inuit organization as per the land claims agreement. We spoke several times over the phone, as well as in person and through letters to Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, NTI, and communicated with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board as well. Several consultation meetings or letters were engaged from the department to the Inuit groups. Does that answer your question?
The Chair: Yes. That’s not the information I have, but I’m glad to hear that. Thank you.
Mr. Walsh: The Government of Nunavut was also consulted in these provisions.
The Chair: Yes. I didn’t ask about the Government of Nunavut.
Mr. McLean, I was referring to your statements: “We have an obligation to develop a management plan under the Species at Risk Act.” You also talked to me about very active management of the harvest. I thought that was done by the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. You are telling me that the Canadian Wildlife Service has a very active management of the polar bear harvest?
Mr. McLean: We collaborate through the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. With respect to jurisdiction, the Government of Nunavut has authority for polar bears within its territory. The Province of Quebec, for example, would have responsibility for polar bear when they’re in that province, and for offshore, our minister also has responsibilities.
Consistent with the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, those responsibilities are implemented through the full participation of the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board, for example, in making decisions. A decision on total allowable take would involve the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board providing advice to ministers. The Nunavut Wildlife Management Board would have community consultations on total allowable take, as well as ministers accepting the decisions, if I can put it that way, of the various wildlife management boards with respect to polar bear.
There are other wildlife management boards with a role in managing polar bears. The primary vehicle, though, is the various wildlife management boards.
I want to make an additional comment about how Inuit are engaged in wildlife management decisions. An example came to mind when you made that comment a few moments ago, Mr. Chair: I was thinking of the work we’ve done over the last three or four years with respect to a different caribou, Peary caribou. Mind you, it’s in the Western Arctic. We had started with community-based consultations. These were people working for the Government of Nunavut and those working with our department, having day-long workshops, if you will, with people in all the communities that rely upon Peary caribou.
What we were getting and what we are aiming to get in the context of this species is the best community knowledge and traditional knowledge, and bring that together with science.
We’re getting all of those knowledge bases coming together to come up with the best recovery strategy for Peary Caribou, in that example. It’s the same with respect to polar bear. We take the management plans developed by the individual jurisdictions — and this will include Nunavut — and that will be appended to our federal management plan. The Government of Nunavut is currently engaging the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board. I understand it will have public hearings this fall to conclude the Government of Nunavut management plan. We would then adopt that management plan in our own management plan.
I just wanted to share a couple of examples of how communities are actually engaged in wildlife management.
The Chair: When a harvest level is set for a population of polar bear, for example, who has the final say, the Canadian Wildlife Service or the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board? I know both make recommendations to a responsible minister. Who has the ultimate authority?
Mr. McLean: It is the responsible minister in the Government of Nunavut. Our minister in the case of polar bear found in offshore areas. The Province of Quebec, for example, for polar bear found in that province.
The Chair: Mr. McLean, speaking of traditional knowledge, I wonder if you would agree there is a lot of controversy in Nunavut about whether polar bears are endangered or, as you put it in your remarks, of “special concern?”
I hear Inuit saying the polar bear population is healthier than ever before, and they’re more abundant than ever before, generally. I know there are certain populations that vary. Would you agree there are some differences between traditional knowledge and the opinions of scientists or the Canadian Wildlife Service on this issue?
Mr. McLean: The scientists involved are not only those who work for the Canadian Wildlife Service. There are differences with respect to how that knowledge is acquired. Both bodies of knowledge are very important. What we are putting a lot of time into is working toward bringing those two bodies of equally important knowledge together to make the best possible decisions for Boreal Caribou. I’m inclined to not characterize it as in conflict. I do absolutely understand and recognize that people suggest there are those differences. We think the more important effort needs to go into understanding science and traditional knowledge and how those come together.
Each body of knowledge is looking at polar bear in a slightly different way. That can lead to people concluding that perhaps they are in conflict. It’s not. We need to go through a process where we are bringing those two bodies of knowledge together to make the best possible decisions.
The Chair: If I may, chair’s prerogative, when the devolution occurred in the Northwest Territories — I believe it was April 1, 2014 — the order that applied to the Northwest Territories we are talking about today was repealed. Nunavut was overlooked, I believe is what happened. The order repealing that order should have excluded Nunavut.
We have gotten along since 2014 without this order applying to Nunavut. What’s the problem with continuing with the status quo right now? Why do we need this provision in place? Things have gone on okay for the last four years, I believe. Why do we need this now?
Mr. Walsh: I will take a step back. As you recall senator, when we brought forward the Northwest Territories Devolution Act, there were a couple of components to that act. One included the implementation measures of the devolution agreement. As we did in the Yukon exercise, we also used the opportunity to modernize the Northwest Territories Act. We changed some of the legislative constructs of the Northwest Territories Act. As a result of some of those modernization exercises, the order became redundant, which is why it was repealed. You are absolutely right, senator, the effect on the Nunavut Act was overlooked.
While the new legislative construct allowed continuing authority for the Government of the Northwest Territories to provide laws and actions and regulations in this area, the way the Nunavut Act is constructed, it can be read that the Government of Nunavut no longer has that authority to pass regulation laws in those areas, particularly with those four species.
Again, we’re looking at, in the short term — And I mean “short term” in the sense of notwithstanding a modernization exercise that could be undertaken with the Nunavut Act. It would ensure that the Government of Nunavut has those authorities.
What would the impacts be going further? The first is that, even under section 5, where the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board will make a recommendation to a responsible minister on a total allowable harvest or a total allowable catch without this provision being enacted and without the Government of Nunavut having authority, the responsible minister, in this case, would not be able to enforce the recommendation. They just wouldn’t have the authority to do so. I think that would be the biggest challenge moving forward, if I am correct, along with others.
Mr. Pagowski: And if there are any further legislative steps the Government of Nunavut wanted to take with respect to protecting those listed species.
The Chair: One of them isn’t even in Nunavut, wood buffalo. Was it Mr. McLean who acknowledged that there are no wood buffalo that we know of in Nunavut?
I have a little broader question. You are asking us to basically reinstate a 1960 order. Why not establish Nunavut-specific regulations or a regime instead of reinstating an order that, at least for one species, doesn’t even apply?
Mr. Walsh: My understanding — and I will, again, turn to my colleague here, Mr. Barthold, who has participated in the consultation on this — is one of the things looked at was further amendments to the Nunavut Act that would be more in line with the modernization exercise in Yukon and the Northwest Territories.
I think there was a general consensus that further consultations would probably be required. In the meantime, the Government of Nunavut is pressing in the short term to have this legislative gap addressed. We would consider this a stopgap measure. The plan is to continue those consultations with affected parties, with the NTIs, the Inuit representative organization, along with the Nunavut wildlife board and others, as to finding long-term solutions.
I think, Senator Patterson, you are absolutely right that there are no wood buffalo in Nunavut. There also isn’t a forestry industry in Nunavut either. Yet, the Government of Nunavut has lawmaking authority, through the Nunavut Act, because the Nunavut Act, frankly, was mirrored from the old N.W.T. Act. We have celebrated thirty years, almost, of Nunavut being created. Perhaps the time has come for a further look at modernizing that act. Normally, it’s done after devolution agreements, but I think that part of the discussion, moving forward, is other aspects of it.
I would also add that the Nunavut 5.1.2(i) also makes it clear that the government remains the ultimate responsibility for wildlife management. The 1999 act, the N.W.T. Act, which was mirrored into the Nunavut Act, in a lot of cases probably does not reflect the post-land claim environment in terms of how management and cooperative management boards and cooperative regimes work. I think there is an appetite in phase two for more detailed amendments to the act moving forward following comprehensive consultations.
The Chair: I asked about consultation with the Nunavut Wildlife Management Board and Nunavut Tunngavik, and you said both of them were consulted. What did they think of this proposed amendment to the BIA? What was the result of those consultations? You have got their endorsement for doing this?
Mr. Barthold: For the moment, they felt comfortable with the proposed language. They were also expecting further consultation. We will go back and engage with the Inuit groups who are impacted.
The Chair: Thank you for that. Did you mean further consultation on this provision?
Mr. Barthold: No. It is in regard to a second step that we will conduct with Indigenous groups, with GN. We cannot amend the Nunavut Act without proper consultation. That is why we are not doing it. We intend to go back, as a second step, and discuss with the designated Inuit organizations and other groups which may have interests.
The Chair: That is with regard to modernizing the Nunavut Act, as Mr. Walsh was describing?
Mr. Barthold: Correct.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues, for allowing me to ask these questions. I think we have concluded the opening statements and responses. I would like to ask committee members if they would remain briefly for an in camera session where we will discuss our report.
We will excuse and thank the witnesses. Thank you all very much.
Mr. Scott, we are all excited about CHARS. We couldn’t wait to ask questions that weren’t quite on the topic of tonight’s meeting, but it’s good to see you again.
Mr. Scott: We look forward to having the opportunity to host the committee at the research campus at the appropriate time.
The Chair: We will now go in camera.
(The committee continued in camera.)