Good morning, Chair and committee members. Thanks for inviting me to appear this morning.
I would like to preface my remarks by sharing my own involvement and experience with Arctic research.
In 2003, I began my career working for the University of the Arctic, a network of universities, colleges, research institutes and other organizations concerned with education and research in and about the north. I later completed my Ph.D. at the University of Calgary in political science, focusing on Arctic security.
After that, I worked at the International Centre for Northern Governance and Development at the University of Saskatchewan. I spent two terms, one as chair, with the Canadian Northern Studies Trust, which administered over $1 million annually in student scholarships.
Currently I am the managing editor of the Arctic Yearbook, an annual peer-reviewed publication focused on Arctic politics and security. I am a global fellow with the Wilson Center's Polar Institute, a member of the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network. I'm a member of the Yukon Government's Arctic Security Advisory Council, and I sit on the board of the Canadian Rural Revitalization Foundation. My recent work with the Macdonald–Laurier Institute has focused on energy and resource development and on indigenous industry relations in western and northern Canada, but I'm still active in Arctic research.
I say all of this because when we think of Arctic research, we tend to think of climate change and the natural sciences, which is reflected in the study itself. No one will dispute that this is important and a priority. However, the focus on climate change has often come at the expense of other areas of study. The funding bias in favour of environmental sciences and against social sciences, business and engineering is well documented. The University of the Arctic conducted analysis of global academic publications in Arctic research last year. It found that almost a third focused on environmental sciences, while only 9% were in the social sciences, 4% in engineering and 4% in the humanities. A report released in April by UArctic, which was funded by Global Affairs Canada, showed an even starker divide with regard to funding. That's not surprising, as natural science research is structurally more expensive than social science and humanities research. However, it is symbolic of what we prioritize.
I have observed through the conferences I've attended, the research proposals I've assessed and the articles I've peer reviewed that Canadian Arctic studies have their own biases, and research funding gets applied to a relatively narrow set of research questions. Climate change, traditional knowledge, renewable energy and the negative impacts of resource development sit at the top of the list. There's nothing wrong with this list, but there are dozens of other important fields of study that lack funding and people.
I will provide two quick examples.
First, to my knowledge, there is not a single Canadian economist who specializes in the Arctic region. I know of only one or two Arctic economists from Alaska and Russia. Think about that. The region's environment and original inhabitants are well studied, but there is not a robust group of thinkers helping to inform economic development.
The other is the narrow lens we apply to understanding climate change. Looking only at sea ice changes—which is well funded and studied—one might expect shipping in the Canadian Arctic to grow dramatically. In fact, this is often taken for granted and repeated in speeches and op-eds. In my own research, however, I have come to understand that other factors are much more important than sea ice changes with respect to whether shipping increases in the Canadian Arctic, namely the economics of resource development. Investment decisions are tied to commodity cycles, not sea ice melt. I expect the lack of intellectual diversity and multidisciplinarians in Arctic studies means we often miss important considerations for many research questions beyond my own narrow research interests.
Finally, I want to touch on some of the trade-offs of our approach to conducting research with northern and indigenous communities.
There's a long history of scientists using traditional knowledge without requesting permission or providing credit, of entering traditional territories and conducting experiments without notifying or obtaining consent from local governments, and of getting funding to advance scientific goals and academic careers without ever returning knowledge or research that is useful to Arctic communities. This is well acknowledged. I'm sure you have heard, and will hear, from many researchers about the work that has gone on to remediate and change these circumstances, with many new positive relationships. This is to be applauded. However, I've also seen layers of bureaucracy applied to Arctic research that have made it more expensive and exclusive, have placed administrative burdens on indigenous communities and northern governments, and have deterred or prevented young graduate-level researchers from pursuing their interest in Arctic studies because the process is too difficult and lengthy.
There is a balance to be found between exploiting and disregarding northern communities on the one hand and on the other imposing hurdles on research that are so high we simply conduct less important research. I'm not convinced we have found the right balance.
I'm grateful you're taking the time to study this important topic and ensure that the efforts we put into Arctic research provide the greatest possible benefits to Canadians, in particular to those who live in the region. Often a lot of attention is paid to methodology but too little to impact.
Thank you for your attention. I look forward to questions.
