Science and Research Committee on June 6th, 2024

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

The biggest economic driver in the territories is actually public sector funding from government and federal transfers. That creates dependence.

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

That might be the problem across Canada as well.

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

That's a problem. It creates dependence. It creates, I would say, a Dutch disease. The public sector is absorbing all the talent and money, rather than the private sector.

The other bright spot would be mining. For example, that one iron mine is 25% of Nunavut's GDP. The diamond sector in the Northwest Territories is 25% of its GDP, and we know the diamond sector is closing. It's reaching the end of its lifespan. By 2030, probably, there will be no more diamond mining, and we need to start thinking about how we are going to replace it.

I'll tie it back to my original statement: It is consultants who are doing some of the work on this. I don't know of any other academic who has thought about the GDP of these territories and how you would get more mining out, and what the policies and regulations would be. There is no academic attention paid to this fundamental problem for the territories.

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

You talked about some of the research. They had hazy outcomes and very few practical solutions. We're looking for simple common-sense solutions. Regarding the research happening right now, what are your thoughts about adding a requirement that at least makes them identify practical solutions coming out of the research versus just research to do more research in the north?

[Dr. Heather Exner-Pirot]

I think that's the solution: Weigh more heavily on the outcomes in the proposals and funding allocations.

Again, research proposals I have evaluated are very focused on the methodology. You have to say, “Give me two pages on your methodology.” We've become obsessed with the methodology. It's always, “Well, we are working with indigenous communities”, but what is the outcome for those communities?

I think weighing that aspect more heavily would be a big help.

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

I will quickly thank you for the important public service work you do with the research.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you.

Now we'll turn to MP Longfield for five minutes.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our witnesses.

I'm going to start my questions with Dr. Chircop.

On May 9, we had a witness at our committee, Jackie Dawson, who is the Canada research chair in the human and policy dimensions of climate change at the University of Ottawa. She's also the scientific director of ArcticNet. She told us that disruption of shipping traffic in the Panama Canal and the Suez Canal, combined with melting sea ice in the Canadian Arctic, could result in increased marine traffic in Arctic shipping lanes, including the Northwest Passage. You reflected some of that in your testimony as well.

Do we have enough scientific data to measure the changes that could be affecting traffic and marine life?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

Thank you for that question.

There's a colleague of ours, Frédéric Lasserre, who has done some very interesting work looking at the extent to which industry is actually interested in using the Northwest Passage. In fact, if he appeared here, he would probably be an excellent witness for this standing committee.

Basically, the point he underscored in his work is that shipowners are not rushing to build world-class vessels yet. There may be a number of factors there, at least for the Canadian Arctic. The Russian Arctic is a totally different story. Of course, there is the potential for paradigm shifts. What Professor Dawson was referring to is, potentially, one of those: What if you have a major disruption to the established maritime routes? Will there be more pressure on the northern routes? In theory, it is possible, but what we have to bear in mind too is that shipping in the north is seasonal, whereas shipping through the Panama Canal relies on accessibility all year round.

Then there's the issue of lack of predictability on how open the season is going to be—the navigation season in the Arctic, the shoulder season and so on. This could be a real disincentive to move shipping through northern waters.

Then, of course, there is also the question of infrastructure—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Thank you.

You mentioned quite a few variables there, and things are changing. The shoulder season is becoming broader, and there may be a time when that really doesn't exist if we continue on current trends.

How are we monitoring things like sound? I know on the east coast we've been protecting the right whale population since 2017, when we took some action on shipping traffic in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Is there data on what is acceptable in terms of noise?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

That's an excellent question too.

There's a good deal of uncertainty. We know that noise does have adverse impacts on ecosystems, on species, and potentially also, it seems, on some commercial species, from what I understand from the literature. There's a potential range of impacts. However, of course, in the north we're especially concerned about those animals upon which Inuit depend.

There is a fair bit of research now looking at underwater noise. I have a colleague at Dalhousie University who has been looking at some of this. His name is David Barclay. I understand that DRDC, Defence Research Development Canada, has been collecting data. On whether enough has been done to establish a threshold so that we can say we can base a regulation on it, we're not quite there yet. In fact—

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

That's where I was going. Thank you for that.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but the third part of this question is on our goal as a government of protecting 30% of Canada's oceans by 2030, 25% by 2025. We have some aggressive goals on protecting oceans.

When it comes to regulations, should that include things like noise or some of the social impacts on Inuit?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

Absolutely, yes. I would argue that there's a strong argument here for adopting a precautionary approach. Even though we are perhaps not able to establish a scientific standard yet upon which to base a regulation, we should be able to provide advice or at least guidance, essentially, to try to minimize ships operating in certain areas and their ability to generate underwater noise. There are some things that we could do.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

All of this requires money, and strategies are very expensive. We need to look at how we fund all this.

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

However, I would argue that we need more than money. We need, for this, also some real commitment at the IMO, because the industry here will take the position, “We don't have enough science here to be able to base the standard. What are we aiming at? This is going to cost us”, and so on.

However, of course the whole point of precaution is because of the scientific uncertainty. We need to take certain steps and we need to beef up those standards, which at the moment are purely voluntary at the IMO.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

Thank you very much.

I'm afraid that's the end of our time. If you want to expand on that, you can send a written submission to our clerk. That would be welcomed.

We will now turn for two and a half minutes to MP Blanchette-Joncas.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Dr. Chircop, it's a pleasure to welcome you to the committee. You're the Canada research chair in maritime law and policy at Dalhousie University. You're no doubt aware that the Université du Québec à Rimouski does a lot of work with Dalhousie University in marine research, including in the ocean oxygen research project. I am therefore honoured to be able to ask you questions and draw on your expertise today.

One of the things you've been able to look at is disruptions caused by marine traffic. What are the observed and expected consequences of climate change on navigation, particularly in the Arctic archipelago and the Northwest Passage?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

Thank you very much for that very good question, and I may not be able to answer it in its entirety.

I can certainly say that there is a real socio-cultural concern. Inuit communities are really concerned about the increased shipping, especially if shipping and its governance are such that they are not able to participate effectively in it. Basically, as I understand from the positions that I've heard, they would certainly like to hear more. They would like their voices to be heard.

For example, through the initiative for the establishment of low-impact shipping corridors, they want to be able to present their concerns and indeed maybe even inform and provide, through their knowledge, another form of knowledge to complement the science that is going into the designation of the corridors. I would say, first and foremost, the principal concern is human.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Concretely, in terms of marine policy and northern research, what should the federal government change or add to ensure the well-being of both the environment and communities?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

I think it's for voices to be heard, I would suggest.

Traditionally, shipping been managed through a system of central administration. I would argue that we need to move from the notion of administration to governance—basically, to open up and have more equitable participation, especially in employing area-based management approaches to shipping. Whenever we are designating spaces, I think it's very important not to forget that these spaces, these routes for ships, are actually through someone else's homeland.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

I added more time, so you have 10 seconds.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony.

We'll now turn to MP Cannings for two and a half minutes.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you. I would like to follow on with that conversation.

We heard some concerns from Dr. Exner-Pirot about how a lot of the research in the Arctic is aimed at studying the environment. It's aimed on studying the accumulating effects of climate change, for instance, and not enough on economics.

On your concerns about having Inuit voices heard in directing where research funds might go, I'm wondering if you could expand on your previous remarks. What models are out there for research funding, for programs that would listen to those voices and create research that would benefit Arctic communities?

[Prof. Aldo Chircop]

Thank you very much for that excellent question.

I would add, of course, that in addition to not enough economics, I would say also that there is not enough legal research looking in particular at the relationship between how we're regulating these various industrial activities and their relation to indigenous rights.

I would say also that it's specifically with respect to how we're regulating shipping. I find that we have a fair bit of research publications on the Law of the Sea aspects, but not so much on maritime law, and maritime law is more about how we regulate ships.

In terms of how we could move toward a different model, we could have more research that is not simply involving indigenous partners but is indeed co-led with indigenous organizations. I think this is a step forward in moving from partnerships to actually co-leading—in other words, creating a better sense of social licence for that research, in that this research is being more responsive to the concerns that are being advanced by the indigenous organizations themselves, rather than being interpreted by researchers south of 60.

[The Chair, Liberal, Valerie Bradford]

You have six seconds.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Thank you.