EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, June 4, 1996

.1538

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Order.

I'd like to welcome our witnesses to this meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade.

I am John English, the vice-chair of the committee. Mr. Graham, the chair, had to go to Toronto this afternoon.

We're very pleased that you've agreed to meet with us.

We spent last week touring the Arctic. One group went to the western Arctic and the other group went to the eastern Arctic. I am sure that we have returned filled with questions and comments on subjects that are of great interest to you.

I will introduce the witnesses to the members of the committee: from the Sierra Club, Louise Comeau; from Greenpeace Canada, Kevin Jardine; and from the World Wildlife Fund, Sarah Climenhaga.

The clerk has just informed me that we have a group here to observe us in our work today from the Cambodia-Canada legislative cooperation program. We'd like to welcome that delegation as well. They're at the back. Could that delegation stand up? Thank you very much.

.1540

I think we'll go in the order of the listing on the agenda. That would mean beginning withMr. Jardine from Greenpeace Canada.

Mr. Kevin Jardine (Atmosphere and Energy, Greenpeace Canada): It's an honour to be here this afternoon. I'm Kevin Jardine, the atmosphere and energy campaigner for Greenpeace Canada. I and my colleague, Louise Comeau, are going to be speaking today about the impact of climate change on the Arctic and its implications for Canada's circumpolar policy.

Greenpeace has four large international campaigns. Climate change, or the atmosphere campaign, is one of those. We have about 70 staff people scattered around 40 countries working on the issue of climate change. We are actively looking at the impact of climate change in the Arctic, sub-Arctic and Antarctic, because the impact of climate change on polar regions is happening in a fairly dramatic way and has implications for the entire planet, as my presentation will show.

I am going to start with a couple of charts that I think most of you have probably seen before. The first is one that shows carbon dioxide by concentrations. You can see that they have been increasing. The actual time period when direct measurements were made is from 1958 to now. You can see that they have increased from about 310 ppm to 340 ppm. There's actually a lot of other scientific evidence that shows that the level of carbon dioxide emissions has increased about 30% in the last century. Methane is up about 100%. Nitrous oxide is up by about 15%.

These are all greenhouse gases that trap heat radiated from the earth in response to sunlight. There's a great deal of concern because the projected level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is expected to reach twice the pre-industrial levels by 2030 or so.

At the same time as the level of greenhouse gases has increased in the atmosphere, the global average temperature has increased dramatically. You can see that there were two major periods of time when temperature increased, which is from about 1910 to 1940 and again from about 1975 to 1995.

For many years, people in the scientific and environmental communities have asked the question about whether there's a direct connection between the increase in greenhouse gases, which are trapping heat, and this increase in global average temperature. The issue was largely decided, from a scientific point of view, last December at a crucial meeting of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in Rome. The panel, which is made up of climate scientists from all around the world, said that the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human impact on global climate. In other words, there is a connection between these two charts. Greenhouse gases have begun to affect the global climate.

In particular, the climate has been affected in the Arctic and sub-Arctic regions. This is a map from the University of East Anglia, which has been keeping detailed records of global temperature around the world. You can see that throughout the northern hemisphere, but especially in the northern regions, there has been a significant increase in temperature everywhere except Greenland and the north Atlantic, and I'll speak to that a little later in my presentation.

.1545

It's also interesting to note that some of the warmest temperature increases have been in the Arctic and the sub-Arctic: northwestern Canada, Alaska and the area in Siberia around Lake Baikal.

The most dramatic temperature change has actually been in the wintertime, and you can see that globally Canada is very much the hot zone. The northwest of Canada has had dramatic increases in winter surface temperatures, by 2.5 degrees Celsius, which is about five times the global average temperature increase. That's not surprising. In fact climate scientists have been saying for quite a while that the impact of climate change will be most dramatic in polar regions.

We're starting to see that already, with both the extreme warm temperature increase in the Northwest Territories and also, interestingly enough, the extreme cold temperature decrease around Greenland. So you can see that both extremes globally are happening either in Canada or just adjacent to Canada.

A whole series of impacts have been associated with the increase in temperature, and I want to take a look at some of those.

The first impact is increased snowfall. Warmer oceans put more water into the air, and in the north it falls mostly as snow. An increased precipitation trend has been observed in the Canadian north, mostly snow in the winter. Climate models are suggesting a 30% to 50% increase in circumpolar snowfall.

Herbivores, such as caribou and musk ox, have to paw through the snow to find food, so they may have to abandon existing ranges or spend much more energy searching for less food. Freezing rain, which tends to occur much more often in warm winters, can create a layer of ice and prevent feeding. For example, in the winter of 1973-74, 40% of musk ox and 60% of Peary caribou of the southwest Queen Elizabeth Islands starved to death because there was a deep layer of ice because of the warmer weather and freezing rain.

However, despite the fact that there is a projection of and in fact there has been increased snowfall, because of warmer temperatures in the summer, spring and winter, there's actually also increased evaporation. So warm temperatures are projected to more than offset increased winter snowfall. As a result we'll see in the winter more snow - and in fact we have been seeing that - and in the summer more drought.

Last year water levels in Great Slave Lake reached record lows. There's also a similar trend in Great Bear Lake. This is the average annual water level, and you can see 1995 was the third-worst year ever recorded, and in fact August and September had the lowest levels ever measured in Great Slave Lake.

That's had an impact on the amount of hydroelectricity that can be generated in the north. It's had an impact on transportation; barge traffic up the lower Mackenzie River had to be suspended twice last August because water levels were too low. It could also in the future have a severe impact on fisheries. There have been a number of large fish die-offs in Great Slave Lake in particular that could be attributed to climate change, but more research needs to be done on that.

Also associated with summer drought are increased forest fires. 1995 was the second-worst Canadian fire year ever, and by the way, 1995 was also the warmest year globally ever recorded. 1994 was the third-worst year; 1989 was the worst year. So you can see these very large spikes, red in the graph. There have also been increases in insect outbreaks since 1975.

.1550

The 1995 fires had a very strong impact on the north. Norman Wells and Fort Norman were both evacuated. There's been increased regional air pollution from the fires and destruction of traplines and caribou habitat.

Perhaps more worrisome than simply the increase in fires has been the impact that increase of fires has had on the forest. This is a chart that shows the amount of carbon that is stored in the boreal forest. What it shows is that until about 1975 the forest was absorbing carbon dioxide, absorbing carbon from the atmosphere, and helping to slow down the rate of climate change. After 1975, because of a huge increase in insect outbreaks and fires, we've actually seen a decline in the amount of carbon stored in the forest.

As a result, that carbon is now ending up in the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. More carbon is now being released from the burning of boreal forest fires and because of insect outbreaks than the carbon released by all the cars and the power plants in Canada combined, an average over the last 10 years of 57 million tonnes.

So the destruction of the forest is not only having an impact on the people who live there, it's not only having an environmental impact, but it's also having a global impact because it's contributing to the level of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. The destruction of the forest is causing more climate change, which of course will cause more destruction of the forest and so on, in a deadly cycle.

Further north, there have also been changes in sea ice. In fact, since 1980 the amount of sea ice on average has declined by about 5.5%. That's sounds relatively small, but it's actually close to one million square kilometres.

Of course that sea ice has tended to change most dramatically close to the shore of the Arctic Ocean, in areas where it could have severe environmental impacts. That means that there's less habitat for seals, less habitat for polar bears, and greatly increased pressure on the traditional Inuit way of life. If you have no ice, then you have no habitat for seals, no habitat for polar bears, and no place to hunt them.

There's also growing concern about the entire Arctic food chain, because micro-organisms that grow on the underside of sea ice are the foundation of the Arctic food chain. So if there is no ice, that means that the productivity of the Arctic Ocean is likely to be dramatically decreased. The numbers of fish and marine mammals and so on that are there will all go into decline.

I should note that there are credible scientific projects that suggest that if greenhouse gases double, there will be no sea ice left in summer on the Arctic Ocean. That has dramatic implications for a whole series of things, but especially for habitat.

Finally, I want to say a little bit about permafrost degradation. Ground temperatures are warming even faster than air temperatures. There's been a three-degree increase in the Arctic and sub-Arctic ground temperatures in the last 50 years, and that's been associated with something called thermokarst, which means that the ground starts to collapse into an irregular landscape of small lakes, swamps, and pits. As a result, if there's building or infrastructure sitting on that, it collapses as well. There are increased landslides in both the Mackenzie River and the Mackenzie Mountains areas.

Permafrost degradation is also associated with an increase in methane emissions, and methane is the second most important greenhouse gas. So just as boreal fires and insect outbreaks destroy the forest and release carbon dioxide, permafrost degradation increases methane.

There are real concerns about, for example, ground collapse in ice-rich areas - for example, Norman Wells, where the whole oil refinery is sitting on an area of permafrost that's permeated with ice. If the ice melts, then the whole structure could collapse. That's also true for the pipeline that runs between Norman Wells and Great Slave Lake.

Permafrost degradation is also associated with the erosion along the Arctic coastline. This is a map of Tuktoyaktuk and the changes that have been seen in the coast there over the last few years. Reduced sea ice allows more storm surges. There's more area of open sea for storms to develop. There's more water to hit the shoreline. Coastline permafrost is degrading because of the warming, and there's also a gradual rise of the sea level. Those three things combined have resulted in massive erosion all along the Arctic coast.

.1555

Tuktoyaktuk, for example, has lost 100 meters of coastline since 1946, and Tuktoyaktuk is actually an area that has been very much guarded against coastline erosion. There are large sandbag arrangements set up along the coastline to try to protect that area. The fact that we've seen this kind of large erosion of Tuktoyaktuk suggests there has been even larger erosion in less settled areas all along the Arctic coast.

Finally, there is one other thing. I've been talking about the warming, but I do want to say something about the North Atlantic cooling. Climate change is not necessarily just global warming. There can be local cooling effects, and right now the Labrador Sea is the coolest and freshest - that is, it has the least salinity - ever recorded. The Greenland Sea is much warmer than usual.

There are a number of things that could be contributing to that, including increased precipitation. As I mentioned, that's already happening; there's more rain and therefore fresher water on the Labrador coast.

Also, the Greenland ice sheet is melting and that very cold water is pouring into the Labrador Sea. There are projections that if this trend continues, the Labrador Sea water will eventually migrate around the edge of Greenland and out into the North Atlantic. That will reduce the amount of deep water formation, and that area absorbs a lot of carbon. If there's less deep water formation there will be less carbon absorbed, and that will speed up the rate of global warming.

It will also have severe effects on the Gulf Stream and will reduce the strength of the Gulf Stream. At the same time as it is contributing to more carbon in the atmosphere, it will reduce the temperature in the area and result in cooling.

What we might actually see in a very credible future is the rest of the planet heating up but the North Atlantic cooling down, and that has great implications for the eastern Arctic, Scandinavia, the U.K., and so on.

That's a very quick overview in a very short amount of time. There will be more time for me to talk about the issue during the question period. Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much, Mr. Jardine.

The second witness is Louise Comeau from Sierra Club.

Ms Louise Comeau (Campaign Director, Energy and Atmosphere, Sierra Club): Thank you for taking the time to have some of the environmental community representatives come and talk to you today about some of the issues that we hope the Arctic Council and the foreign affairs committee will consider in terms of recommendations.

The Sierra Club is an environmental organization and we focus primarily on public education and advocacy on atmospheric issues, biodiversity, and forests. The club is over 100 years old. It was first started in the U.S. and we have three offices here in Canada.

I'm the campaign director of the energy and atmosphere campaign, and I focus primarily on climate change. The reason for that is that it is the club's view that the response to climate change is going to drive a global reformation of energy systems, which is fundamental to sustainability and atmospheric protection.

We're pleased to see the establishment or the potential establishment of an Arctic Council and the role Canada has played in making this happen. We're concerned, however, that the focus to this point remains on scientific assessment of climate change in the Arctic and not on becoming involved in the national and international political processes that are key to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

Ministers at the third conference on the protection of the Arctic environment in March concluded in their final documentation that the effects of global warming are expected to be dramatic in the Arctic, greater than in lower latitudes, and that significant impacts will be seen on sea ice, river run-off, and permafrost. The ministers also recognized the importance of international collaboration, yet there was nothing in the communiqué that indicated any procedures for the ministers to become more involved or to bring the concerns and issues of the Arctic into the climate change debate.

The ministers also requested the Arctic monitoring and assessment program to evaluate how the potential biological effects of both climate change and increased UV radiation could be better monitored. While scientific assessment and reporting is essential, the Arctic Council governments and their representatives also need to be part of the political process.

The framework convention on climate change was signed at the Rio Earth Summit in 1992 by more than 150 countries. Since then, operational details have continued to be worked out and the convention came into force after 50 ratifications last December.

.1600

As required by the convention, the governments met for the first time in Berlin last April. That session focused on determining whether current commitments under the convention were adequate to meet the objective, which is to prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system. Such a level should be achieved within a timeframe sufficient to allow ecosystems to adapt naturally, to ensure food production is not threatened, and to enable economic development to proceed in a sustainable manner.

The consensus view of governments required to make greenhouse gas reductions - that is, the OECD and economies in transition - was that the aim to stabilize greenhouse gas emissions at 1990 levels by the year 2000 is inadequate. The Berlin mandate was then negotiated and parties agreed to a process to elaborate on policies and measures and set targets and timetables. A legal instrument is to be finalized for fall 1997 in Japan.

To facilitate the development of Canada's positions in the negotiations, a non-government stakeholders' advisory committee has been set up by Environment Canada and Foreign Affairs. They act as co-chairs. The committee includes representatives from the fossil fuel, vehicle, chemical, insurance, forest, agriculture, and renewable energy industries, municipalities, and environment groups. There is no representation from Indian and Northern Affairs. In the view of the Sierra Club, the interest of the north must be represented, through DIAND, the polar commission, or the ambassador for circumpolar affairs.

Internationally at the negotiations themselves, there is no political representation of Arctic interests, either as a unique unit or through circumpolar governments. For Canada, the United States, Russia, and Norway in particular, this is because our national interest continues to be defined by fossil fuel interests.

It is absolutely critical that the Arctic Council explore where its priority interests lie in climate change. Obviously the view of the Sierra Club is that this interest must be defined by circumpolar impacts of climate change and not defence of fossil fuel development.

The Arctic Council then must begin to articulate these interests to their respective governments, so prevention of impacts becomes an increasing part of our government's negotiating positions. To date, positions have been dominated by assessments, mythical as they may be, that reductions in greenhouse gas emissions will hurt domestic economies.

Many of the myths surrounding climate change have been dealt with in the 1996 scientific assessment report of the International Panel on Climate Change. I have brought copies of two things. One is some details from the scientific assessment, reference as well as key technical documents, for those who want them, but also a backgrounder on recent research completed on the Mackenzie basin, which shows very serious changes in warming there. Those are there for the members who would like them.

The scientific assessment took two and a half years to complete. It involved 2,000 scientists from over 130 countries. The key conclusions clearly show that given current projections, dangerous interference with the climate system will not be prevented, ecosystems will not adapt naturally, food production will be threatened, and economic development is more at risk from the impacts of climate change than it is from doing something about it.

Efforts at the level of the Arctic Council have the potential to influence circumpolar negotiating positions in the lead-up to the 1997 conference of the parties. Unfortunately, if the council waits until the Arctic monitoring and assessment program releases its state of the environment report in early 1997, it may be too late.

Governments will meet for the second time this July in Geneva. The agenda for the second conference of the parties will be dominated by assessing the implications of the latest scientific assessment and making political decisions on the objective of the convention. It is absolutely critical that Minister Marchi and Minister Axworthy consider the Arctic at that session. To that end, it is absolutely critical that climate change be on the agenda at the first session of the Arctic Council, scheduled for July 9 here in Ottawa. A resolution from the council that potential impacts on the Arctic from climate change are dangerous and should be avoided would be a critical input for Minister Marchi as he prepares for the July 16-to-18 ministerial in Geneva.

In the longer term, true negotiations will begin at the December and October sessions. These meetings will begin to negotiate actual text for the legal instrument to set targets and timetables for greenhouse gas reductions beyond 2000. It is absolutely essential that Arctic interest define Canada's assessment of what kinds of global reductions should be included in the instrument.

.1605

Climate change is of increasing interest as well to the U.S. administration. Recent speeches by Secretary of State Warren Christopher and Assistant Secretary of State Eileen Claussen signal growing interest in climate change and its potential relationship to national security. The U.S. also laid markers at last February's negotiating session, strongly supporting the latest scientific assessment and declaring that action had to be taken on the ``greatest environmental issue facing mankind today''.

In a speech, copies of which I have for the members if they'd like, to Stanford University on April 9, Warren Christopher said:

This year we will begin negotiating agreements with the potential to make 1997 the most important year for the global environment since the Rio Summit. We will seek agreement on further cuts in greenhouse gases to minimize the effects of climate change....

As this committee knows, the current U.S. administration has not received much support from Congress for action on environmental issues. Support from the Arctic Council for action could strengthen the U.S. administration's hand in climate negotiations.

Another concern of the Sierra Club is that the Arctic Council's terms of reference speak to minimizing the potential local environmental impact of oil and gas development, but do not commit to assessing the role that oil and gas development itself plays in a sustainable development strategy. Whether or not to develop fossil fuel resources must be assessed as part of the strategy.

I'd like to close by reminding the committee of the agenda laid out for the Arctic Council at the recent ministerial. The council is to have a strong environmental emphasis, specifically in regard to the existing Arctic environmental protection strategy and the proposed Arctic sustainable development initiative. In addition, as indicated by Ambassador Mary Simon, other matters for circumpolar cooperation include the following:

the economic development of northern regions; the improvement of social and health conditions in northern communities; the sustainable utilization of land and sea-based renewable and non-renewable resources, including the designation of parks and protected areas; the promotion of circumpolar trade; the improvement of transportation systems on land and sea; the development of communications technologies...the development of tourism and other entrepreneurial activities....

These goals are laudable and all are at risk from climate change.

Thank you for listening to our presentation today.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much.

The last witness is Sarah Climenhaga from the World Wildlife Fund.

Ms Sarah Climenhaga (Species Coordinator, World Wildlife Fund): I've prepared my presentation using the summary of key issues and discussion questions, so it's not just on one topic.

World Wildlife Fund shares common ground with the Arctic governments and inhabitants of the north, for example an ethic for living sustainably, an antipathy to unregulated, large-scale industrial development, and a commitment to land use planning, which includes designating conservation areas as well as development zones.

WWF, with offices in Canada, the U.S.A., Sweden, Finland, Norway, Denmark and Russia and representatives in Iceland, is ideally placed to play a role in circumpolar policy and projects.

Our Arctic program was launched in October 1992 by establishing an Arctic coordination bureau in Oslo. The program is designed to provide a strategic response to Arctic issues by linking the efforts of individual WWF national offices and forging partnerships with many other agencies in the circumpolar region. Collaboration with indigenous peoples' organizations, scientists, governmental officials and non-governmental organizations is crucial to this effort. As such, we welcome the opportunity to speak to you today.

In the five years since the beginning of the Arctic environmental protection strategy in 1991, there has been an emphasis on exchange of information and assessments of the Arctic environment. WWF, among others, has argued that the AEPS now needs to take action on these assessments and implement strategies rather than create them.

In our statement to the recent third ministerial conference of the AEPS, WWF expressed some concerns about the Arctic Council's proposed objectives. WWF supports the concept of an intergovernmental forum in the Arctic and recognizes the unprecedented opportunity to strengthen political commitment to the Arctic. It will carry opportunities and consequences for the long-term environmental health of the region and the future prospects of its inhabitants. However, there are a few basic issues that we believe must be resolved before the Arctic Council is established.

Canada has a lead role to play in circumpolar policy. In the next few minutes I will try to address some of the relevant policy questions the committee is seeking to resolve.

.1610

The first area of discussion centres around the directions Canada should take in regard to its northern policy. In this area of blossoming circumpolar collaboration, Canada should make peace and cooperation in the Arctic a principal priority. The major gap right now preventing development of a coherent policy in this area is the lack of full participation of aboriginal peoples and regional groups, including conservation organizations, in the decision-making processes around Arctic issues.

There are several major opportunities for Arctic initiatives under AEPS to contribute to Canada's foreign policy objectives. Canada has already taken important steps forward with the development of its Arctic environmental strategy. We are now at the point where we can use information gathered through these studies to pursue international action to prevent contaminants from reaching the Arctic.

WWF looks forward to the Arctic assessment report in 1997, which will provide suggestions and a sound basis for action. Other important Arctic initiatives include the circumpolar Arctic flora and fauna working group and its work on the circumpolar protected areas network. Canada should implement its own protective areas system in the Arctic.

WWF has been pressing for the completion of a system of protected areas and has campaigned successfully for the establishment of new protected areas, including the Vuntut Gwitchin area in the Yukon, which encompasses the Old Crow Flats, an area of outstanding ecological, cultural, and economic importance to the Vuntut Gwitchin people. The CPAN provides an opportunity for Canada to play a leadership role and urge other nations to implement the network.

Other initiatives under the AEPS, such as the Arctic monitoring and assessment program and the emergency, prevention, preparedness and response working groups, must be maintained and strengthened.

A key area of discussion for this committee is the Arctic Council. As chair of the council, Canada should reassert and strengthen the Arctic governments' commitment to the AEPS as stated in the Nuuk Declaration, to cooperate to conserve, protect, and restore the ecosystems of the Arctic. There needs to be common agreement that the overriding goal of the council will be environmental protection and sustainable resource use and development that is both socially appropriate and ecologically sound. Canada must reflect this principle in the Arctic Council declaration and the terms of reference for the work on sustainable use and development.

As chair, Canada must ensure that the guiding principles for the council will be consistent with those already agreed through international agreements such as the Rio Declaration on environment and development.

Canada must also ensure that the Arctic Council will stay focused. Some issues, such as the utilization of marine mammals, will be extremely difficult to resolve because of the divergent points of view of the Arctic governments and should not be considered by the council if the cooperative mandate of the council is to be upheld. Focusing on the key issues will ensure maximum effectiveness of the council.

In regard to organizational and representational structures of the council, at present we are unconvinced that these structures are adequate to achieve a mandate of environmental protection and sustainable use in the Arctic. The council must allow for representation of indigenous groups' interests thus far not included in the AEPS process.

With regard to observers, the declaration should establish the criteria for observer status within the charter, and accreditation procedures should allow for the granting of permanent observer status to non-Arctic countries, international organizations, and non-governmental organizations that can provide meaningful and constructive contributions to the process.

The organizational structure for the council should also ensure that sustainable development is not treated separately from environmental protection. The council charter should outline mechanisms for integration between the two.

The role of northern peoples in the Arctic is a fundamental one. Canadian aboriginal peoples, as well as other international aboriginal groups, should be given the widest possible participation on the council. It is essential that all interested aboriginal groups be able to participate in the deliberations and decision-making processes of the Arctic Council. The number of permanent participants currently suggested for the council should be re-examined with a view to its expansion or to alternative arrangements to secure broader participation.

There must be mechanisms for incorporating the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples, such as projects like the Gwitchin traditional ecological knowledge project, which WWF Canada is helping to support.

.1615

The next topic of discussion I'd like to address is in regard to legal issues in the Arctic. The following are a few specific examples of our recommendations for international legal agreements.

Legal mechanisms are needed to address the land-based activities that meet the standards of the Oslo and Paris conventions for the prevention of marine pollution and adopt its key principles: the principle of precautionary action, the polluter-pays principle, and the principle of best environmental practice for point and diffuse sources. Russia should also be urged to sign OSPAR.

Conventions such as MARPOL, the marine pollution convention, must be strengthened and employed by all members of the council. Arctic governments should urge the protection of the Arctic marine environment working group to develop a proposal to designate the Arctic Ocean as a special area under the MARPOL 1973 and 1978 conventions, taking into account the increasing shipping traffic in the Arctic. As chair of the PAME working group, Canada will be key in moving this forward.

The implementation of specific initiatives under the AEPS will help Canada to meet its legal obligations under the UN Conference on Environment and Development and other international agreements, such as the climate convention, the Washington conference on land-based activities, Agenda 21, the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, and the conservation and management of straddling fish stocks and highly migratory fish stocks.

The final area on which I will comment is that of the need for cooperation for sustainable development and an environmental clean-up. There is much pressure to pursue economic development in the Arctic. In fact, the very way in which this issue is addressed is somewhat paradoxical. Sustainable development in the Arctic must mean that environmental degradation does not occur in the first place, not that mitigation efforts and a clean-up will occur once the damage has been done.

There are some concerns over how to deal with potential conflicts between sustaining traditional resources and livelihoods and promoting new forms of development that are more capital-intensive. This is an important question, and one that is difficult to resolve.

Currently, the council's charter states that participants should cooperate with a view to maintaining or raising the standard of living for Arctic inhabitants. The Inupiat Eskimos of Alaska's north slope argue that the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge should be open to oil and gas exploration in order to maintain their standard of living, while the Gwitchin people maintain that their survival depends on the caribou that use the coastal plain to calf and that the caribou are more important than money.

This type of argument can only be successfully reconciled by the Arctic Council if the emphasis is placed on quality of life rather than standard of living. Quality of life would include health and cultural aspects, rather than using more conventional measurements of material wealth.

Current environmental assessment procedures are not adequate to protect the vulnerable Arctic environment. Proposals for a diamond mining project in the central Arctic illustrate this inadequacy, as they are being considered without regard to the cumulative impacts of the mining initiatives that are likely to be launched in the Northwest Territories over the next few years.

Assessments of impact must take into account environmental effects not only of the developments themselves, but also of the increased infrastructure that will be required in association with these developments. For example, there will be roads and highways, as well as hydro developments to satisfy increased power requirement.

Developments must be viewed in a broad regional context, not merely case by case. Their transboundary impacts should also be considered, as in the case of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Tourism is another area whose effects have not been carefully considered. Currently, tourism in the Arctic is solely a domestic issue. For this fragile ecosystem there need to be international guidelines, which WWF has been working to develop with a wide variety of stakeholders.

The second ministerial conference on the Arctic environmental protection strategy of the eight countries in the Arctic, which was held in Nuuk, Greenland, affirmed the need for the development of environmental impact assessment practices.

Finally, should the Arctic develop the capacity to apply multilateral standards of environmental sustainability to domestic situations within its member countries? International standards are important for the Arctic. Priority areas for these standards should be identified. Two such areas would include oil and gas developments, and forestry projects.

There is an urgent need for the development and implementation of stringent guidelines for oil and gas activities.

.1620

With regard to forestry, Arctic governments should endorse an independent, voluntary certification of forests, for example, by the Forest Stewardship Council, in order to achieve the sustainable management of northern timberline forests.

The next decade will be crucial to determining the future of the Arctic. Whether we can proceed into the next century with a healthy, intact Arctic ecosystem with abundant wildlife populations that can support traditional indigenous social and economic structures or whether the Arctic is degraded due to shortsighted economic interests will be determined in large part by the ability of Arctic nations to cooperate and coordinate their activities.

With regard to the Arctic Council specifically, if the basic issues of environmental protection, sustainable use and full participation of indigenous peoples are not satisfactorily resolved, the WWF believes the council runs the risk of pursuing a fragmented agenda, which will fail to offer a sustainable future for the Arctic.

The establishment of the Arctic Council is an historic event. We must be confident that the council will strengthen and clarify ongoing circumpolar efforts, such as the AEPS, not weaken them. We must be assured that sustainable development means development that sustains the Arctic environment and its peoples.

Finally, all interests must be welcome in an open process.

If these points are addressed, then Canada and the other Arctic nations can be proud of the significant step forward they will take toward giving the Arctic region the special attention it deserves.

I hope these comments have been useful and that they will aid you in developing your recommendations. I would urge you to contact me if you have further questions. Thank you for your time and your interest in obtaining input from a wide variety of groups.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you. I think your comments were very useful. I'd like to thank you for these very well researched reports. I think you've made a great number of very definite recommendations we can comment on or draw out from you.

I'd like to ask any of the members whether they have any questions. Mrs. Debien.

[Translation]

Mrs. Debien (Laval-East): Welcome to our committee. My question is for the three representatives, but I would first like to make an observation, which might be validated by my colleagues who recently went to the Arctic, both Eastern and Western.

Your presentations are much more complex than those we have heard thus far, but the main concern of those we met, especially the Inuit, is environmental issues, simply because they feel the effects of the deteriorating environment in the food chain and in their own food.

Personally, I was nearly stunned in Resolute Bay, one evening as we attended a graduation ceremony, when I saw mothers giving the bottle to their infants. I was very shocked to see that. We were told that breast milk was very contaminated with chemical pollutants, mercury and some other mineral.

That really struck me. Here, it is the exact opposite. Young mothers are encouraged to breastfeed, whereas in the Arctic, what they were doing seemed perfectly normal and natural. They are so scared of breastfeeding their babies that they now feed them with milk from the South, if you will.

.1625

What you said really impressed me, because you said exactly what Inuit representatives told us. They are very concerned about environmental issues.

Huge development projects are being planned for the Arctic. For example, Falconbridge will soon be mining nickel near Kuujjuaq.

Some places have already been highly contaminated by former mining projects and have not been restored.

There is so much work to be done in the Arctic that I wonder where the Arctic Council should start. You seem to have very high hopes for the Arctic Council, but from what we have seen, from what you have told us and from what other witnesses have told us during our hearings, I wonder where the Arctic Council should start.

Given the extent of the problem, what should be the Arctic Council's main tasks or objectives? I must admit I feel powerless because of the enormity of the tasks. So what should the priorities be for the Arctic? I really don't know the answer.

Should the Arctic Council start by cleaning up contaminated sites or by accepting new economic development projects, which are always supposed to be beneficial for Northerners, we are told, but are really more beneficial to Southerners?

I know that there is a hotchpotch of ideas. So what should the Arctic council have as its priorities?

[English]

Mr. Jardine: There are two classes of major environmental problems in the Arctic. The first is problems the south imposes on the Arctic. Those are global problems such as climate change or persistent organic pollutants, for example, which are building up in mother's milk and other things. The Arctic Council can play a very major role in dramatizing the impact the world is having on the polar regions. People need to understand that there are truly global environmental problems and that when someone drives their car from Toronto to Ottawa it does have impacts on the global climate. It could cause a forest fire in the Northwest Territories. There is that kind of global connection. Or when we incinerate something here, it could end up in the food supply in Iqaluit.

So that's the first thing. The Arctic Council can play a very major role there.

The other thing is the issue the World Wildlife Fund especially has focused on and could probably speak more about, the proposals that are actually meant for the Arctic itself and trying to create some kind of credible global environmental standards people can adhere to.

Ms Climenhaga: You were speaking of contaminants. Certainly contaminants are one of the most serious issues for the Arctic.

As for priorities of the council, work has been done and is being done under the Arctic environmental protection strategy. We see the Arctic Council as strengthening and implementing the work that's already being done by the protection strategy.

For instance, one working group under the strategy is the Arctic monitoring and assessment program. Over the past five years they have been gathering data on the presence of contaminants in the Arctic - what sorts of contaminants there are. Now is the time for the council to build on those recommendations and to take action through other existing international agreements.

So we really feel that rather than starting new projects, they should move forward on the work that has already been done.

.1630

Ms Comeau: The hope I have for the Arctic Council is that it will establish itself as a presence in defence of the Arctic, a political presence - and that's what we're lacking. You don't see either Arctic representation or indigenous representation basically getting to the point Kevin mentioned, which is the southern impact on the north: demanding that the south take responsibility, demanding that we have international protocols on persistent organic pollutants, sulphur dioxide, and greenhouse gas emission reductions. We need a political presence.

So while it's very important that local issues be dealt with, issues related to contaminants and existing problems, the real role for the Arctic Council, for me, is a political presence that gets the issues on the agenda and starts to articulate those interests in every form possible. That's what I'm lacking. That's what I'm not seeing yet.

You don't get that when Minister Marchi goes and makes a representation internationally. You don't get that from Anne McLellan. We don't have that representation. So I'm hoping this is a forum where we can start to bring those interests forward.

If we don't get a public profile that starts to demand responsibility, and perhaps in some cases even compensation, for impacts.... For example, under the climate change convention there's a global environment facility. If northern communities were in developing countries, they could apply to that fund for financing to help them adapt to climate change. They could apply to that fund for projects to invest in sustainable energy development. Canadian northern communities cannot apply to that fund, and they are just as affected by these issues, through no fault of their own, as any of the countries in the Caribbean or in Africa.

So I think the issue is one of responsibility and this council should be calling for the southern communities...and for responsibility to be taken within our own governments.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Assadourian.

Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Chairman, first of all, I'm sorry I was late. I was in another committee.

When we went to the northwest last week, as was mentioned by my honourable colleague, I think it was in Yellowknife that one person stated that no matter what you do, when you build something there is environmental damage. He even mentioned that when the building we were sitting in was built, obviously there was damage. The building we are sitting in now, when it was built, 80 or 100 years ago, caused some damage to the environment here in this area.

How do you measure the benefits and damage of the development we do, keeping in mind that, as you stated, aboriginal people don't want to see a standard of living, but rather they want to see the quality of their own lives improve? How would you make the balance there? What kind of measurement would you use? What is acceptable, what is not acceptable, for the aboriginal people?

Ms Comeau: There is a presumption that there's a trade-off. Nothing I've seen, and I've worked on this issue extensively now for six years and looked very deeply into the economic analysis around ``if we do this''.... The threat has always been if we reduce greenhouse gas emissions we're going to destroy the economy, for example.

The reality is completely the opposite. A lot of myth-making goes on around this by status quo power interests that don't want to change the way they do business. The reality is sustainability is about providing services.

For example, we talk about energy. The presumption is that everybody has the right to a certain amount of per capita emissions. That is completely untrue. We have the right to energy services. The goal, whether it's in the north or the south, is to provide services with the least impact on local or global environments. And it can be done. You can build buildings that absolutely can provide all of their own energy internally.

So the problem - and this is continually happening in the north as well - is you're building buildings to standards and they leak like sieves. For example, on the climate change issue, most of the impact we're talking about - and I know this is generally true for most environmental problems, but I will stick to energy only - most of the energy we use is wasted. The internal combustion engine in our car is about 25% efficient. Electricity is generated at coal plants at 30% efficiency. We can generate the energy services we need at efficiencies far higher than that - at 80%, 90%, 100% efficiencies.

.1635

So for us the issue for us is not trading off quality of life. In fact, it's guaranteeing quality of life, ensuring that people have access to services without their children being exposed to asthma or pollutants in terms of particulates, and so on. Our view is completely focused on dismantling these myths because in fact they're just not real.

For example, we had the Prime Minister in Fort McMurray yesterday announcing $4 billion in oil sands development. They were very proud about their 44,000 jobs. I've done an analysis for the Climate Action Network, of which Kevin and I are a part, by Informetrica, the same consultant that did the analysis for the oil sands. What we found, with the same investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy in Canada, was that we could create 1.5 million jobs over the same time period.

So it's not a matter of trade-offs. It's a matter of what kind of development we want, how we want to proceed, and how we ensure the least impact.

Mr. Jardine: I also want to get back to the local versus global issue. I think it is the case that most of the environmental damage that is caused in the Arctic is caused by the south. It's not caused by development in the Arctic itself. We have to start changing our behaviour here in the south to prevent that damage from occurring.

The Arctic can also play a very important role in pioneering a lot of solutions. To focus again on climate change, most of the electricity in the Arctic and the sub-Arctic is generated using very expensive, very polluting diesel generators. A couple of months ago there was a huge spill in Igloolik: 100,000 litres of very polluting diesel fuel spilled on the power plant and the local community. That caused environmental damage in a local way.

There are a lot of opportunities for pioneering renewable energy sources, such as wind or solar electricity, which are very cost-effective. A lot of people think of the Arctic as a place that's dark half of the year. Well, it's also light half of the year and in the summer it gets more sunlight than southern California. There's a great potential for Canada to pioneer cost-effective, renewable energy resources in the Arctic and the sub-Arctic and then transfer that technology around the world.

One of the things Greenpeace would very much like the Arctic Council to take on is a project to introduce renewable energy technology into the north, to pioneer it here in all eight Arctic countries, and then to transfer that technology further south when it becomes more cost-effective because it's been pioneered. The more it gets used, the further the price will drop.

Ms Climenhaga: The last thing I'd like to add to address the question is that we've stressed that we think there needs to be development of very strong environmental impact assessment guidelines, which would help assess how much impact the project would have. In the example you're talking about, you would look at what the impacts would be if a building were to be constructed.

You would also need to have a great deal of local involvement because the community where you're building the construction is where the impact would be felt.

The third point is that you need to consider the cumulative impacts. If this building gets built, does that mean there are going to be five subsequent supporting facilities built around it? Does that mean there's going to be a road constructed into it?

You really need to consider all aspects of that development, not just whether building one building will provide one job. There are really a lot of things involved with that.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much.

[Translation]

Mr. Paré.

Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): First of all, I would like to say that I find you very bold to take on the pollution problem. Obviously, countries from the South, the industrialized nations or those becoming industrialized are the ones responsible for the pollution.

First of all, do you think your efforts are being channelled correctly if it is the southern countries that are responsible for the pollution problems in the North?

Secondly, and this certainly doesn't add to my meager optimism, given the trend towards neo-liberalism throughout the world, which encourages competitiveness between and against everyone and which promotes globalization, on the one hand, and since, on the other hand, the governments are withdrawing from every sector, aren't we leaving ourselves open to the possibility that multinationals will totally take over the environment?

Thirdly, if we really do want aboriginals to be responsible for their own development, as they know more about sustainable development than we do, do you think it would be a good idea to give them a veto on any project in the North? Those who wanted to start up a project would have to recognize that Northerners could veto it.

.1640

[English]

Ms Comeau: I'll start with the last question. Land claims negotiations will in fact require that companies negotiate with indigenous communities before projects go ahead, so that's one of the advantages of the land claims process. And they should have a veto, absolutely. There's no doubt about that. It should be their own development that's pursued, and not imposed on them.

As to your question about the north and the south, we are focusing on and working with southern governments. That is where the emissions are coming from and that is where the problem is. But I'm arguing that the north needs to defend its interests in terms of impact. They're getting all the impact and they're not defending their interests.

When I was in Yellowknife at the Mackenzie River Basin workshop that released the results of a six-year study, the attitude was very fatalistic: ``Well, here's another one that we didn't do anything about and that we can't do anything about. We'll just accept it and try to adapt.''

What I've been trying to encourage - and I will be going through the north, hopefully this fall, speaking to communities to try to bring this issue to them - is that in fact no, this issue is not inevitable, as have been many of the other issues they're now faced with, and that they have to begin to defend their political interests. So the northern issue we're focusing on is the issue of impacts, but they can also contribute to the solutions.

It's a kind of indirect route, if you will, as Kevin mentioned. When we look at the global situation on climate change, for example, the real opportunities globally to change global energy systems are in the developing countries. Even though currently we're contributing more to the pollution of the atmosphere, developing countries will contribute more in the long term if we don't help them develop more sustainably. They need to leapfrog, if you will, over the fossil fuel phase we've been through.

So in fact, just as that's the case on the climate change debate globally, it's the case in Canada. Much of the new development is likely to happen up north, and that's where some real opportunities are, given the price of diesel fuel, for example, to get solar energies in there on a cost-effective basis and bring the costs down. So there are some opportunities for the north to develop sustainably and to begin to defend its interests.

With respect to the transnational corporations, it's clearly a problem. The whole issue of globalization is a problem. The whole issue of moving away from domestic national standard-setting to voluntary agreements is a problem.

We're working at a variety of levels. It's my view that it's not an impossible situation. For example, there are fifty transnational companies in the world responsible for 50% of global carbon dioxide emissions. There are eight to ten car manufacturers in the world. Most of them are in the G-7. So agreements to pursue standards in those countries - again, coming back to our own countries - can be pursued, can be completed, can be negotiated and can have an impact on800 million cars around the world, through negotiations within the G-7.

Those processes have to be pursued, and we are pursuing them. The climate change negotiations include assessing agreements that could be signed for international cooperation. We're looking at fuel economy standards for vehicles, changes in the electricity sector and so on. We are looking at standard-setting that would be agreed upon within the context of the negotiations themselves.

Mr. Jardine: The Arctic Council has a unique role to play, because it is not only representing the north; it's also representing the south. We have to remember that the eight countries on the Arctic Council, whether it's Russia, the United States, Canada or various representatives of the European Union, are also the countries creating the greenhouse gas problem, primarily. They're the countries emitting the persistent organic pollutants and so on.

So one of the reasons Greenpeace is very interested in the Arctic Council is that it's not only an organization that can represent the interests of an area that has been very much affected by global environmental destruction, but it's also made up of the very countries that are causing most of the problem.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Speller.

Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I know we're short on time. I just have a short question and a comment.

.1645

I just want to say I appreciate the presentations of all three of you, especially of Ms Comeau, who suggested the emphasis should be on the international role the Arctic Council may play in bringing some of these issues forward.

It might be argued, though, that what countries might do if this does become a political force is to move back in certain areas. Some of the larger and more powerful countries in the world, such as Canada, the United States and Russia, may leave these sorts of issues to the Arctic Council and withdraw from some of these issues. This might be a concern.

It seemed to me the issues we heard about related to the environment in the north weren't really those sorts of issues Greenpeace Canada was talking about. I'm not sure people in the north might not see this as you sort of using the north as an excuse to put forward some of your own issues and your own agenda.

I'm wondering what sort of coordination and cooperation you're having with the peoples of the north. I know when we were in the eastern Arctic we heard quite a bit about Greenpeace Canada, especially. They weren't favourable comments. In fact, if we'd had somebody there from Greenpeace Canada, I'm sure they would have thrown us out.

Kevin, I'm wondering what coordination and cooperation you're having with people in the north, because they don't seem to be talking about the same issues you're talking about.

Mr. Jardine: First of all, in the last few months I've spent a fair amount of time in Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories and on the western side in the Mackenzie Valley. I have found people are very concerned about climate change. They often don't describe it this way. They describe it as drought, as dropping water levels. They describe it as forest fires. They describe it as a whole series of changes that don't necessarily tie into the global impact we are looking at. Nevertheless, they are very concerned about this.

People in Fort Norman and Norman Wells who were evacuated last summer are very concerned about the impact of climate change, although they may not describe it this way.

Secondly, I think it really is true Greenpeace is demonized by the people of the eastern Arctic. This is partly because of mistakes Greenpeace may have made in the past. Largely it's because Greenpeace has been blamed for things animal rights organizations have done in Europe.

Greenpeace supports aboriginal hunting and trapping. Greenpeace supports aboriginal whaling and sealing. We do not oppose it. We never have opposed it. Nevertheless, because we are the best-known environmental organization in Canada and because we are one of the best-known environmental organizations in the world, environmental issues and actions taken by a whole variety of groups are often attributed to us.

I just wanted to clear this up. I think it is something that needs to continue to be cleared up wherever there is the opportunity. We don't object to the sustainable use of resources in the Arctic. As one of our former staff once said, you can't grow potatoes up there. If you're in the north you can't grow crops; you can't have a garden. You have to live off the land. This often means living off seals and other animals that exist there.

Ms Climenhaga: Just to add to that, I definitely agree. Among the people I've talked to there are certainly many negative attitudes toward environmental groups because they are associated with animal rights and anti-sealing types of problems.

Contaminants are a big concern. I imagine this is something you heard often. Some of the issues we've talked about more in a policy sense really relate to the problem of contaminants in the Arctic. Some of the things the World Wildlife Fund is lobbying for in regard to marine pollution prevention and Arctic monitoring and assessment do relate to contaminant concerns.

Finally, I would like to add something that is also a little bit of an answer to the other question about a veto for aboriginal peoples. Right now on the Arctic Council there are only three aboriginal groups represented. I believe it is the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council, and the association of indigenous peoples in the far east of the Russian federation. One of the things the World Wildlife Fund is pressing for is the full participation of other indigenous groups not represented right now. I think this will be an important step in hearing the concerns of the people who live there and deal with the problems.

.1650

Ms Comeau: I just wanted to say something quickly on the question you raised about us using the north to pursue our own issues.

Yes, the issues immediately facing them are first and foremost issues of persistent organic pollutants, mining contaminants, radioactive contaminants and so on - absolutely. But we did go up north and the people I've been working with through the Métis, the Dene, the Gwitchin, Inuit Tapirisat, the Inuit Circumpolar Conference and the Polar Commission all know climate change is on their agenda. But they don't have the expertise. In fact, when I've approached them about the tour they've been extremely pleased to have someone come up and speak to them.

My role is to provide information, not to tell them this is their issue. The goal is for them to take on the issue and defend their interest. All I'm trying to do is provide the information I have. It is up to them to decide whether or not they're going to take it on. My hope is this is what will happen, but it has to be owned by them before they'll begin to become politically involved.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you very much.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): I would like to continue where Mr. Speller left off. Like Mr. Paré, I certainly admire your enthusiasm and your determination to defend environmental causes in the Far North, and your determination to fight any form of pollution and to prevent climatic change.

You also talked about protecting the resources for aboriginals. But the Northerners reacted quite negatively when various environmental groups intervened and when they realized the consequences they could have on their traditional ways of life such as hunting and trapping, especially seal hunting. The Inuit we met were very distrustful of environmental groups, sometimes to the point of being arrogant.

So I feel the same way Mr. Speller does. Perhaps bridges should be rebuilt between environmental groups and aboriginals, who often feel used by environmental groups for the benefit of those groups and not for their own benefit.

That being said, since Mr. Speller has already asked the question, I will move onto something else.

We are fully aware of the fact that there is no pollution that is inherent to the North. That pollution is the result of interventions from the South, be it by transposing their lifestyle to the North, or by some polluting products flying from the southern countries.

Those pollutants come from traditional energy sources: coal, nuclear energy, nuclear fusion.

New sources of energy must be found so that the very fragile habitat of the North is not affected by energy developments in the South.

I mentioned coal, oil and nuclear fusion. Canada and other countries are coming up with new forms of energy, such as nuclear fusion.

There is a research project going on in Canada, the tokamak project in Varennes, and the federal government is planning to cut its subsidy.

Given that, how do you think new energy sources can be developed so as to prevent atmospheric pollutants from reaching the North, thereby causing climatic changes?

[English]

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Who wants to begin?

Mr. Jardine: About a month and a half or two months ago I was at a very important workshop in Yellowknife. All the major players in the energy industry of the Northwest Territories were gathered: the chair of the electric utility, the chair of the public utilities board, representatives of the department of energy, and representatives of the renewable energy industry.

.1655

What I found very inspiring was that there was a great deal of interest in implementing renewable energy sources, in part because it saves money but also because it reduces environmental degradation. Already a number of wind turbines have been set up at Cambridge Bay. There's a large potential for wind in the eastern Arctic, so there is a big potential.

This is where the Arctic Council could play a very important role in creating an infrastructure for building these renewable energy resources around the Arctic region, because it's cost-effective to do so, and therefore increasing the market for renewable energy sources around the world and reducing the price everywhere.

In Canada alone, for example, there are about 300 communities that are off the grid, mostly in the sub-Arctic and the Arctic, and 200,000 people live in those communities. Although there's a small amount of hydro electricity, it's mostly diesel fuel, very polluting and the source of a large amount of greenhouse gases. Those communities could cost-effectively go to wind, and in many cases solar. We should start that process now.

Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): You've spoken with a great deal of documentation and authority on issues such as global warming, toxic waste, and deterioration of the Arctic environment, and one of you concluded that if nothing is done, in a matter of two, three, or four years it will be too late.

It's interesting that some of the people we've met in the north, among both the Inuit and the researchers, tell us - to begin with the researchers when we were at the polar shelf project - that we know precious little. These are the people who have been there for 30 years, in and out, with the best of science. They made a candid confession of a lack of knowledge. Indeed, in your own charts there is a big hole. There is no knowledge there. How can we be so sure that in two or three years' time the region will face disaster? That's the assessment of scientists.

Secondly, when you talk to the Inuit - and I reach back to Mr. Speller's comments - what do they talk about? They talk about housing, the high cost of living in the Arctic, taxes, decentralization - and I'm thinking of Nunavut - and power in Iqaluit while they are spread around immense surfaces.

Of course they talk indirectly about the environment when they talk about their uncertainly about health because they've heard you. Then they say ``What is most troublesome about all the things we hear is that we really don't know. We don't know whether that food is good or not. We don't know whether that scientist is right or not.'' Indeed, there is evidence that there is a great deal of...perhaps ``suspicion'' is too strong a word, but of doubts, of questioning about the environmental groups. They say ``The only thing we really trust is our own experience, that of the elders, our traditional knowledge. That we trust.''

How do you react to that? How can you be so certain about what you put forward, and how can you be so pressing in terms of the needs of these people and in terms of the deadlines we face?

Ms Climenhaga: I'll talk first, because I'm the one who said that the next decade will be crucial to determining the future of the Arctic.

.1700

I guess the reason we're talking about the fairly short term is that right now there is a lot of interest in developing the Arctic, in different oil and gas projects. It's how we deal with the coming economic developments that is going to determine how the Arctic appears.

So I'm not saying in the next two years global warming is going to melt all the sea ice. I'm not trying to be that dramatic or catastrophic. But we do feel the way we address and proceed with developments will determine the future of the Arctic and in what state the region survives.

Mr. Dupuy: I may just put a question mark here. I don't pretend to know very much about the Arctic, but I know a fair bit about oil and gas. I would be extremely surprised, unless there was another catastrophic increase in oil and gas prices, if over the next ten years or so the supply and demand on oil and gas would surge in such a way, demand vis-à-vis supply, that these deposits, which do exist and which are being researched, will be exploited, simply because of the high cost of transportation and the state of development of technologies to bring product out of the Arctic.

So while I appreciate and I welcome your concern - to be concerned is the right frame of mind - I doubt the oil and gas industry is the major threat or concern with pollution flowing from the south to the north.

Mr. Jardine: I spent a couple of years in Calgary working on oil and gas issues and I've been following the development along the Mackenzie Valley with considerable interest. Exploratory drilling is happening in Fort Liard and Fort McPherson, and I know the Gwitchin are especially concerned about the activities around Fort McPherson, because they're quite aware of the impact of the oil industry on the North Slope in Alaska. The National Energy Board official projections for the price of natural gas are that the price will double in the next ten years, because gas supplies are actually quite limited in Canada - in fact, far more limited than many people realize. So the oil industry has a lot of good reasons for being in the Arctic.

Whether in fact the National Energy Board projections are correct is not clear at this point. It could be that new supplies of gas will be found in the western Canada sedimentary basin. But it also may be that the projections are right, that we are running out of oil and gas resources in the south and we will have to go to the Arctic if we continue to consume fossil fuels at the rate we are.

I wanted to address the other issue you raised, about the suspicion native people have about western science. I think that suspicion is perfectly natural and understandable and a good thing. And traditional knowledge is extremely important, not only from the point of view of the people who live there but in fact from the point of view of people around the world. One of the roles the Arctic Council can play is to collect that traditional knowledge.

Over the last few months I have gone through testimony after testimony by many people, again especially Gwitchin, who have been observing the impact of climate change on their communities, the impact of drought, the impact of forest fires, and so on and have spoken out very dramatically about what that means to them. What I showed you today was a bunch of scientific charts that in fact predict a very grim future, but what I think is equally important, and probably more important, is to get the traditional knowledge, the testimonies of the people who have lived through climate change and who have a much better understanding than scientists of what the projected climate change that climate scientists are talking about will really mean for the people of the north. That's a role the Arctic Council could and should play.

Ms Comeau: Could I follow up on your issue of uncertainty? I do have here a backgrounder I put together on the Mackenzie Basin impact study. It's based on the workshop Kevin and I attended in Yellowknife. That study is one of the first of its kind to include traditional knowledge. Over the course of three days there were a half-dozen panels, which included representatives from the Gwitchin, the Dene, the Métis, the Inuit, the Inuvialuit. They spoke in their own words about what they were seeing. That's what I've included in the backgrounder.

.1705

On the issue of environmental groups and our work with the north, that is our work, and we are doing that work. You'll see that in that backgrounder. Every single person on that list as a contact person agreed to be a contact person to speak about the issue in terms of their own communities.

About my own work in the north, the tour I'm planning in the fall, the Dene are working with me to organize my tour. Rosemarie Kuptana is working with me to organize my tour.

So that is our work, and we continue to do that work. But I think the issue behind that work is that we bring what we have, and we do have a lot of scientific information. It's up to the communities to decide.

The issue of certainty and uncertainty is very clearly an important one. No, we can't predict the future. We don't know with complete certainty. But we know with pretty good confidence that given certain things happening in the atmosphere, the climatologists say we're into some serious business. The latest scientific assessment doesn't back away from that. We've had three assessments now that have increasingly strengthened their concern about those issues.

So during our visit to the north, what happened when we spoke to the indigenous communities was ``We know something is going on, but we don't know what's going on''. They were appreciative of the information we brought.

So yes, certainly there are some issues with the Inuit. I don't think it applies to all environmental groups. On our part it very much reflects our responsibility to be careful, to be respectful, to be informed, and to play a resource role, not a ``we're telling you what your problems are'' role. I think we're very conscious of that and we're being very careful.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Sauvageau.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): I have two questions. My first is for the three excellent witnesses we have with us today. My question is on a key point raised in your presentations: pollution.

All three of you seem to have great hopes for the Arctic Council, and I hope everyone here feels the same way. However, right from the start, we have heard that decisions will be made on a consensus basis, that the topics to be discussed and the priorities will be determined through a consensus and that member countries of the Arctic Council will include the United States, Canada and Russia.

If all countries have to reach a consensus, do you think Americans are going to encourage environmental protection because they fear, as the Russians do, pollution and military activities will be banned in the Arctic? Could the very process used by the Arctic Council actually inhibit it from fulfilling its mandate?

My second question is more for the Greenpeace representatives who, if I understood correctly, said they had made a mistake in their anti-fur lobbying, especially in Europe. We read a 1986 government report which said that after consulting the North, government representatives were told: ``We would like the federal government to do some lobbying to lift the fur boycott in Europe''. The government responded as follows: ``Since the Aboriginals are experts on this, we will leave it to them''. I remember seeing two fairly punchy Greenpeace ads. Knowing the lobbying that Greenpeace does throughout the world and especially in Europe, the campaign became very passionate.

If the decision had been made after a consensus had been reached, as Nellie Cournoyea had asked us during our visit to Yellowknife, one of the Arctic Council's goals should be to try to stop Europe's boycott of fur products.

Since you say you may have made a mistake in the past, can we count on Greenpeace's support to help aboriginals lift the boycott in Europe? Is that what you meant?

[English]

Mr. Jardine: I'm a climate campaigner, so I'm going to have to be careful and measured in my comments. We do have biodiversity people and people who work on marine mammals.

I will say that in the early 1980s Greenpeace U.K. briefly ran a campaign opposing fur. There was an uproar around the Greenpeace world. We have an internal body called the Stichting Greenpeace Council, which is the governing body of the organization. The council decided that Greenpeace would not work on fur, that we are not an animal rights organization, and that we had no opposition to the fur industry. At that point the U.K. campaign was shut down and a number of people who were involved in that actually left the organization.

.1710

Since that period, 1984 I believe, Greenpeace has not campaigned on fur in any way. We did campaign against the hunting of seals because of Norwegian large-scale industrial sealing that was happening in Newfoundland when the Norwegian ships came in and hired Newfoundlanders to collect the seal pelts. We campaigned against that for good reason. We have not campaigned against sealing in other locations, to my knowledge, certainly not in Canada. We haven't campaigned on sealing in Newfoundland for about ten years.

There may in fact be a role for the Canadian government, or perhaps the Arctic Council, to get that message out. World Wildlife Fund and Greenpeace have appeared in the media numerous times over the last year or so about sealing in Canada. I remember Steve Shallhorn, our campaign director in Canada, was on the CBC with a representative of the World Wildlife Fund, both people saying very strongly we are not campaigning against sealing in Canada - in fact, at this point not anywhere, to my knowledge.

I hope it puts it clearly on the record. We are certainly open to being approached, whether it's by the Arctic Council or by other bodies, to deal with that issue more.

Ms Comeau: I'm being careful, because obviously the council is being set up in a cooperative framework. I'm also a member of the joint public advisory committee for the Commission for Environmental Cooperation that was set up under the NAFTA environmental side agreement. That too does primarily operate on a consensus basis. It does make things difficult, but it does have a back-up position where two out of three ministers can vote to move forward. But the primary goal is one of consensus.

I think in many ways we have no choice but to move along this front. I have no expertise whatsoever to speak on demilitarization issues or what the implications might be there, so I won't. But there's a public-private process, if you will. It's important that governments work toward consensus and seek common ground. In my view, though, that is not an excuse for the lowest common denominator or for inaction.

The issues around public participation and public profile are critically important to this issue, because if the council operates in isolation, without consultation, without input from outside, and without pressure, then they won't be moved to reach consensus. So it's a very public-private process, one that needs the full team at the table in order for it to work well. Consensus in and of itself is not going to get you what you need, but you do have to think about the issues around public participation, consultation.

The Commission for Environmental Cooperation.... As a JPAC member, we've worked very hard to look for ways to ensure exposure to the public of what the commission is doing, the kinds of information or the programs we're working on, seeking feedback and input from the public. It's that kind of exposure that I think is critically important.

So yes, of course there should be worries about consensus. But I don't think we can avoid it.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: For Canada, it could be the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs or the Department of Foreign Affairs. In any event, an intervener can be found, but when there is a reference to a native voice, I wonder who is being referred to. How can we have adequate aboriginal representation?

.1715

[English]

Ms Climenhaga: Right now, as I said, there's the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council, and the Association of Indigenous Minorities of the North, Siberia and the Far East of the Russian Federation. Those are three groups represented on the council right now.

A number of other groups are not represented yet. Two examples are the Athabaskans and the Aleuts of Alaska. There are indigenous groups that should have a voice. There should be more exploration, if they're not to be permanent participants, of how their participation is going to be ensured. We feel that has not been fully explored.

Ms Comeau: Consultation is so important that it should be self-designed, if you will. The process for consultation shouldn't be determined by me here; it should be determined by the groups in the north telling the council how they want to participate. The responsibility of the council is to reach out to the communities to ensure that the people who live in those communities are at least approached regarding an opportunity. It's up to them then to feed back.

The initial effort has to come from the council to reach out, but it should be a self-designed process so there's buy-in for that consultation process. If it's imposed on them, you're not going to have your participation.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Let me ask a final question. We often have heard the term ``environmental security''. I was wondering if you use the term and what meaning you attach to it. Or do you not use the term because it is so general and lacks specificity?

Mr. Jardine: Greenpeace certainly does use the term ``environmental security''. We need to understand environmental problems as a threat to global security in the same way as the nuclear arms race was, for example, and in fact continues to be.

Environmental degradation is not only a threat to human health and to the structure of communities; it's a threat to the way many people live in the world. The degradation of the environment and climate change will have profound effects on the north.

It's also a security threat in a more traditional way. Rising sea levels could cause millions of environmental refugees. The spread of diseases and so on can also contribute to an upheaval in society. We can actually see an economic effect, an effect on lifestyle, an effect on population movements and so on.

All the effects that war, the traditional kind of war, imposes on people can also be seen as a result of environmental degradation. It's really the same threat to security, whether we're talking about war or the environment.

Ms Climenhaga: We agree with that, but we're also concerned that the council is referring to ``environmental security'' instead of ``environmental protection''. There needs to be a definition of what ``environmental security'' means instead of just saying we should have environmental security for the Arctic.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Mr. Speller, a final, short question.

Mr. Speller: I have a question for Sarah from the World Wildlife Fund.

I'm reading your press release, ``Guidelines for Arctic Tourism on the Way''. It says one of the things you want to do is ``a classification system for local Arctic communities such that they can market themselves as an environmentally responsible tourist destination''. How would that be classified? If you look at the environmental problems, a lot of them are outside of their control, especially those communities that might be close to a mining operation or to the dump site of military equipment or whatever. How would you classify an area?

Ms Climenhaga: I'm not the one working on this, so I can only give you preliminary information on it.

Basically it would be like a certification system, where there are criteria that the community would have to meet in order to market themselves as environmentally responsible. The criteria would not be based on what's around them. It wouldn't be whether the water around the community is contaminated or whether there is a mine nearby or these sorts of external issues, which are out of the control of the community. It would more be how the community is doing the tourism themselves.

For instance, if the community is undertaking a particular whale-watching operation, how do they undertake this whale-watching? Are they harassing the whales with their boats or are they staying a certain distance away from the whales? Are they ensuring that the tourists themselves are not having an impact on the environment? So it would really be what those in the community themselves are doing, not what they're suffering as a result of other problems beyond their control.

.1720

Mr. Speller: I guess I'm a little concerned about an outside group being able to sort of -

Ms Climenhaga: This is why these guidelines are not being written by the World Wildlife Fund. They're asking for input from those in the communities themselves. So I definitely agree with your point that it's something that has to be....

Mr. Speller: Thank you.

Ms Climenhaga: Sure.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): Thank you.

[Translation]

Mr. Sauvageau: Is there any aboriginal representation when your various associations carry out environmental studies in the North?

[English]

Ms Climenhaga: We have a few members of the board of World Wildlife Fund who are aboriginals. As far as the staff in the office, we don't have any, but we have consultations and we're trying to outreach more and more with conferences and visits to the north and that sort of thing.

Mr. Speller: Do you have any Inuit?

Ms Climenhaga: Are there any Inuit on our board?

Mr. Speller: Yes.

Ms Climenhaga: Yes. I can't tell you the name right now. We have invited other people, like Rosemarie Kuptana.

Mr. Speller: There are a lot of different aboriginals.

Ms Climenhaga: Yes.

Mr. Jardine: We don't keep track of the ethnic background of our supporters. We have about 200,000 in Canada, but we have no way of knowing which ones would be Inuit or Dene or whatever. Certainly we can tell how many people we have in various regions of the country. We do have quite a few members in the Northwest Territories. Whether they're native or not, I can't tell.

Ms Comeau: The same thing would apply to the Sierra Club in terms of its membership. Kevin and I are both part of a network called the Climate Action Network, which does have member groups from across the country, including groups in the north and including the Inuit Tapirisat.

Mr. Sauvageau: Thank you.

The Vice-Chairman (Mr. English): I'll just thank the witnesses for their testimony today. It has been very useful for our work. We probably will get back to you with some questions in the future. Thank you very much for bringing that additional material, which we'll consult as well. So on behalf of all the committee, I'd like to thank you for your visitation here today. Thank you very much.

The meeting is adjourned.

Return to Committee Home Page