Proceedings of the Special
Senate Committee on the Arctic
Issue No. 26 - Evidence - April 8, 2019 (morning meeting)
OTTAWA, Monday, April 8, 2019
The Special Senate Committee on the Arctic met this day at 9:02 a.m. to consider the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic, and impacts on original inhabitants.
Senator Patricia Bovey (Deputy Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Deputy Chair: Good morning, and welcome to this meeting of the Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. My name is Patricia Bovey. I’m a senator representing Manitoba and deputy chair of this committee, standing in for Senator Patterson, the chair, who is regrettably absent today.
We are a small committee this morning. I would like to have my colleague introduce herself.
Senator Anderson: I’m Dawn Anderson from Yellowknife, Northwest Territories.
The Deputy Chair: Today, we are continuing our study on the significant and rapid changes to the Arctic and the impacts on original inhabitants.
For our first panel from 9 to 10 a.m. this morning, I am pleased to welcome, by videoconference from Oslo, Norway, Eirik Sivertsen, Member of Parliament, Chair of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Stortinget. Sir, I think we had the pleasure of meeting last fall in Inari, so it’s good to see you again. I want to thank you and your assistant for joining us today. Mr. Sivertsen, I’ll ask you to please proceed with your opening statement, after which we will have some questions. To let you know, we are nearing the end of our witnesses and testimonies for this special study on Canada’s Arctic. Your insights are very much appreciated. Thank you.
Eirik Sivertsen, Member of Parliament, Chair of the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, Stortinget, as an individual: Thank you, Senator Bovey, for inviting me to speak before your Special Senate Committee on the Arctic. Through the Arctic Parliamentarian Corporation, I’ve found my contacts and exchange of views and discussion with Canadian MPs and senators very interesting and rewarding.
Today, in my introductory remarks, I will focus on the work I do as chair of the Standing Committee of Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region. Afterward, of course, you can feel free to ask questions about this work or about the Norwegian Arctic policies in general, if that is of interest for you.
In the Standing Committee of the Parliamentarians of the Arctic Region, my vice chair is Mr. Larry Bagnell, representing Yukon in the Canadian Parliament. I met him a couple of weeks ago when the committee met in Russia. We will hopefully meet again as the committee plans its next meeting in Canada at the end of May this year.
Every second year, the Arctic parliamentarians meet and discuss Arctic-relevant issues at a conference. Madam Chair, you know this, as we met at Inari, which was the latest conference in September last fall. The conference adopted conference statements, addressing the main topics discussed at the conference. We will forward those to you so you have them at hand. Mr. Robstad will do this after we have finished here today. Between conferences, the standing committee meets three to four times a year, working to implement the conference statement and discuss current Arctic issues in different Arctic countries.
I will use the time here today to both address some challenges and the big threat to the Arctic, but also have a focus on the opportunities that occur and that we see in the Arctic.
The conference paper has four headlines: one, improving digital connection in the Arctic; two, climate change mitigation and adaptation in the Arctic; three, corporate social responsibilities and expectations for companies that are operating in fragile and vulnerable Arctic environments, both in social ways and also ecological ways; and four, the social well-being of the people living in the Arctic.
Let me start with talking about the well-being Arctic peoples. Both you and I are elected representatives with responsibilities to people living in the North. Therefore, policies of the Arctic have to be, first and foremost, about the well-being of the people living there. As for everybody else, it’s to enable people to have good and prosperous societies for themselves and their families. They have to be safe and have access to modern infrastructure and job opportunities.
I need to emphasize or underline that there is, in my view, no such thing as one Arctic; there are many Arctics. When we are addressing both challenges and opportunities, we have to have that in mind. Often, we talk about the Greenland Arctic; the American, the Scandinavian or Nordic Arctic; and the third is the Russian Arctic. But it’s always possible to think of other divisions of this topic. We share a lot of the same challenges, and some of these challenges are connected to the well-being of the people involved. In many ways, we have a North-South problem in all Arctic states, even in Iceland, I will argue, but people living in the North have less education, and more social and health problems than the people in the South.
Out of the four million people living in the Arctic, there are many Indigenous people. They share many of the same challenges, which sometimes are different from the majority population in the country. I know that this is a concern both in Canada as well as in Norway, with the Saami people having some unique characteristics compared to the majority population. To improve the living conditions for people in the Arctic, it’s important to also learn from each other and share good practices, because even though there are different Arctics, there are some common challenges.
The Arctic Parliamentarian Corporation has been, is and will be a strong advocate for economic development in the Arctic. Most of the people living in the Arctic need economic activities to have a job and create a future in the North, especially when they are seeing, as you are addressing with this work of your special committee, the rapid changes of the environment as a consequence of global warming or climate change. To get this economic development, we have to have a close dialogue with the business sector. We emphasize that as essential. We think it’s also very important that companies that wish to operate in the Arctic learn about the region, and in dialogue with the business sector, we need to set the right criteria-based infrastructure standards for corporate social responsibility. The economic activities especially related to development of the rich natural resources in the North have to give a fair share and benefit for the people in the North. The people must clearly see and feel that they have their fair share of the advantages, see long-term benefits and take part in the economic development happening in their homeland. In short, you could formalize this as needing a social licence to operate by building support from the people in the Arctic.
If you are going to have responsible and sustainable economic development occur in the Arctic, it is necessary to invest in infrastructure. In today’s society, a high-quality digital infrastructure is a prerequisite for good services in the population, education opportunities and entrepreneurship. If the future is digital, it also has to be digital for people living in the Arctic. Of course, it is about jobs and public services and so forth, but people in the Arctic also want to see Netflix. This is part of a modern world. There is no reason that people living in the North shouldn’t take part in that.
The problem is that the cost of access to high-speed Internet will be so high for each person because there are so few people in vast areas that we need to invest with public money and look for solutions giving access to high-speed Internet operation all over the Arctic. I know that this has been on the agenda for the Arctic Council for at least the last four years, arguing that we need more assessment. I think the time has come to say that we know what the problem is, so let’s do something about it.
From the Norwegian side, I will mention that we have been arguing and have made a decision in the Parliament to launch two satellites to give modern broadband telecommunications north of parallel 71, which is a problem for the whole Arctic but also in a very busy Arctic maritime sector in Norway.
As we approach the Arctic Council Ministerial Meeting on May 6 and 7 in Finland, it is important to continue to address mitigation and adaptation to climate change. Climate change is hitting the Arctic hard, and we are already seeing dramatic changes in melting ice, thawing permafrost, increased erosion and more. The changes have huge influence on the lives of many of the people living in the Arctic. Let me talk about safety, infrastructure and, last but not least, traditional ways of living.
There are two main points I will underline today. The first is about the perception in the rest of the world outside the Arctic. Even though the Arctic is hit first and hardest, maybe with the exception of some of the islands in the Pacific, the reasons for climate change are not created in the Arctic. It’s not the 4 million people living in the Arctic alone who have created global warming. Global warming is a consequence of the sum of activities from the 7 billion people living on the globe. That means if you are going to solve this problem, you can’t make the Arctic into some kind of reserve or museum or an area where there should be no economic activities. You have to find global solutions to a global problem.
The other main point that I think the committee is addressing as I have been reading your mandate is that climate change or the consequences of global warming aren’t things that are going to happen in the future. They are here. On the west coast of Alaska, the U.S. is now moving whole villages because there is no sea ice during the winter and the permafrost is thawing. That will lead to erosion, and the villages will end up in the ocean if they were not moved.
At Svalbard, we have seen avalanches where they were no avalanches before and people have died because they came as a surprise. We are now moving several hundred buildings because they are not safe anymore.
The cost of moving plants and whole cities in Russia when the permafrost in Siberia is thawing will be enormous. How are we going to meet this both in the future and now, as it’s happening as we speak? In one of its reports, AMAP reported that the cost of global arming in the Arctic and how it will also affect the rest of the world is between USD$7 trillion and $90 trillion by the year 2100.
In order to meet this challenge and threat, we have to base our actions on science and knowledge, not on speculation. The Arctic Council has world-class researchers at its disposal. The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has a lot of research and there is a lot of other knowledge around the world we could base it on, but we can’t speculate about this. We have to base our actions on solid knowledge based on the best science and research we have at our disposal.
Thank you, chair. I think I will stop there and you can ask questions or give comments. Thank you for your attention.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much. I very much appreciate the perspective that you are bringing to us. I would ask, if you could, to please send to the clerk of the committee the conference statements from last September. As you are aware, for reports like this, material to be in a report needs to be submitted to the committee itself. If you could do that, that would be very helpful, because I think the ground those statements covered is important and significant.
I’d also be very interested if you could submit to us for our consideration other more recent documents, concerns or actions that you feel would aid our work as we move forward. As you know, our study has been multipronged and based on the framework of the Arctic policy.
I’m going to ask my colleague Senator Anderson if she has a question.
Senator Anderson: I do have a question. In your discussion that you just spoke about, there was not much discussion in regard to culture and language. I am an Inuvialuk. I’m from the Northwest Territories, where we have 11 official languages. There is a big push towards self-government agreements. You spoke a bit about economic development, and I am wondering, with the move by Indigenous peoples towards decolonization and self-determination and a push towards self-government agreements, how do you see culture and language fitting into the priorities that you spoke of? How do you find that balance between economic development and growth while still maintaining that culture, language and traditional way of life?
Mr. Sivertsen: Thank you. I think this is a very good question. This year, 2019, is the United Nations Year of Indigenous Languages, which is a golden opportunity for raising this question on the agenda. I have had the pleasure of working quite a lot with questions about Saami politics in Norway. We also have several Sámi languages that are threatened. There are very small languages that are not spoken or used every day.
The short answer for me is that we create and understand our world through the language we use, and, therefore, the language is the most important part of preserving or developing the culture of a people. If you don’t have your own language, your culture cannot survive. One of the main tasks must be to support Indigenous people with small and threatened languages to help them preserve and to develop their language in the modern world. One of the most effective ways of doing that is to require that Indigenous languages also be used in public services. That will mean a cost. There will be huge challenges having enough people speaking the language, having services for experts that do not speak the language, having it interpreted into the Indigenous language in question. But it has to be done if you are going to support the development of the languages.
To your question about the balance between local communities, often small communities with not so much expertise on the modern mining industry or financial questions, but a lot of competence and expertise about what you should do to have a good life in the North, I think corporate social responsibilities are the main focus. That’s not just about benefits and fair share. That’s also about respecting the opportunity to participate and lay premises when you are planning or discussing starting new business based on an understanding that we have different views and different backgrounds. You often see this in extraction industries. I could use a Norwegian example where we have huge global companies with capital interests wishing to start a mine that will affect the reindeer herders in small communities. How do you meet each other? How do you operate as a company? How do we secure the interest of the local communities? That’s an essential part of corporate social responsibilities.
I have been advocating that, of course, the UN Global Compact initiative could be one set of criteria we use. But I would like to mention the Arctic Investment Protocol, which came as an initiative from the Guggenheim funds and was presented at the Davos economic forum in 2017. That’s not a perfect instrument, but it’s a good start. We could develop this and other instruments further to ensure what you are asking for.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: We are all concerned about the melting of the permafrost, and scientists in Canada have been telling us that with the melting of the permafrost — and you talked about the issue of buildings, and we are certainly finding that too, and airports. It’s a very serious problem. Are you finding an increase in mercury levels in the food chain as a result of the melting of the permafrost?
Mr. Sivertsen: I am not aware of that problem. I haven’t heard it mentioned.
The Deputy Chair: Are your northern peoples voicing concerns about changes in the food chain with fish species moving further north and those changes?
Mr. Sivertsen: Yes. One problem in Norway is that we are a big nation when it comes to the oceans. If we arranged the countries in the world with the sum of the land mass with the ocean areas, Norway would be the tenth-largest land on the globe. Eighty per cent of our oceans are north of the Arctic Circle. What we are seeing is that, as you mentioned, fish stocks are moving north. We are observing fisheries north of Svalbard — that’s more than 80 degrees north, where there were no fish before. We see the temperatures are rising in the oceans, and also the acidification of the oceans, threatening fish stocks.
This will be also one of the documents I will ask Mr. Robstad to forward to you. It’s a case study made under the auspices of AMAP, and one of the cases that is studied in that report are what will happen with the Barents cod stock under our business-as-usual scenario up toward 2800. The study says, in the short version, that if the temperature in the oceans continues to rise, the oceans will become more acid and the value of the cod stock will drop by 85 per cent. That will be a major blow to the local economy.
I will finish up with two other examples of what we are seeing when you are talking about food security. One major concern is when I met with the reindeer herders, and they said that trees are growing here, and they weren’t before, and in a few years there will be no opportunities for the reindeer to eat grass here because there won’t be any grass. The other major concern is pollution. I’m not aware of reports of rising levels of mercury, but we now find plastic in everything — in the fish stocks, sea birds and so forth. This is a major concern.
The Deputy Chair: Are these issues that the parliamentarians of the entire Arctic region are looking at or something that you are focused on in Norway, as we are focused on in Canada?
Mr. Sivertsen: We are focused not so much on plastic as Arctic parliamentarians because the main focus there has been the climate change and global warming and the consequences. In Norway, plastic is one of the main concerns together with climate change. But I’m sure that you are also familiar with our prime minister leading a high-level panel in the UN focusing on the health of the ocean. Plastic is a major concern, with full support from the parliament.
The Deputy Chair: You mentioned scientific research and the importance of having hard and solid facts as we go forward. That’s a shared need and concern. One of the concerns we have been looking at is the balance and interrelationship between empirical science and Indigenous knowledge.
Mr. Sivertsen: This is an issue that Arctic parliamentarians have been concerned with for several years, and we are, as I was mentioning, very eager to ensure that we have scientific research as a basis, but we also have a profound respect for traditional knowledge and it also must have its place when we are gathering knowledge, expertise and results from the situation today. I often say that scientific research tries to explain the situation and why has it become so, but the traditional knowledge could say a lot about how things are and often cannot explain why, but there is a lot of knowledge that we should take into account when we are considering what we should do. So it has to be a Western modern science task to explain why it became so, but we have to take the traditional knowledge with us in the work.
The Deputy Chair: So as international scientists are working around the Arctic Circle, are they including Indigenous people on their research teams and having the Indigenous inhabitants posing some of the questions that need to be responded to in today’s terms and looking forward?
Mr. Sivertsen: That varies a lot. The general answer is “too seldom,” because there is a lot of natural science and not so much social sciences. In the natural sciences, there is a lot of measuring and not so much talking about the people, so they have less tradition, also, so we need to have more of that, I think. In social sciences, there is more of it, but I think it’s still not good enough. We will continue to advocate that.
Let me take a short example of why this is important. It illustrates, also, what I said earlier that traditional knowledge often has the answer but can’t explain why. The reindeer herders have been arguing that you can’t build power lines in certain places because the reindeer won’t pass under it.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry, Mr. Sivertsen. I think the video froze, and we missed a little bit there. You said the fear was that the reindeer would not pass under the power lines, and then you froze. Would you mind going back?
Mr. Sivertsen: The fear is that the reindeer won’t go under the power lines. Nobody understands why, but they say, “Well, it’s so.” This was the situation until some researchers from the university in Tromsø, Norway’s Arctic university, measured ultraviolet emissions from the power lines. They found that there are emissions there. Then they started to investigate and found out that the eyes of the reindeer see this ultraviolet light, and they are scared of the power lines. That’s the reason they won’t go under it. The short version of this is that we have heard this for tens of years, but we haven’t been listening to what has been said because nobody could explain why it was. That’s one short example of why traditional knowledge is important. You can have a problem and no answer — you just don’t know why — but that’s a good question for Western science to find out.
The Deputy Chair: That’s a good example.
I want to push this a little further — Senator Anderson, interrupt me if I’m going on too long — but I would like to know about medicine. Tell me about the relationship between Indigenous knowledge and Indigenous medicine and scientific medicine and modern-day medicine. Are you finding in Norway or other Arctic countries that there are differences or that more work that needs to be done in that sphere?
Mr. Sivertsen: I will refer to my Norwegian experience. There is no official recognition of traditional medicine in the public. Of course, among people, there are still uses for and beliefs in traditional medicine, but in the public, there is no official status of this traditional medicine.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that.
I will move to the question of sovereignty and security. Do you have any comments that could be of benefit to us with regard to sovereignty of the Arctic areas and oceans? Do you have any concerns, or are there concerns expressed about security issues at the Arctic region conference of parliamentarians?
Mr. Sivertsen: Thank you for a very open question. Let me start with other known positions. It is not that the Arctic is a lawless frontier.
The Deputy Chair: Correct.
Mr. Sivertsen: It’s the Arctic Ocean where UNCLOS would apply, as would other international legal frameworks regarding the seas. Around the Arctic Ocean, there are five Arctic coastal nations and there are eight Arctic countries. They are all sovereign nations, with their obligations and rights according to international legal frameworks. They respect that. They are doing their dispositions accordingly. Therefore, the member states of the Arctic Council and the Arctic parliamentarians have been advocating that there is no need for a special Arctic treaty. This is not a common heritage or something; this is regulated by international law.
We know there are changes. Therefore, we are very happy that we got agreement between most of the Arctic countries — the U.S., China, South Korea, the EU — on fisheries in the Arctic Oceans, saying there will be no fisheries from our vessels there until we have our regulations regime in place. That’s goodwill. The story is there are no fish there yet, but who knows.
The Deputy Chair: I’m sorry, you were cutting in and out again.
Mr. Sivertsen: I’m sorry. Did you hear all of that, Madam Chair, or did it freeze?
The Deputy Chair: I think we just lost the last few seconds.
Mr. Sivertsen: What was the last you heard?
The Deputy Chair: We heard you were talking about the fact there aren’t fish in the Arctic yet, but that — I’m going to use the word “protocols” — the agreements that protocols will be in place.
Mr. Sivertsen: Okay, good. Then you got the main point.
I’m sure you also know that the Arctic Council has, according to the Ottawa Declaration, said that the Arctic Council should not discuss hard security questions. So that’s off the table there.
The Deputy Chair: Yes, I understand that.
Mr. Sivertsen: We have a tradition among the parliamentarians of not discussing hard — meaning military — security issues. But I see that the issue is moving up on the political agenda or discussion internationally.
Two weeks ago, we had our last meeting of the standing committee in Murmansk. Both from representatives of the committee and from the Russian senior Arctic official were raised questions of starting to discuss and find a forum or venue to discuss hard security questions in the context of the broad meaning of “security.”
There has been agreement from all Arctic states that it’s important to continue cooperation in the Arctic, even though the political climate internationally has become harder. There are more conflicts. This is due to the Russian occupation on the Crimean peninsula and their actions in Ukraine. We have also tried to keep that out of the Arctic cooperation. With the Syrian situation and other international situations, we have tried to have no spillover effect. I am concerned that we are starting to see that kind of spillover effect. That could both be an argument for having forums or places to discuss security issues in the Arctic context, but it could also be an argument against it. Once you are starting to discuss that in an Arctic context, I’m afraid that will be the main topic, pushing all other important issues off the table. Until further notice, I think I will stick to the position that we will not discuss that in the Arctic context, but try to focus on what the common interests are between Arctic nations and the people of the Arctic focusing on that. It’s a concern for me these days.
The Deputy Chair: I very much appreciate that. As you know, with the six prongs of our study, it’s important that we put the questions on the table as to what the issues are that are going to connect. I appreciate your candour and I appreciate the limits of the scope of the work that you are doing.
I have one more question, if I may. It’s about education. As we find with our Arctic, you mentioned the North-South divide is very real, with less education and more social problems in the North, and we certainly have our problems and education concerns in the North. In Norway, in your work with the Conference of Arctic Parliamentarians, how are other people dealing with those issues? Because they are complex. They are hurt by distances. Distances make those issues even greater.
Mr. Sivertsen: Yes, distance is a problem, but I don’t think that’s the main problem. I think the main problem is that what is happening is we are living in a world with more and more expertise, meaning everyone has to take more and more education to qualify for jobs. Even though people in the North of Norway are taking up more and more education, they take more education to a lesser degree than people in the south. That’s youth too. That the parents haven’t as much education as the people in the south. This is the social economic criteria, which are well-known as your heritage, your education and your willingness to go to school away from your parents. If you don’t close that gap, the differences between the North and the south will continue to grow.
I see no other solution to this than building educational infrastructure in the North. For us, it has been vital to establish two universities in the northern part of Norway. We see that contributes to a higher degree of education, and people taking education to a higher degree, more than people educating themselves in other parts of the country, stay in the northern parts, being a resource for the communities they came from. Maybe they don’t move back to the village they came from, but they could be living in a bigger city or village than they were originally born to. It’s long, long work but I have no other answer than building infrastructure in the North for the people, because there are huge distances. Of course, you could use modern telecommunications, as we are doing, to a certain degree, but it has its limitations, and we have to acknowledge that.
Parliamentarians of the Arctic are also strong advocates for the need for education, and especially for Indigenous people who have to live off something totally different than what they have traditionally lived off and have the need to gain access to affordable education of good quality.
We are advocating students, teachers and researchers exchange programs and other means of boosting education, but maybe the most important thing we have done as parliamentarians is contributing to the establishment of the University of the Arctic. It is a network of I think they are now 170 institutions from the Arctic, which are moving forward to contribute to that. They are, of course, as I’m sure you know, lacking funds in doing what they need to do. That’s the situation both in Canada and in Norway and I think in every other country. It is long-term work. You have to have infrastructure and cooperation across the border, because there is something to learn from each other.
The Deputy Chair: It was about 15 years ago, wearing another hat completely, that I had the opportunity to visit the University of Tromsø, and I was impressed with what was going on. I have followed the work of the circumpolar universities. I remember being at a conference a number of years ago. I am impressed with how far it has come, but I’m also very aware of how much further it also needs to go to have the cross-pollination of research, outcomes and science to make sure that it’s really open to our students of the North.
Senator Anderson: Just to elaborate on education, in the Northwest Territories, they have a policy in the school system called inclusive schooling, or social passing, where they will pass a student based on age as opposed to meeting a skill set for the next grade. That’s done until Grade 10. Once the student reaches Grade 10, there are mandatories they have to meet. Unfortunately, within the Northwest Territories, most of the students are not able to meet that standard. Is that something that happens in the area that you are in? Are you aware if that’s a contributing factor to the low education rates?
I am asking this because when I went to school in the Northwest Territories, and I went to school in Tuktoyaktuk, a small community of 900 right by the Arctic Ocean, we did not have social passing. It didn’t exist at the time. What I have learned is that the students that do go on to graduate Grade 12 — we have a social student financial assistance program where students within the Northwest Territories are funded — their first year of student financial assistance is often given to upgrading. It is not towards a first-year college or first-year university. It goes towards upgrading. So one year of funding is not used to the best of its ability.
I’m wondering if that’s an issue that you’re finding. You also spoke about universities, but are there also any earlier education interventions that you are aware of to address some of these issues before a student becomes a teen or an adult?
Mr. Sivertsen: I will answer this with our Norwegian view. In the Norwegian school system, you pass and continue following your class accordingly to age up to Grade 10.
I will address a problem that maybe isn’t well known outside Norway. We speak of about 20 per cent of our youth pass on practical and alphabets when they are getting out of Grade 10. They haven’t learned to read, write or do math at a basic foundational level. That’s a major problem.
In upper secondary schools, we see the problems you are addressing. Only two thirds of youth begin secondary school, and that’s, by all practical means in Norway, mandatory. You don’t get anywhere if you don’t finish upper secondary school. We see that just two thirds are finishing in the time expected. I think only 75 per cent finish within more than five years. So we have a serious problem.
In the North, there are fewer people finishing school than in the South. There is research arguing that this is due to the lower level of education in the population in the North — by no means a surprise. There have been several actions on a broad scale and in many of the counties responsible for this, trying to get better numbers. We are starting to see results now, but it’s still a big problem. There is no quick fix. It’s about meeting each and every student where they are and about having fewer theoretical lessons and more practical learning. There is an attempt to give boys other opportunities or ways of learning than the girls and so forth. A broad range of actions are being tested out in different regions.
The short answer is that, yes, we see the same, and yes, we are trying to intervene as early as possible, but there are still huge problems in the Norwegian school system.
The Deputy Chair: Our time is running out. I have one more question, if I may. I appreciate the range of questions you have been answering. Some of our colleagues are on tour across the country right now. Other committees have been trying to gather their interests as well.
You mentioned climate change and that the Arctic area is perhaps suffering the most right now. However, the problems aren’t caused in the Arctic; they are caused elsewhere around the globe, in part. I would like to know how you view the role of non-Arctic nations and organizations in the work of the Arctic Council in the Arctic region right now. What are the roles and responsibilities? Are there issues with the involvement of non-Arctic countries in the Arctic? I would be interested in your thoughts on that.
Mr. Sivertsen: I will start with climate change. I was saying that it’s not the 4 million people living in the North creating this problem. But I will also mention that it’s a huge challenge for us to get 200 countries in the world to commit themselves to reaching the goals of the Paris Agreement. But knowing that if you include EU as an observer state of the Arctic Council, together with the eight Arctic countries and 12 observer states, including the EU, these countries stand for 80 per cent of global emissions of CO2 every year. Maybe it will be easier for those 20 bodies to reach an agreement than for 200 countries all around the world. I will argue that the Arctic Council and their observers have a special responsibility for leading the way, and we know that Arctic is being hit, first and foremost.
Then to the question of observers. Of course there are challenges, because there is speculation and we are wondering why would China come to and have an interest in the Arctic. I choose to be naive. I’m thinking that if you have committed yourself to applying for observership in the Arctic Council, you want to contribute. Then the Arctic Council and the sitting chairman has a responsibility for facilitating processes where the observers could contribute with their knowledge, expertise and resources.
There is, of course, a huge difference between China, which is an observer, and the Saami Council, which is also an observer. They have to be allowed to contribute in a way that is meaningful for them and that are on premises according to the resources they have. I think the Arctic Council still has issues in getting resources that both the states, the NGOs and other bodies represent. They have started. It is an opportunity.
I also will say that I’m very glad that we have observers, because if they don’t join our club, they would have created their own club. At the end of the day, it has to be the Arctic nations, as individuals or in states, that commit themselves, take the responsibility and make decisions about what is right for the Arctic. They are welcome to join us in the club. I’m sure we are also getting better results by listening to input from Indigenous people, NGOs, states, researchers and so forth, which are observers to the Arctic Council.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you very much for that and, indeed, for your wide-ranging testimony to us today. It has been very helpful. It’s always important to get a variety of viewpoints. I would like to thank you for your testimony.
We’re now welcoming our second panel this morning. I’m particularly pleased to welcome Paul Crowley, Vice President, Arctic, WWF-Canada. Thank you for coming.
As I mentioned earlier, some of our colleagues are on the road across the country right now. We are nearing the end of the testimony part of our year-long study on issues affecting the Arctic, and I’m particularly grateful that you are able to come and help fill in some of the gaps that we are finding at this stage of our work. I’m going to turn it over to you, if I may, Mr. Crowley, and ask you to make your opening remarks Senator Anderson and I, on behalf of our colleagues, will have a number of questions.
Paul Crowley, Vice President, Arctic, WWF-Canada: Thank you for inviting me. I welcome a wide range of questions. I will direct my remarks to two particular topics, the first being land use planning and barren-ground caribou, and second, I’ll touch on investments in the conservation economy.
I’m a long-time Northerner. I have lived in Iqaluit since 1995 and have taken on a variety of roles during that time. A lawyer by training, I have worked with the premier and chief of staff previously and Premier Eva Aariak, but I also worked with Sheila Watt-Cloutier on climate change issues and generally have worked on the nexus between environment, social issues and cultural issues, human rights.
The first topic I’d like to draw your attention to is that, with the rapidly changing Arctic, one of the issues that is extremely important is the state of the barren-ground caribou herds. You may be aware of caribou in other parts of Canada, whether it’s mountain caribou or woodland caribou. However, the barren-ground caribou, which are the iconic caribou that migrate in large herds thousands of kilometres across the tundra, are in a very perilous state. Save for the Porcupine Herd, which is shared between the Northwest Territories and Alaska and potentially will be at risk if they open up exploration of the Alaska refuge, all of the other herds, those that are in Canada and who calve in Nunavut, are in perilous state.
Some, like the Bathurst herd, are down from historical numbers of close to 500,000 animals to now less than 5,000, down 98 per cent. Never before have all the herds gone in such steep decline together. There are natural cycles with these herds. They go in 50- to 80-year cycles of boom and bust, but never before has the bust been so deep and also so synchronous, which is a very deep concern. And yet, we have an opportunity to get things right, and for caribou that means protecting habitat.
There are three main pressures on caribou. First is harvesting, which is probably the most managed of all of the pressures. There are management boards. For instance, on Baffin Island, where I live, there are quotas now on the hunting of caribou.
The second pressure is climate change. That’s not one that’s well understood and it’s one that we need to understand better. That could have impacts on everything from changing in the fodder that the caribou have access to, ice events, which means that there will be rain because of the changing climate that will ice up the snow on the tundra and make it very difficult for the animals to get through to their food, but it is also changes in things like the cycles of parasites and changes to ice crossings. There is the dolphin and union herd, which goes from the mainland of Canada to Victoria Island, which crosses on the sea ice there and they go forth twice a year back and forth. Of course, how we manage that sea ice crossing in terms of ice breaking et cetera is very important.
The last pressure is from industrialization and increased presence, particularly mining exploration in the North. Caribou are very sensitive animals. At the wrong time, a helicopter going by will spook a female who has just given birth and she will abandon the young. Having undisturbed habitat is extremely important.
While this is happening and while it has been recognized by COSEWIC, the Committee on the Status of Endangered Wildlife in Canada, which have recommended the barren-ground caribou be listed on the Species at Risk Act, there is another opportunity to take action sooner, and that is through and use planning. At the moment, there is a process that has been ongoing in Nunavut for some time to create the Nunavut land use plan. It is close to finalization. Unfortunately, there seems to be an issue with regard to finalizing the funding that will enable it to be finished. The planning commission, by my understanding, needs another $12 million to finish this plan.
Now, land use planning in an area the size of Western Europe, which is Nunavut, is a complex issue. It is not easy. You cannot tell the commission, for instance, that you need to build a 10-story building but then give them funds for six storeys. You need to give them sufficient funds to finish it. I would say now we are probably at six or seven storeys, but we have three or four more to go to finish this off. If it can happen, it enables us to have landscape level planning. That’s important not just for caribou but also for certainty for communities, who rely on caribou but also rely on economic development, and not just the communities in Nunavut. The barren-ground caribou are harvested by communities in the Northwest Territories, in northern Saskatchewan and northern Manitoba as well. Just recently, at the Nunavut Mining Symposium, the territorial economist Mr. Picotte, noted that the lack of a land use plan is also an issue when it comes to certainty for industrial development.
I would encourage this committee to make strong recommendations as to the need to finalize the land use plan and the land use plans generally, for certainty for communities, for certainty for caribou and certainty for industry. I would also encourage that appropriate funding be given to the bodies that are charged with conducting these land use plans and finalizing them.
I don’t know much time I have. If I have a few more moments, I would speak to another issue.
The Deputy Chair: Please take the few moments to speak to your other issue.
Mr. Crowley: The other issue I would like to bring to your attention is with regard to investment in the conservation economy. When I say “conservation economy,” it could have a broad definition. The way I’m speaking about it now is an economy that develops from conservation practices, whether it is the creation of parks or wildlife areas or Indigenous protected and conserved areas, marine protected areas or otherwise.
There is an incredible opportunity in the North to protect sufficient habitat through these means, but that doesn’t just mean drawing a circle around certain areas and saying that everyone needs to stay out. What it means in the context of the North is that it’s an opportunity to develop a conservation economy that is much more attuned to the local culture of the community and is complementary to the extractive economy.
If we do draw a circle around an area and say is this is an area of high importance with regard to the wildlife, for communities and for harvesting, there should be investments to go with. To draw you some examples around the world, if we look internationally when it comes to marine protected areas, the median annual expenditure for a marine protected area per square kilometre per year is $775. If you are looking at an area that is, say, 100,000 kilometres per year, that’s a fair amount of investment that is required to meet even the median of what is spent internationally.
Generally in Canada, we don’t come close to that, and that is unfortunate because if you do have such investment, then you can get much-needed community infrastructure that allows access to the resources. It allows for full-time employment through guardians programs, through scientific monitoring programs. Those can be Indigenous-led programs. As a country we think that when we create a protected area, you draw a circle around it and it doesn’t require more. No, it does require investment.
I’ll point out to those who say that it’s expensive that a study came out recently that notes that, between the Canadian government and our four richest provinces, we subsidize business to the tune of $29 billion a year. The support of a conservation economy in tune with community culture and that really aims for the same goals of employment, community wellness and community benefits is something that should be considered.
I’ll point out those investments also pay dividends. A recent study done in one area noted that an investment of $4.5 million generated $11.1 million in social, economic and cultural benefits. So for every $1, it’s a $2.50 return. It was also noted in a study done in Clyde River that $50 invested in harvesting yields enough to feed 20 individuals — if it’s harvesting — but if you go to the store, it’s only 3.3 individuals.
Supporting the harvesting economy and the conservation economy associated with it pay big dividends. I urge this committee to take that into account when you put your report together. I’ll end it there.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Anderson: You spoke about the requirement of funding in regard to the newer landscape planning. You said you had some funding. Where, ideally, does this funding come from? You spoke about industry. I know in Nunavut right now, that mining is one of the industries. Is there investment from the mining companies or any other industry?
Mr. Crowley: Under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, a number of institutions of public government were created, including the Nunavut Impact Review World, the Nunavut Water Board, a wildlife management board and also the Nunavut Planning Commission. It is an institution of public government that has its own board of commissioners. Its funding comes through what used to be INAC and currently is CIRNAC, through the implementation branch of Indigenous-Crown relations. That’s where the funding comes from.
With regard to funding from industry, at this point, it is an independent body that has tribunal-like qualities. It needs independence in terms of the funding it receives. But just like any tribunal, if it doesn’t have the means to do its job, then it can’t acquit itself of it. At the moment, my understanding is that the commission has been told — and you should speak to the commission itself — that they should do it from their core funding. However, this is an extraordinary exercise, trying to do land-use planning on an area that is the size of Western Europe. To be able to finish that plan, they require funds in addition to their normal funding that gets them through their normal course of business, which is looking at applications to ensure that they work with the plan and if there needs to be any adjustments made.
Senator Anderson: To clarify, is the funding a one-time pot of money, or have you also had issues in terms of short-term funding like annual funding or three-year pilot project funding and then the funding lapses?
Mr. Crowley: When it comes to the planning commission, I can’t speak too clearly. What I can tell you is what I know, and in this case, I know they have their core funding, but this is an extraordinary exercise. It is one that can be revisited under the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. A Nunavut-wide plan can be revisited every five years, so it does have a chance to be revisited, but they haven’t yet managed to finalize a plan for the full territory. This is the biggest exercise. I would expect that a five-year review would not be quite as arduous a task.
Senator Anderson: I have another quick question. You have identified caribou at risk. Are there any other species at risk within Nunavut?
Mr. Crowley: In the North, other species are listed. I would say caribou is really the conservation issue of the moment. That’s not just in Nunavut but also in other parts of the North, such as northern Quebec, where the George River herd has gone from over 900,000 animals to less than 10,000. There are certain populations of beluga whales that are of concern. Polar bears are of concern, but in the longer term, owing to the ability to adapt to climate change. But at the moment, barren-ground caribou I would say is the main conservation issue.
Senator Anderson: Thank you.
The Deputy Chair: Drawing further on that question, I’m going to go to the oceans, if I may. Are there concerns with the changing fish species that are coming north as a result of climate change? Is that part of your scientific lens, shall I say?
Mr. Crowley: It is not work we have done at the World Wildlife Fund directly, but it is something I’m aware of, based on conversations I have had, particularly with people who harvest Arctic char, in particular.
The Deputy Chair: Salmon are going further north, too, aren’t they?
Mr. Crowley: There are new species of fish that are appearing. I know in some communities, like Pangnirtung, which is north of us, the char are eating different types of food, which is changing their aspect, the colour of how they look, et cetera. Even where we fish in Frobisher Bay, there are more pale char than there used to be.
Our oceans are changing considerably as they warm. It’s not something we fully understand. There are a lot of issues with regard to our fisheries that we need to get a better grasp on, particularly the commercial fisheries with Greenland halibut and turbot, which is the main commercial fishery. At the moment, we are managing it much in the same way we traditionally manage fisheries in Canada; in other words, “Fish it until it crashes, and then hope you back off soon enough.” We don’t know, for instance, where Greenland halibut spawn. We don’t know where they go, where they come back to and how that might change. One thing that is needed is to change our approach to managing the commercial fisheries, particularly, that we have and to better understand the life cycle of the stock we are dealing with.
The Deputy Chair: Is the WWF involved in defining some of those questions and concerns?
Mr. Crowley: Yes. We are working with the University of Windsor to try to get a better understanding of the very question of where the Greenland halibut go, where they spawn and whether we should be protecting spawning grounds, particularly. Are there areas we should be paying more attention to?So we are trying to provide assistance to gain additional knowledge on that.
The Deputy Chair: What about sea birds?
Mr. Crowley: With sea birds, there are a lot of changes and changes with their food sources. Where it would have been Arctic cod they were feeding on, and a colony would have depended upon that, now I have read peer-reviewed papers that demonstrate that if there is less cod or the cod have moved, it’s sculpin, which is a very spiny fish. It’s an ugly fish, so to speak, and a lot less energetic. Those colonies don’t do well. The young cannot swallow and there’s less energy in those fish, so those bird colonies are at risk.
The changing ecosystems have that impact. Also, we need to get a better grip on the bycatch issues when it comes to commercial fishing. That’s not something we have a full understanding of yet.
The Deputy Chair: I appreciate your comments on the conservation economy. I think we are fairly well aware, if not well aware, of the work that Mary Simon has done in that field.
How do you link in the peril for some species? You mentioned the caribou and the future concerns for polar bears. I don’t know where muskox fit into all of that. But then you tie it into the changing fish, and you take a look at the plastics in the water and that’s being found in the stomachs of seabirds. What are the changes you foresee as a result of all of this in the conservation economy?
Mr. Crowley: Certainly harvesting becomes more challenging as the environment changes. In a previous life I worked with Sheila Watt-Cloutier, and we did a considerable amount of research on the impact of harvesting. So less reliable conditions, less reliable sea ice. We have had hunters go through the sea ice where previously it was known to be safe. With warming temperatures, the ice is weakened from below.
Personally, I find individual hunters are quite adaptable. While there are limits to that adaptation, part of being a harvester is looking out every day and asking, “What am I facing today?” However, our institutions are not so adaptable. They take longer to say, “Okay, caribou numbers are down. How do we deal with this?” How do we enable those institutions to be more adaptive? To me, the best answer is you empower local communities with Indigenous-led management. Those who have most at risk should have most of the say, but not exclusively because these herds belong to all of Canada and are important to the world. However, those who bear the risk should certainly be leading the management and leading the science and the monitoring that goes with it, leading the guardianship of those areas.
As the environment is changing, I see investments in those types of endeavours in conservation that’s tied with additional investment is really important. We have opportunity right now in the Baffin region. We are on the cusp of some really interesting marine protection. With Bill C-55, which has an amendment before the Fisheries Committee, we certainly would like to see that amendment not put through and a speedy passing of Bill C-55 because it will enable Indigenous-lead conservation in those areas and also enable investments that support that.
The Deputy Chair: I appreciate that, and I should declare I am the sponsor of Bill C-55. It has gone through the Fisheries Committee and is about to come to the chamber for third reading. All this work does dovetail in a fulsome way, shall we say.
I want to come back to your comment, though, which I find particularly interesting: Those affected most should be heard the most. What is being done to make sure Indigenous knowledge, Indigenous concerns, Indigenous observations and Indigenous traditions are part of the scientific work that is ongoing in our Arctic?
Mr. Crowley: There is certainly a desire to make it happen more and more, including from the scientific community.
The Deputy Chair: Has that needle moved in the last few years?
Mr. Crowley: I would say in my time in the North it certainly has.
The Deputy Chair: Has it moved sufficiently?
Mr. Crowley: No, but I think it’s not related to the individuals doing the work. It’s related to the governance of these issues. If in an area the governance is devolved to the local community or the regional Indigenous organizations, then the governance will set the tone for the requirements for it. Until that happens, I don’t know that the needle will be able to move too much further. It really comes down to devolution of governance.
Devolution is an issue, for instance, in Nunavut — devolution negotiations from the federal government devolving to the Government of Nunavut. But I see it as a broader issue than simply devolving to the Government of Nunavut on lands and resources. There are other ways of doing this devolution. It can devolve to the local community by creating a conservation area, but ensuring that the governance of that conservation area is locally led.
The Deputy Chair: You mentioned the guardian program earlier. Can you expand on how you would see the rangers or the guardian program? Do you want to discuss that a little further?
Mr. Crowley: When I say “guardians,” in fact I should be saying “guardians-like” because there are regional adaptations of the general concept, which is basically those who know the land and who are on the land should be the guardians of the land and equipped to do so.
In the Baffin region, there was a pilot project in Arctic Bay. It was not known as a guardian program but it has similar characteristics. Basically, it has enabled Inuit in the local communities to use the skills they have to be guardians and steward the lands around them. It’s an investment that allows them to take over such things as oil spill response capacity, which there is very little in the North and for which there could be a lot more scientific and climate change monitoring. They can then take on these jobs, and they are jobs. This is not something that should be done off the side of people’s desks on the weekends. These are full-time jobs that are not only important for the local area but also important for the rest of us so we can understand what’s going on in the Arctic and how the changes are affecting the Arctic.
The Deputy Chair: You mentioned oil spills. With the Arctic Ocean opening up, do you see that as a growing problem?
Mr. Crowley: Yes, and so does as the Arctic Council. Ship spills have been viewed as one of the biggest risks to the Arctic Ocean. Canada is poorly equipped to deal with spills in the Arctic, whether a small or massive spill. Most communities in Nunavut, for example, have a sea can that someone may or may not have the key for, that may or may not have equipment and that someone may or may not know how to use. We are not really equipped to deal with any kind of a spill from a ship or otherwise.
For instance, WWF has been working with the community of Resolute Bay to put together a community plan for that. However, that plan needs to be resourced and needs to be continuously resourced so that people can train and the equipment is kept up to date. And that’s just one community. Every community needs to have this and needs to be brought up to date, and there should be regional spill plans as well.
The Deputy Chair: I’m going to back to the research and the combination of scientific knowledge and Indigenous knowledge. With the Cambridge Bay research centre, I know it’s almost running or it’s running in some areas. I guess there are a few pieces. It’s not quite fully operational. Are you working with them? Do you have programs or research projects tied in with the Cambridge Bay research centre?
Mr. Crowley: Not so much so far, and that has been a disappointment. I think it has taken quite a while for the centre, CHARS, to get running and to really find its legs. They are doing good work, but it’s not work we are involved with yet. I hope in future we will be able to complement and additionally support their work.
For instance, we have a program we call the Arctic Species Conservation Fund. We are not a large organization in Canada, but we do provide additional funding to researchers who are looking, typically in the $30,000 range. Sometimes it’s that type of funding that enables a community to knit a research program together. We are hopeful we will be able to integrate further with the work coming out of CHARS.
The Deputy Chair: Our committee travelled to the Arctic last September. I think it’s fair to say we were very impressed with CHARS and its potential. I eagerly await seeing CHARS acting on its full legs rather than on partial legs. When we were there, a lot of the equipment had just recently been delivered but was not yet hooked up. I await all of that with interest. I do encourage international researchers in the Arctic to make use of that facility.
Are there other thoughts that we should be bringing forward in our report? We are a special committee, so we’re short-lived. We want our short-lived work to have mighty implications.
Mr. Crowley: With the opportunity, I would point out a few other things.
Recently at the Strategic Environmental Assessment for oil and gas in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait, we have seen that we are not prepared for oil and gas development, certainly not in the Eastern Arctic. Unless much investment is put into things such as spill response and until much more is known about potential impacts on seismic or the additional shipping, I would encourage the continuation of the moratorium on new licences and permits for oil and gas development. I would also hesitate to have any oil and gas development until the conditions are right. So that’s one.
Second, I would also encourage this committee to consider the need for network planning. Just as we have land-use planning, there is a need for network planning when it comes to marine protected areas and marine spatial planning, so that there is certainty in our marine environment as to what should be done where and what is conducive to what and where protections should be to ensure the continuation of food sovereignty and food security and the harvesting that allows for food security.
At the moment, Canada is undertaking network planning in five regions. The Eastern Arctic is not one of them. In the western Arctic, it has stalled out. I would encourage us to be very proactive and to do that planning. WWF is working very hard at the moment on a project that would provide the ecological layer of what a network could be in the Eastern Arctic, but the full planning of a network would be well worth it.
There has been a good beginning, but we need more for support for renewable energy in the Arctic. We have done some work, particularly in Nunavut, that demonstrates that there is good potential for renewable energy, particularly wind-solar with some storage. We know that Alaska has over 60 communities that are on hybrid diesel/renewable-energy systems. In many cases, they reduce the diesel usage quite considerably — over 40 per cent in some communities, up to 100 per cent at certain times of the year.
In Canada, even though our communities are just as remote and the resources for renewable energy are just as good, we have not deployed community-scale renewable energy. I would encourage federal support for this. It’s very difficult for the Crown utilities that belong to the territories to do this while still supporting the diesel infrastructure, which will remain the backbone of energy security in the North for some time yet. However, a transition towards renewable energy, which is harvesting energy from the local environment in a way that is sustainable, could use some additional support.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you.
Senator Anderson: You spoke about investment in the conservation economy. Has that been used in Nunavut to address any of the food security issues in terms of harvesting, or do you see that as an option to address some of the food security issues being faced in the North?
Mr. Crowley: It absolutely is. For instance, Qikiqtani Inuit Association has proposed full-time harvesters that could help the community and provide food for the community. That has to fit in, though, particularly when it comes to protection and management of the harvest of caribou herds. Caribou are a very important food source for many communities across the North. First, protect the habitat to allow the herds to have their normal cycles of growth and decrease. Then, invest much more into the harvest and management of those herds. For instance, in Nutrition North, changes have been made to allow for support of harvesting, but if there are no caribou to harvest, you are no further ahead. It all has to fit together. If you did more investment in that type of programming, guardianship, monitoring, you would be able to do much better in terms of understanding how the barren-ground caribou are doing. It’s very expensive work. It’s remote. Even doing a proper head count of the herds is very expensive. More investment into that would be very much appropriate. Then move on to the ecology and how climate is changing, how the impacts of industrialization and exploration are affecting the herds as well.
Senator Anderson: Quyanainni.
The Deputy Chair: We have talked about the conservation economy. Of course, the other side of that is the extractive economy. Do you want to dig a little deeper on the comment you made about the extractive economy? You had talked about the offshore oil and gas. I understand extraction there costs about $100 a barrel. With world markets, we’re not there yet. Tell me your thoughts about the extractive economy on land.
Mr. Crowley: Sure. To my understanding, oil and gas in the Arctic costs $150 per barrel, minimum, to break even. We know that to the east of Nunavut and Northwest Greenland, an extensive exploration program came up empty. We know that, in the Beaufort, there have been decades of work done to develop that industry. Really, it has not produced. We have seen, in Arctic Alaska, Shell put $2 billion into exploration. That return on investment did not happen and they pulled out.
That being said, there is a place for the extractive economy in the North. We at WWF accept that. We know that it has an important role in terms of the development of the northern economy. That role, though — I wouldn’t overemphasize it. At the moment, particularly in Nunavut where I know the issues better, our labour pool already cannot furnish the existing mines there. The benefits from additional mines are quite limited. Royalties from mines in Canada are actually not that substantial. We’re very far from getting local employment, from getting Inuit employed in the mines up to the levels that would be representative of the population. The labour pool is not there.
Recently, we were in Taloyoak, Nunavut. The community there is looking to protect their caribou herd. They would like to set up a type of conservation area to do that. They made it very clear. They said: “We’re not miners; we are hunters. We already know we can get jobs in the mines that exist, whether at the Baffinland mine in north Baffin Island or the mine at Meadowbank or the mine that will open near Rankin Inlet.” There are jobs available there, but that’s not them. That’s not what they are looking for.
A lot of work and a lot of subsidies go into promoting the extractive industries, like the building of roads and infrastructure that sometimes doesn’t really help communities, that is not next to them, does not improve their access to the land and does not improve their ability to feed themselves. Or a port that gets built but isn’t in a community.
Let’s give the extractive industry its due, but not more than its due. Let’s look at other means of promoting a conservation economy and a traditional economy that might be in better tune with communities. Our communities are hurting in many ways. If you look at the social and health indicators, they are not very good. A full-on push from the roads to resources towards extractives hasn’t really paid the dividends that perhaps we thought it would, or those who are promoting it are not those who would profit in terms of betterment of the community because of them.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you for that.
For one concluding question, you talk about local communities, and we have talked about Indigenous knowledge, so I would like to know how the WWF partners with local Indigenous communities in carrying out your work.
Mr. Crowley: I guess we take it for granted — though we shouldn’t — that we will only work on conservation issues that have some community support. In fact, we have a program we call community voices, which is to work with the most traditional in communities to ensure their voices get into the ever-increasing and ever-more complex regulatory processes. Typically, harvesters and those who know the land will see a strategic environmental assessment and get frustrated that they have pages and pages to read in English and then have to make comments into this weird process that really isn’t something they’re comfortable with, so maybe they’ll just go hunting instead. So, we work with hunters and trappers organizations and hamlets to support their voices.
Just as in Taloyoak, we went in there and said, “How can we support?” They said, “Well, we are trying to protect the lands on which our caribou live for decades and we haven’t been getting the help we want, so please help us with this.” That’s how we work.
In Arviat, we just terminated a program that, for years, helped the community with funding so they could have a polar bear guard to chase bears out of the community in the fall, and that was really well viewed. That’s not a conservation-type program of a typical fashion, but it’s one that we thought was really important and that the community really appreciated.
We work as best we can in the communities. We have offices in the North. We have offices in Iqaluit, a person in Yellowknife and, until recently, a person in Inuvik. We are looking to augment that. We have more and more people in the North. At the moment, we have former Premier of Nunavut, Paul Okalik, working with us. We really do try to support the community endeavours as best we can, when we’re asked.
We have also supported the Pikialasorsuaq Commission, which is an Inuit-led commission looking at the North Water polynya, an extremely important area between Greenland and Canada in the high Arctic.
It’s part of our normal way of working.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you. I would like to thank you, Mr. Crowley, for your testimony today. I appreciate you taking time and giving us your expertise. It certainly helps our work go forward. Thank you very much.
In our third panel this morning, I am really pleased to welcome Les Klapatiuk, President, International Logistical Support, (ILS). I’m going to ask you to start with your remarks, and then we’ll have some questions. As with prior witnesses this morning, given the number of our committee members who are travelling on other Senate business and related Senate business, our questions come forth as a result of knowing what their concerns are as well as our own. If you don’t mind a multitude of questions from various viewpoints from a few of us, we appreciate that.
Les Klapatiuk, President, International Logistical Support Inc. (ILS): Good morning, senators. Senator Anderson, it’s good to see you again.
My presentation is basically entitled “Do You Care?” There is a gap in Canada’s Arctic policy that affects sovereignty, security, environment, economy and governance.
My name is Les Klapatiuk. My company is International Logistical Support. I own and operate a hangar at the Inuvik airport, and I am contracted by DND in support of NORAD and national sovereignty operations. We are a Northern defence contractor, definitely in the North, at the Inuvik airport.
We have a gap in our policy, as I mentioned. There are countries with the Arctic policy declarations. We have Arctic states. Russia’s policy is ongoing, militarily and economically, and they are building infrastructure or redoing their infrastructure. The U.S. is redeveloping their policy. They have an update in March of 2019 regarding their defence structure and Arctic policy. Canada, to date, does not have a real Arctic policy.
Non-Arctic states, like China, has an Arctic White Paper, basically, the polar “One Belt, One Road” situation. Britain has a defence policy on the Arctic called “On Thin Ice”. To some degrees, it could be Canada’s.
There are conventional threats to our sovereignty. Russia has a militarization of the Arctic. They are redoing all their bases. Russia has a heightened footing equal to the Cold War. Russia considers natural resources, in particular oil and gas, as strategic to their defence policy. This is noted in the Norwegian intelligence report Focus 2019.
In Canada, Inuvik in the most strategic Arctic defence location, but it’s woefully neglected. We have internal threats to sovereignty and security as well. Other nations can transit the Northwest Passage. Canada is restricted in our capabilities. We have a significant infrastructure deficit in the Arctic. We have no strategic fuel supplies for NORAD or for ocean-going vessels. We have no strategic air support. We have no search and rescue assets. Bottom line, you know, who cares?
We have economic threats to sovereignty and security. China is weaponizing its financial investments worldwide. This is a known fact in Africa. China is investing and has invested in Canada’s Arctic, reasoning that Canada has abandoned its own Arctic.
There are potential strategic investments in the Arctic oil and gas industry and the marine infrastructure. I’ll clarify this: Senator Anderson told me about the Chinese going through Tuktoyaktuk and looking at the marine assets there. Controlling the infrastructure in the Arctic is extremely critical. If you control the infrastructure, you also control access to the offshore and onshore resources due to the logistical capabilities of the infrastructure.
Everyone has unfettered access to the Northwest Passage. Lack of Canadian Arctic investment and economic growth is decimating the Arctic. Drilling bans, long environmental reviews and confusion between social and economic policy create an unstable investment atmosphere. Investors will leave. I call it the strategic atrophy within our Arctic.
The ILS mission: A Northern defence contractor supporting NORAD and Northern sovereignty operations, and develop a search and rescue centre in the western Arctic. There is nothing.
The ILS facility functions in multifaceted strategic roles. We concurrently support NORAD. We provide hangarage and logistics for major military exercises. We provide a search and rescue centre. We provide a recovery centre for damaged aircraft, military aircraft, and it is a strategic hub in the western Arctic.
However — and I go back to the internal economic threats — real property operations within DND has terminated our hangarage contract. We are going back into negotiations. The question is, why is Canada divesting of some of the very few assets that they have in the Arctic? It begs the question, does Arctic defence and search and rescue really matter?
I have a slide here of various aircraft photos. Those were all taken last month in Inuvik. We had a crash of a Twin Otter on the ice. The nose wheel was ripped off. We have pictures of the helicopter slinging in the Twin Otter; Griffin helicopters being unloaded from the C-17; there is a shot of my hangar floor with fixed-wing aircraft which belongs to DLR aero research out of Germany, who were doing climate change research; and, of course, the heavy lift civilian helicopter, a Sikorsky S-61.
Inuvik was built as a defence centre and has several distinctions critical to North American defence. It is the epicentre of Canadian and NORAD air defence and closest to the region of originating threats. By “epicentre,” I mean all of the fighters, tankers and everything coalesce over Inuvik and then they proceed out to counter any inbound threats — and, yes, there are inbound threats.
It has the only paved runway north of the Arctic circle in Canada. The Inuvik runway can be extended by an additional 3,000 feet to 9,000 feet. It’s the western Arctic’s central maintenance location for the North warning system. It’s the gateway to the western Arctic, Northwest Passage and Arctic Archipelago. It’s the premier satellite information download location in Canada and in North America. It’s the most northerly point in Canada that has a fibre optic line for real-time communications. It has an all-weather road to the south, and ILS has the only hangarage in Canada available to DND at a moment’s notice for sovereignty operations, and it’s adjacent to the Inuvik forward operating location.
Search and rescue equals sovereignty. I love this line. Bingos, bake sales and donations — that’s how we raise money for our volunteer coast guard. That is how we operate. Last month, we had a $50,000 bingo in Inuvik. Coast Guard itself has a minimal Arctic presence. There are no search and rescue assets or infrastructure in the Arctic. Canada cannot meet its international search and rescue commitments. We do not have any assets in the Arctic. I’ll use the Viking Star as an example. It lost power off the Norwegian coast, but they were close enough to centres that had helicopters. In Canada’s case, however, in the Northwest Passage, when the Crystal Serenity went through several years ago, if they would have had a problem we couldn’t have gone out to help them. There was not a hope.
There has been an industrial presence for over 100 years in the Arctic. It goes all the way back to when the Hudson’s Bay and previous entities were here, including the whaling ships that wintered around Herschel Island. Industry brings infrastructure. It creates sovereignty by presence and development. It provides search and rescue capabilities and capacity, economic benefits to all and contributes to social improvements, health care, justice, housing and education. So why is industry being penalized for being in the Arctic?
In conclusion, the Arctic has a significant and growing Arctic infrastructure deficit. Canada has a defence shortfall that affects North American defence. Canada does not have a viable Arctic policy. Canada is unable to provide search and rescue capabilities in the Arctic. The threat factors are only increasing. I will add spill response to this list because there is none. I was a member of the Mackenzie Delta spill response several years ago, and everything was industry related and industry driven, and it’s only now that coast guard is starting to do some work in the region.
The Deputy Chair: Thank you very much.
Senator Anderson: One of your slides touched on the Coast Guard and how it’s funded. Can you tell us a bit about the Coast Guard auxiliary, its role and responsibilities and what areas it covers?
Mr. Klapatiuk: CCGA, Canadian Coast Guard Auxiliary, the volunteer group that we have, has the largest area in Canada. It’s about the size of Vancouver Island. It goes west to Herschel Island, just about to Tuktoyaktuk, and south on the Mackenzie River to Norman Wells. It is a phenomenal area. We raise funding for that. Last year, I submitted a proposal to BRP — it used to be known as Bombardier Recreational Products — and they donated two search and rescue Sea-Doos for us. We integrated that into our search and rescue equipment list. We are the only search and rescue volunteer group in Canada that has Sea-Doos. As with all other Arctic entities, we run bingos and bake sales to raise operational funds for training and equipment.
Senator Anderson: In terms of funding, what’s required if you were funded for that program?
Mr. Klapatiuk: What would be required?
Senator Anderson: Yes.
Mr. Klapatiuk: I recently had a discussion with a coast guard individual, and even a place to store equipment is going to be $50,000 a year. As volunteers, we created the only search and rescue centre in the western Arctic. We used in-reach satellite responders. We have cobbled that together with satellite, with VHF radios, with telephone and cellphones, to be able to communicate with all the responders out on the water.
Could we use funding? Absolutely. We need a new boat, a place to store things and a training centre. We have been doing it all using the bingo money.
The Deputy Chair: I think bingos and bake sales fund an awful lot in the South as well as the North. We have all been involved in bingos and bake sales. Point well taken.
Senator Anderson: You spoke about China, Russia, and some of the potential risks to Canada’s lack of Arctic policy. In your opinion, what is the minimum that Canada requires in terms of Arctic resources and policy?
Mr. Klapatiuk: Number one, from a defence perspective, we have to put money back into the Arctic. Nothing has been put in for a long time. The infrastructure is in dire condition.
Now I’m going to talk about air assets for the Inuvik region. The Inuvik forward operating location has a capability of six F-18s but requires significant upkeep. As an Arctic country — we are defending it; we are part of NORAD — we should be able to put in at least several F-18s and keep them in Inuvik. There is no tanker capability in Inuvik. When people talk about a fighter aircraft going out and coming back, their range is limited because of the volume of fuel that they consume. We have to have a tanker. That was brought forward very well in the British Arctic defence policy “On Thin Ice.” They lament their inability to provide air-to-air tankers. We need one, and the best place for it is Inuvik.
Although people talk about the militarization of the Arctic, the fact is if we do not maintain our own sovereignty, which is maintained by presence, then what are we going to do? How do we put a claim to the Arctic? From the air asset side, that is the first thing that we should start looking at doing, namely, looking at the operational bases. Inuvik is the only operational base with people manning the place 24 hours a day, seven days a week. My company is integrated into base operations at all times. We take an operational base and then we prioritize it. This is one base that has to be upgraded. We then move into another base, like Yellowknife, and it’s the same with Iqualuit.
As for marine assets, I’m not a marine expert, but we don’t have any icebreaking capabilities. Russia has, I believe, 43 icebreakers and are building new nuclear powered icebreakers. China is moving in that same direction. We are talking about some patrol vessels that are not going to be able to go through deep, thick ice.
Search and rescue is another one. There are no assets in the Arctic at all. When the Arctic comprises 40 per cent of the Canadian land mass and we cannot say that we have one search and rescue asset, be it aircraft, helicopter or infrastructure, we have a problem.
The Deputy Chair: Following up on a couple of things you have said, I want to clarify a few things. I know our Fisheries and Oceans Committee did a study on search and rescue. Did you appear before that committee during their deliberations? Have you read their report? I know they went north and travelled internationally, and I just wonder, did you appear before that committee? Have you read their report?
Mr. Klapatiuk: I don’t believe I have. I read one — don’t quote me on the author or ask me for the author — but it was out of either Fisheries and Oceans or Coast Guard. They estimated that if the federal government was to staff by the assets that the volunteer search and rescue units have and staff the units, it would cost over $300 million to replace the assets and about $200 million annually in salaries. So we, as volunteers, are buying our own boats and we are paying for our own training. So we take a huge load off the federal government when it comes to infrastructure, assets and personnel.
The Deputy Chair: Did the British report refer to all the work that the volunteers do off the coast of Britain? I have family who have raised money for that and served through that through a number of generations. I’m trying to draw the links with what you are saying because I think in Britain, too, the volunteer search and rescue is really impressive.
Mr. Klapatiuk: Any volunteer group is very impressive considering the work that goes in and that everybody has full-time jobs and are just volunteering their time. I’m not familiar with the British model. But we in Inuvik — and I’m very familiar with that — spend an inordinate amount of time volunteering just to keep the cash flow going and committing our own time and, in my case, not only my own time, my facility — both hangarage and my property and equipment. I donate to the unit so that we can maintain the equipment. And my son is the unit lead for CASARA in Inuvik, the civilian air search and rescue, and for the ground search and rescue as well.
The Deputy Chair: I agree with you. The work volunteers do across this country is really impressive. I’m going to suggest that we, in our work, take a look at the report out of Fisheries with regard to search and rescue. I think, as a special committee, we appreciate that our work does overflow the work of a number of committees, and we are appending references to other related reports. With what you have said, I think this would be an appropriate report to link to our work.
What about the Senate committee responsible for defence? Have you met with them in terms of the work that they are doing?
Mr. Klapatiuk: No, I haven’t.
The Deputy Chair: Again, that’s the committee that is really charged with the defence of our North. We are charged with coming up with ideas how the linkages might be. Are you aware of work that they have been focusing on in the Arctic?
Mr. Klapatiuk: No. I am not. In fact, when the committee came through in September, that was my first exposure to the Senate committee.
The Deputy Chair: So when we came north in September, and we were trying to do an awful lot. It was a very enriching, enlightening trip. It’s one that will be with me forever.
Mr. Klapatiuk: One thing you did not see, though, is at that time we had a full deployment going on in Inuvik. The 18s were in and we had the tankers in. I had wanted to give you a little bit of a show by opening up the hangar doors enough so that you could see the air-to-air refueler in there. That’s it and nothing beyond that, because of the security and other aspects. But that was something that I really had wanted to give you. Like the old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words. You would fully grasp what is happening when you see the tanker and the F-18s there and all of the other things.
That leads back to one of my other comments with regard no strategic fuel supplies. There are none. In September, we were right down to the bare fuel tank because the fuel hadn’t been brought in yet and there were other situations at hand conspiring against fuel. It was one of these things where it’s truly unfortunate because it was right there. Everything is sitting right there and you can see where we are.
The Deputy Chair: We certainly appreciate that. We were aware, as committee members, of your generous invitation and, alas, there are only 24 hours in a day.
How does the fuel get in to you? Is it flown? Shipped?
Mr. Klapatiuk: Inuvik has an all-weather road. There are two ways that it can come in. Last year, they bought fuel from China, and it went by tanker around Alaska. It was transferred to barges and then brought to Tuktoyaktuk. At Tuk, it was transferred into holding tanks, and then it was trucked in to Inuvik. I believe they started trucking in November. The other way to bring in fuel is to go down the Dempster Highway. Now, there is a significant fuel stock in Whitehorse and also in Dawson. Fuel is brought up through there. Bringing fuel up by barge through the Mackenzie River is not as prevalent as it used to be.
I go back to my comment, as Senator Anderson was so kind to tell me in my hangar a few weeks ago, that the Chinese had been looking at the facilities in Tuk. Those are the same facilities the fuel is currently dumped into in order to be stored. If we have an entity take over the logistical capability and the storage capability, now that puts our sovereignty and our security at risk because we do not have the capability of controlling our own fuel supplies.
The Deputy Chair: I’m going to change course for a minute, if I may. You mentioned that Canada has no Arctic policy. I appreciate we are in the throes of developing the Arctic framework. But surely we have been working on Canada’s Arctic policy that was devised in 2009-10. Is it fair to say we are working on a current policy or a policy that needs upgrading, or is it fair to say we are not working on any policy?
Mr. Klapatiuk: I think there is a policy that people are following. But you refer to 2009-10, which is the previous government. Now we are in 2019. What we lack as a northern entity is a long-term policy, something that can survive through various governments, be it five years or ten years. A short-term policy doesn’t work in the Arctic because if we were to build any infrastructure, you would have to start getting material together 18 months in advance. So with a short-term policy of 36 or 48 months, half of that time is just taken up by planning and you have not done anything yet. And then the policy changes, so now what do you do? That’s why we need a long-term policy, be it on defence, on sovereignty, on security. We still need a long-term policy that makes sense for the Arctic.
The Deputy Chair: I think that’s the work we are engaged in. With regard to infrastructure, I certainly hear what you are saying, and I’m also well aware from my work in the North and even just as far north as Thompson a few weeks ago, the issues with existing infrastructure because of permafrost thawing. Tell me, as we plan ahead for new infrastructure, what are the issues that we need to be aware of with regard to permafrost?
Mr. Klapatiuk: I will use the example of the Inuvik airport. The runway collapsed in 2013. It dropped the runway length down to, I believe, 4,500 feet, severely impacting the capabilities of the commercial carriers and military in operating. So they fixed it in 2013, dug a drainage ditch and did some work there. Then it collapsed again in 2015. The infrastructure underneath the runway is collapsing because of the permafrost degradation. The other factor is that, to some degree, the airport did not do proper maintenance and drain the water pools that were on the infield of the airport.
Is there climate change? Yes. Is it impacting infrastructure? Yes, it is. I can say that from my own property as well. But we can’t just sit there and throw our hands up and say we can’t do anything. There are ways of working with it. I guess the best way to put it is you can’t fight the cold. You can work with the cold and you can dress up for the cold, but you can’t fight it.
We can’t fight the permafrost. We have to work with the permafrost. If it means putting in additional fill and using new technologies and capabilities, we have to do that. We have the existing infrastructure, and if it means changing from wooden piles, which the buildings sit on, and changing to steel pipe, which Inuvik is doing right now, that is something else that everybody is looking at as well.
I’m fortunate that I found bedrock on the airport, so that puts me into a different world because I go straight into bedrock. But for anybody working on permafrost, it has an impact on you, yes, it does.
The Deputy Chair: Do you have a long-term agreement with both the Coast Guard and Defence?
Mr. Klapatiuk: I’ll put the Coast Guard and Transport Canada on one side of the page, and Defence on the other. I have worked with Defence now for 15 years and we are going to keep working together, and I know that is coming. Real Property’s operations decided to terminate my contract for a variety of reasons, but we are going to be working together again.
When the current commander of the Coast Guard put in a newspaper article that he wanted to build a hangar in the Arctic, I immediately sent a letter saying that I would build him a hangar. Immediately, the answer back was you have to follow procedure through Public Works. But I took it as a different perspective, which was they are not interested.
I’m going to use Transport Canada as a similar example. Transport Canada called me. My operating costs in the Arctic are phenomenally huge. My electricity is $0.70 a kilowatt hour. In Ottawa, it’s maybe $0.10 or $0.12. I pay $0.70. My fuel and operating costs are high. Transport Canada said they wanted hangarage, but when I gave them a price, they said that’s too expensive and they can get it cheaper in Ottawa. So I told them to quit calling me. We are slowly coming back together. I’m working with them in July to operate a UAV off the Inuvik airport.
What I mentioned about internal economic threats, these are part of the internal economic threats that emanate right from here because people don’t want to pay the costs. They say it’s too expensive to operate. Well, we face the same costs in the Arctic. We pay the costs. We have to do one of two things: pass them on, or we end up subsidizing government to get some of the money and to cover some of our costs. In my case working with DND, I subsidize DND in ways people don’t appreciate. I thoroughly enjoy working with the people, so don’t misunderstand me there, but from a straight cost-benefit basis, we subsidize a lot of things. We have our own equipment and we have a multitude of things, and yet we still fight the battle where people say it’s too expensive in the Arctic, and that is coming right from the Government of Canada.
Senator Anderson: I was fortunate enough to see the satellites when I went to Inuvik. You made note of the satellite information system available within Inuvik. Can you elaborate on the benefits of that satellite site?
Mr. Klapatiuk: Benefits are military and civilian advanced capabilities that provide knowledge of infrastructure. It has military capabilities. I would ask my good friend and colleague to provide a significantly better answer to that question than I can.
Senator Anderson: Could you come up?
The Deputy Chair: Would you like to come to the table and be welcomed as an official witness? If you are going to respond, I’m afraid you have to come to the table. We are a televised committee. We’ll just clarify this through the proper processes here that we have to be heard and seen from coast to coast to coast.
I would like to welcome our new witness to the table and ask you to introduce yourself, and then carry on with your response to Senator Anderson.
Paul Komaromi, Projects Manager, New North Networks: I’m from Inuvik. I assist Mr. Klapatiuk here. Can you please repeat your question, senator?
Senator Anderson: My question was around the benefits of the satellite system within the Inuvik region.
Mr. Komaromi: To the Town of Inuvik?
Senator Anderson: And nationally.
Mr. Komaromi: There are two satellite sites. There is the Canadian site, which Canada owns through CCMEO, which is the earth observation part of NRCan, and there’s a private site, which is with the Norwegians and Americans. It was privately built by local contractors in the community and we continue to be.
Senator Anderson: Where do you provide the satellite service to?
Mr. Komaromi: It’s a station. Because you have Internet access when satellites come over, they receive data and send it around the world.
Senator Anderson: So the data is used nationally and internationally?
Mr. Komaromi: Absolutely.
Senator Anderson: Are you able to elaborate on what types of information generically that are being gathered and utilized?
Mr. Komaromi: It’s earth observation. An example is when farmers go out to look at their fields to see whether there is enough moisture. Satellites will come over and tell you the moisture rate and growth rate. It’s information data. These companies provide that to whoever wants it globally. For forest fires or any kind of management, they sense the earth and they provide all of the different data. Different companies do all of the analytics on that. It provides real-time information to governments and to companies. It’s a pretty far-reaching industry.
Senator Anderson: In your opinion, is that beneficial and does it have some potential to addressing some of the issues that we face in the North?
Mr. Komaromi: Absolutely. Satellite technology today is phenomenally beneficial to the interests of climate change. It can monitor all kinds of things from previous periods and in real time today. Specifically, when you see coastal erosion, you will be able to see that from space and monitor it. That will provide you tools to mitigate, as well. Some of your previous guests were in Alaska where a lot of it has been eroding into the ocean. Your own community is facing that as well. When you have satellite technology that would pass over and analyze what’s happening and make predictions, it gives governments the tools to provide better public policy on how to mitigate it and how to address it down the road.
The Deputy Chair: I may say for the record that on June 18, we heard from the president of your company, Mr. Tom Zubco. We have testimony on this from June 18, 2018. This has been on our radar screen for some time and underlines the link between the various topics we are looking at. I thank you for bringing us up to date these months later.
Senator Anderson: We talked about coastal erosion, and I know it’s an issue in my home community. Do you currently know if any of that information is being gathered, recorded and utilized in the North?
Mr. Komaromi: I think it is. Canada, through the Canada Centre for Mapping and Earth Observation, has a pretty good body of knowledge on that. I’m not an expert on this, but that kind of information has been gathered for quite sometime. There is a huge amount of research on changes in the Arctic. There is this committee, other committees and other institutions of government who are looking at that and addressing it as well. It’s very high on the list of priorities for territorial governments and for the municipalities. They are front-line. There are many tools in the box that would be made available. That kind of technology would certainly assist.
Senator Anderson: Quyanainni.
The Deputy Chair: I want to thank you both, Mr. Klapatiuk and Mr. Komaromi, for your testimony. You have helped us fill in some gaps and illuminated some points that have been brought to us before. Thank you very much for your testimony, I appreciate it. We are going to adjourn now and resume this afternoon at 1 o’clock.
(The committee adjourned.)