Science and Research Committee on May 9th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.

I would like to welcome our guest members on this committee today. We have MP Boulerice for Mr. Cannings, and we have MP Shanahan and MP Arya. It's really nice to have you.

We appreciate Arielle's silent appearance today. I'm sorry you're not well.

Welcome back, Lloyd. We missed you at the last meeting.

Welcome to meeting number 86 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Science and Research.

Before we begin, I would like to remind all members and other meeting participants in the room of the following important preventative measures.

To prevent disruptive and potentially harmful audio feedback incidents that can cause injuries, all in-person participants are reminded to keep their earpieces away from all microphones at all times. As indicated in the communiqué from the Speaker to all members on Monday, April 29, the following measures have been taken to help prevent audio feedback incidents.

All earpieces have been replaced by a model that greatly reduces the probability of audio feedback. The new earpieces are black in colour, whereas the former earpieces were grey. Please use only an approved black earpiece. By default, all unused earpieces will be unplugged at the start of a meeting.

When you are not using your earpiece, please place it face down in the middle of the sticker for this purpose, which you will find on the table, as indicated. Please consult the cards on the table for guidelines to prevent audio feedback incidents.

The room layout has been adjusted to increase the distance between microphones and reduce the chance of feedback from ambient earpieces. These measures are in place so that we can conduct our business without interruption and to protect the health and safety of all participants, including the interpreters.

Thank you for your co-operation.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. For those participating virtually, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.

You may speak in the official language of your choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. If interpretation is lost, please inform me immediately, and we will ensure that interpretation is properly restored before resuming the proceedings.

Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference, please click on the microphone icon to unmute yourself. When you are not speaking, your mic should be on mute.

As a reminder, all comments by members should be addressed through the chair. With regard to a speaking list, the clerk and I will do the best we can to maintain a consolidated order of speaking for all members, whether they are participating virtually or in person.

In accordance with the committee's routine motion concerning connection tests for witnesses, I'm informing the committee that Jackie Jacobson has not completed tests in advance of the meeting.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(i) and the motion adopted by the committee on Tuesday, January 31, 2023, the committee is commencing its study of science and research in Canada's Arctic in relation to climate change.

It's now my pleasure to welcome Michel Allard, professor emeritus, centre for northern studies, Université Laval.

From the Arctic Research Foundation, we have Tom Henheffer, by video conference.

Jackie Jacobson is a board member of the Arctic Research Foundation. He is on screen, but because of the headset situation, he will not be participating from an audio perspective.

Angus Cockney, a community engagement and northern specialist, is also with us from the Arctic Research Foundation.

We will begin with Michel Allard, for five minutes, with his opening statement.

[Michel Allard, Professor Emeritus, Center for Northern Studies, Laval University, As an Individual]

Good morning.

My name is Michel Allard. I work at Université Laval as a professor emeritus. You can tell by my hair colour. I'm a researcher at Université Laval's Centre for Northern Studies. I'm a member of the Canadian permafrost research community. For a number of years, I was a member of the ArcticNet research network.

My work covers a range of topics, such as the impact of permafrost thaw on natural environments, including the formation and transformation of lakes and waterways. It covers temperature changes and permafrost thaw caused by shrub growth and increased snow coverage, the process known as the greening of the Arctic. It also covers the geotechnical characterization of permafrost under transportation infrastructure, especially airports, and in the built environment of northern communities.

Using our acquired knowledge, we help design adaptation solutions in engineering and land‑use planning for the people in charge. We also track or monitor permafrost temperatures in eastern Canada, from Nunavik to the High Arctic, using a network of thermal cables inserted into drilled holes. The network is operated by the Centre for Northern Studies. It's the largest university‑based monitoring network in Canada.

Let me tell you about the impact of permafrost thaw.

Permafrost covers 40% to 50% of Canada. Its thickness ranges from a few metres deep at the southern margin to hundreds of metres deep in the High Arctic. The permafrost temperature varies across the area depending on the climate, as a direct result of air temperature. As the climate warms, the permafrost temperature rises. When the temperature reaches zero degrees, the permafrost thaws. The ice melts, which causes the ground to subside. This radically transforms ecosystems and damages infrastructure.

In natural environments, permafrost thaw disturbs the tundra and forests. This changes animal living environments and the nature and availability of traditional indigenous food resources. The disturbances, along with the formation of new lakes or the draining of other lakes, can also make it more difficult for locals to move around the area and access food resources. Some parts of northern Canada are also affected by many fairly extensive landslides.

In more sensitive areas, we also measure the carbon gains and losses—in the form of organic matter, carbon dioxide and methane—related to the permafrost thaw, in order to better measure the process known as permafrost carbon feedback.

In the built environment of first nations and Inuit communities, the instability of permafrost comes on top of a serious housing crisis. It's important to ensure that the current buildings and the many buildings scheduled for construction in the near future remain stable. Stability can be achieved by selecting suitable land, such as rock, or by building foundations adapted and designed to withstand the climate of the coming decades. A major research effort must be undertaken with the northern communities and territorial governments to identify soil characteristics, design the foundations of houses and buildings according to their dimensions and plan urban development. It's impossible to plan for the harnessing of water sources, the construction of distribution systems, the disposal of waste water and the disposal of waste without taking permafrost into account. Permafrost conditions are specific to each community, depending on geology and climate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I'm sorry, Mr. Allard. That's time. We're limited to five minutes for opening statements, but you'll have an opportunity to answer questions.

[Michel Allard]

Okay.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

We look forward to hearing your further testimony. Thank you so much.

We'll now turn to the Arctic Research Foundation.

Mr. Henheffer and Mr. Cockney, you have a total of five minutes between you, however you want to distribute that time.

[Tom Henheffer, Chief Executive Officer, Arctic Research Foundation]

Thank you. He and I spoke beforehand, so I'll start us off.

Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to speak to you on the important issue of Arctic science and research in relation to climate change.

The Arctic Research Foundation is a non-profit charity that enables and catalyzes community-led science and infrastructure projects in the Arctic. We work with communities to build networks of NGOs, universities, researchers and governments to fund and deliver programming, while providing access to ships, green energy-powered mobile labs and other research infrastructure.

Many issues need addressing in regard to science and climate change in the Arctic, but there's a single common factor making it harder to address problems and capitalize on opportunities. Unlike other Arctic nations, Canada lacks a cohesive, cross-departmental and holistic national strategy for the Arctic.

Let me back up and discuss some of these issues. Shockingly, the Arctic Ocean may be ice-free in less than a decade. The region is warming at least four times faster than the rest of the world. Many northerners are living through devastation. Communities are losing up to 90% of their buildings to fire and flood, sometimes both in a single year, and are even collapsing into the very ground as permafrost erodes.

However, climate change is far from the only issue. China is increasing its holdings in the north, including purchasing a stake in a Northwest Territories rare earth minerals mine. They've added the Arctic to their belt and road initiative. They're creating a new form of capitalistic colonialism that's making rapid inroads into Canadian territory. At the same time, the United States denies Canada's claim to sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. Even amidst its war against Ukraine, Russian submarines are testing the boundaries of Canada's waters, and we have no idea what other countries may be up to under the surface.

I highlight issues related to sovereignty and security in addition to science because it cannot be overstated that these issues are deeply intertwined and must be addressed as such. Other nations see the value in tackling these problems together and are taking decisive action to address them. In 2022, the United States adopted the national strategy for the Arctic region. This strategy mandates that the entire government work cross-departmentally to address Arctic issues. No such strategy exists in Canada. Government departments are far too often working in isolated silos, leading to duplicated effort, wasted time and wasted taxpayer money.

Upon realizing the federal government's lack of a national vision for Canada's Arctic, ARF stepped into the policy world to develop a draft implementation plan for Canada's Arctic and northern policy framework in a document entitled “Arctic National Strategy”. We offer it up to parliamentarians as a foundation upon which to build this holistic strategy for the north. The strategy is built around four pillars: reconciliation and the co-production of knowledge; protecting the environment while understanding and adapting to climate change; capacity building and economic development; and Arctic data governance and management. It was written in collaboration with northern senators, leaders and communities, and is built out of high-impact recommendations, common-sense policy changes and shovel-ready projects that can have a meaningful impact on the biggest issues facing the Arctic. We'll be submitting this policy to the committee for your review.

These recommendations range from piloting new ways to conduct fish stock assessments to changing federal funding structures to investing in green energy-powered containerized agriculture to help alleviate food shortages. Here's one example relevant to the committee's study from the strategy.

While research is now conducted with more community consultation and collaboration than in the past, federal grants are still administered through a system that is based on southern ways of thinking. They have enormous administrative burdens. Grants for Arctic research follow the same procurement rules as grants to study Lake Winnipeg or the forests of New Brunswick. This means that while communities may have more funding in theory, in practice it can be very difficult to actually get those funds out the door.

These grants also rarely carry additional funds to reflect the dramatically increased costs of operations, goods and transportation in the Arctic. Universities have experienced researchers, dedicated staff and departments with expertise in applying for government funds, as they should, but it is not fair to expect communities, many of which may only have a handful, if any, of full-time permanent administrative staff, to shoulder the same administrative burden.

The Canadian government needs to modify funding and grant application structures to be more equitable for northerners. You can see this in a number of different ways, wherein government structures are simply too rigid to work properly in the north. As a very good example of that, I understand the need for interpretation, but unfortunately, because Jackie is in the north and has been travelling, he was unable to procure a headset. As a result, he's unable to testify at this committee. I think that's a very poetic example of how these structures work.

My remarks have been submitted already. I'll cut this short so that I can give Angus a chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have 30 seconds, Angus. Go ahead.

[Angus Cockney, Community Engagement and Northern Specialist, Arctic Research Foundation]

Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

Recently, Lori Idlout, the MP for Nunavut, shared our Arctic Research Foundation document, the “Arctic National Strategy”. Do you know what she called it? She called it impressive work. I don't think she's biased, coming from the north, but I think she sees what we're all talking about here with the troubling effects that are happening in the Arctic.

I want to take this down to a more personal level. Community members are worried and concerned with what's happening, especially with coastal erosion. A prominent political member of Tuk once said that they wanted to be buried in Tuk, but I'm not even sure of that now. That's how personal it's getting.

My cousin Noella Cockney is a retired RCMP officer. Her house's foundation was being pounded by waves last summer. You'd think she'd want to move south or to a safer place, but she said, "This is my homeland. I'm not moving."

I think we should all take heed of Lori Idlout's encouragement for all levels of government to use our Arctic Research Foundation document, the “Arctic National Strategy”.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you. I'm going to stop you there.

Maybe during the first question, you'll get a chance to expand on that. I know that you each wanted five minutes, but that would take away from our questions. We're really looking forward to hearing your testimony.

Now we will open the floor to questions, and we'll start with MP Tochor for six minutes.

Please indicate to whom your questions are directed.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Henheffer, thank you for being online today and describing some of the differences in life.

I've been honoured to travel to all three territories on a couple of different occasions. It's very concerning to see the permafrost melting or warming and the impacts that has. It reconfirms our belief that the main environmental program of this government is the carbon tax, which we know doesn't lower emissions, based on the last nine years of measurements.

How this ties to the territories is that, like the carve-out in Atlantic Canada that was unfair for the rest of Canadians who were using home heating oil, there's a carve-out in the Arctic. I'd like to hear more about how the rebate works up there.

[Tom Henheffer]

The way that the government is legislating the carbon tax is outside of our mandate. We're an apolitical organization, but we encourage any action that can lower carbon in the future and in the present. There's been a lot of evidence that shows that carbon taxes do work.

I'm from the Atlantic provinces—I'm from New Brunswick—and I know that fuel costs there were making things difficult for people, but that's much more difficult in the north. There absolutely does need to be a carve-out in the Arctic for fuel. Almost every community in the north is reliant on diesel fuel to power their power plants. It's messy and it's inefficient, but it's the infrastructure that's there right now.

Life is already so expensive. You can pay $14 for a head of lettuce in some of these communities, if you can even get it. The cost of the carbon tax should not be passed on to people in the north, who are already experiencing the worst of climate change anyway.

In terms of the carbon tax as a whole, it's likely a positive initiative because work needs to be done to mitigate climate change, but yes, there absolutely needs to be a carve-out. Angus is from Tuktoyaktuk, so he can speak more to the realities on the ground there.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

If you're concerned about lowering emissions, aren't you concerned that the carbon tax hasn't lowered emissions in Canada? In nine years, your permafrost is still, unfortunately, warmer and disappearing.

[Tom Henheffer]

It doesn't doesn't work like that. You don't pass legislation and the next day climate change is solved.

I'm not interested in getting into an argument about the federal government's policies and what they are. I think there is very strong evidence internationally that carbon taxes are generally an effective way to lower emissions.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Where would that [Inaudible—Editor]?

[Tom Henheffer]

There needs to be a price for carbon, plain and simple. It's not free. We release this into the atmosphere and it causes serious damage. There needs to be a cost associated with that, plain and simple.

I think your question is asked in somewhat bad faith, to be frank. As I said, I'm not interested in talking politics. I'm talking about what's happening in the north, what's happening in science, not what is going to influence the election in the next couple of years. That's not what this is about.

Thank you for your question, but frankly, I think it's not particularly relevant.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I think it is very relevant because politically speaking, the measures that this government has enacted on lowering emissions are ineffective. The proof is in our ranking around the world and in the fact that our emissions have gone up since they introduced the carbon tax. The only year that they went down was the year that we all were locked down and didn't move.

The concern on the political side of things is that the policies that impact the north are having a negative impact. You have shared comments about the cost of living crisis up there right now and how it makes things more expensive.

[Tom Henheffer]

Yes.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Meanwhile, the tax measure that is making everything more expensive is something you want excluded from your budget.

[Tom Henheffer]

It's not our budget. I'm saying that there needs to be a carve-out for people who live in the north, absolutely. The cost of living is high enough, and they are already living through the challenges that come with climate change, which are so much more severe there. Action needs to be taken.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Yes.

[Tom Henheffer]

As I said, I'm not an expert on the government's legislation for the carbon tax. We're doing primary research, but my understanding, as I think it's very well understood in the scientific community and among economists, is that globally carbon taxes have worked well.

I think we're wasting the committee's time getting into an argument about this. We're here to talk about science in the north, not government policy in regard to the carbon tax. I don't know what you're suggesting to do in place of it, but something needs to be done.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Absolutely.

I'd like to get your thoughts on SMRs, or microreactors, in the north so that we can replace the diesel that is transported up there—and you're right that it's a high-emitting source—and look towards other sources of energy, such as nuclear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have 19 seconds.

[Tom Henheffer]

I think there's a lot of potential in small and medium-sized reactors. They are safe. They generate a lot of power. Obviously, they're expensive, but the key thing is going to be whether the communities want this. There's a lot of distrust of people selling goods and new technologies in the north that rightly needs to be overcome. There needs to be a lot of consultation and collaboration done with the communities to find out about that.

That's not a question that's best asked of me. It's a question that's best asked of Angus, Jackie and other people living in and from the north.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much.