Honourable senators, I rise today to talk about a topic that is, for obvious reasons, very close to my heart as a senator from the Arctic. I won’t cover the same ground that Senator Bovey so eloquently described in her speech when launching this inquiry, except to say that I agree with and fully endorse everything she said. We do need to have a dedicated committee studying the Arctic, a huge region comprising the longest coast and 40% of Canada’s land mass.

In the last Parliament, we focused our study on the six — which later became eight — main themes of the current government’s Arctic and Northern Policy Framework, with a view to helping put flesh on those bones. In the end, I feel the report our committee produced was not only timely and relevant but full of actionable recommendations and formed a basis for clear policy directives.

As Senator Bovey aptly pointed out, there are many “interrelationships between the myriad issues.” It is integral to the future safety and prosperity of the Arctic, and so of Canada, that policy decisions are undertaken with a full understanding of these interrelationships.

I want to give some examples of current issues which do not neatly fit into ministerial portfolios. For example, I draw to the attention of my honourable colleagues a policy statement recently made at the International Maritime Organization. Minister of Transport, Marc Garneau, and Minister of Foreign Affairs, François-Philippe Champagne, announced Canada’s full support for a full ban on heavy fuel oils. On June 21, I stood in this chamber and supported the initiative as it was driven by Inuit leaders. I have always supported the right of Inuit to make decisions about their traditional homeland. However, at the time, none of us had access to the information we have today.

Nunavut News recently reported that:

A Transport Canada report estimates that sealift could cost four to 11 per cent more – $248-$679 per household – if ships are no longer allowed to use heavy fuel oils. That would affect the cost of food, furniture, appliances, construction materials, harvesting supplies, medical equipment, electricity and mining operations.

The report goes on to state:

Any increase in consumer goods costs, even as low as four per cent will impact the purchasing power of already vulnerable communities.

Nunavut’s Minister of Economic Development and Transportation, David Akeeagok, in response to this report, said:

The cost of banning the use and carriage of heavy fuel oil in Arctic waters cannot further add to everyday expenses like food, household items, materials . . . . The Government of Nunavut will advocate that any ban include measures to offset the cost to Nunavummiut and industry.

It was just announced yesterday that a subcommittee of the IMO is proposing a ban on heavy fuel oils but with a proposed provision that could exempt Canadian Arctic sealift vessels from the new rules until July 1, 2029. So we need to ask: Has the Government of Canada discussed potential offset measures with the Government of Nunavut and other Arctic jurisdictions? What are the potential impacts of this ban on resource development, shipping and other related industries?

Equally worthy of parliamentary scrutiny is our approach to protected areas. Canada’s increased targets for terrestrial and marine protected areas may also have an impact on development in the Arctic. Many will immediately think I mean resource development. While I have not hidden my support for responsible development in the North, I must point out to senators an important distinction: Canada’s position is that areas that count as protected lands adhere to the strictest of the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s six protected areas categories. These categories not only disallow natural resource development but also require that areas have:

 . . . the absence of permanent infrastructure, extractive industries, agriculture, motorized use, and other indicators of modern or lasting technology.

Colleagues, permanent infrastructure and indicators of modern or lasting technology refer to roads, deep-sea ports, broadband infrastructure, energy infrastructure and other investments that northerners are clamouring for. Our report had several recommendations related to infrastructure and development due to the frequency with which it was brought up as a priority for those in Canada’s Arctic.

According to Canadian Geographic, Nunavut is the largest contributor to Canada’s protected areas, making up 21.4% of the total. Second to Nunavut is Quebec at 14.3%. What will happen in this increased push to protect even more land? How much of the territory must have opportunities for growth and economic independence closed to it?

If Canada wants to be able to point to a higher percentage of protected areas to burnish its environmental credentials, perhaps it would be open to including land that falls under IUCN Category VI protected area with sustainable development.

As Premier Savikataaq stated in his statement to the Nunavut Legislative Assembly just last week:

The creation of any new conservation and protected areas in Nunavut would have a significant impact on our ability to manage our lands and resources and carry out negotiations for decision-making, leading to potentially very serious consequences.

Should we not then look at how Canada’s policy objectives and the objectives of northern leaders can be married in such a way that both sides win? A dedicated committee with parliamentarians who have built up expertise in northern affairs could make common sense recommendations like this, and there is no equivalent committee on the House of Commons side.

Finally, let’s turn to a topic of interest for many Canadians — our safety, security and sovereignty. On February 13, 2020, U.S. General Terrence O’Shaughnessy told the U.S. Senate Committee on Armed Services that the U.S. and Canada have lost our military advantage in the North to Russia. President Putin has made it clear that his first and highest priority is to develop Russia’s Arctic as a powerhouse economy for a nation whose overall economy is struggling. He also means to instill pride in Russia as a great northern country and an attractive and lucrative transportation shortcut to Asia, the so-called Northern Sea Route.

The evidence of Putin’s vision for developing Russia’s significant energy resources onshore and offshore is plentiful. In January of this year, four new acts were passed to spell out Russia’s Arctic strategy until 2035.

This strategy includes strong tax incentives for offshore and onshore extraction of hydrocarbons, with an emphasis on LNG onshore and an ambitious infrastructure program of seaports and pipelines. Russia is also making huge investments in the Northern Sea Route not only to give Russia access to Arctic natural resources but also to provide a maritime corridor for Chinese goods travelling to Europe.

A significant theme of Russia’s strategy recognizes that the Arctic zone in Russia, which contributes about 10% of Russia’s GDP, is significantly underpopulated. Russia has recognized that all the major components of the Human Development Index in the North are higher than the Russian average. If this sounds familiar, it may be because that’s the situation in Canada’s North as well. As a result, the Russians have noted the population of the Russian Arctic has decreased substantially over the past 15 years. In response, Russians have decided to increase the attractiveness of the North by welcoming foreign investment in new economic opportunities, creating jobs through large regional megaprojects and welcoming youth and young professionals through mortgage subsidies.

Turning south, we see Donald Trump has his eyes on developing the energy resources of Alaska as another means of reducing U.S. demand for foreign oil sources to meet its energy needs. Professor John Higginbotham, at Carleton University, a recognized expert on northern affairs, also describes measures being taken by the U.S. to bulk up its presence in the Arctic in his op-ed entitled, “We need an economic vision for the Arctic, but Canada lacks the leadership.” He describes a bill introduced in the U.S. Senate for new Alaskan Arctic ports and marine transportation systems to support newly authorized heavy Coast Guard icebreakers and increasingly active U.S. Navy surface ships in the Arctic.

A more sinister aspect of Putin’s vision for the Arctic is the development of advanced weapons systems, including hypersonic missiles which will apparently be able to fly up to five times the speed of sound, which can be launched from the air in the Soviet Arctic — and China may well be following in developing such advanced weapons.

Canada has so far not budgeted to modernize our aged north warning system, and Canada has declined to join the American anti-ballistic systems. What of Canada? What is Canada’s vision for the Arctic?

The Arctic policy framework gave goals but left questions. Professor Higginbotham had this to say:

The APF was originally billed as a blueprint for Canadian Arctic strategy and actions up until 2030, integrating domestic and international challenges and directions. For three years, the government has repeatedly promised, pirouetted and postponed the “co-development” and release of this framework.

Many hoped the result would be a bold and comprehensive white paper on the future realization of Canada’s nation-building project in the high north, balancing security, social, environmental, Indigenous and economic goals, especially through a long-term, wealth producing infrastructure plan.

Such a national Arctic investment plan with a strong maritime emphasis could enable the communities and regional governments to flourish in this new tough, competitive environment.

Instead, a patchwork of ad hoc departmental policies and budget announcements appeared, reflecting the progressive identity and social narrative of the Trudeau team, but before a guiding framework was developed and debated by northern and southern Canadians.

Honourable senators, this is why we need a committee dedicated to the Arctic. We cannot allow investments and decisions to continue being made for the North without the proper scrutiny and a transparent and accountable avenue for northerners to ensure that their perspectives are heard and accounted for. A committee on the Arctic would be able to provide that. Thank you.

Yes.

Thank you for the question. Well, the mandate of the Special Committee on the Arctic, which really only had about one year to do its work once it was established, was to examine the rapid changes taking place in the Arctic, and I think that is still a fundamental mandate that the committee should deal with.

As to priorities for study, I think that would have to be up to the new committee, but I will say that, for example, referring to your recent speech here on climate change, for years there has been talk in our government of reducing the dependency on fossil fuels in the Arctic. As you know, my territory of Nunavut is 100% relying on diesel for power generation and home heating. There is no significant alternate energy.

If Canada is committed to climate change, why are we not developing new alternative technology, which we would love to embrace in the North to replace difficult-to-handle and highly greenhouse gas-emitting fuels? That question of sustainable energy would certainly be one priority.

The other priority that clearly came out of our committee study was the need to develop infrastructure and how it could benefit not just the North but all of Canada and contribute to the growth of Canada’s GDP.

I’ll stop there but those are thoughts off the top of my head.