[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, October 24, 1996
.0923 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please.
We will begin even though some members and witnesses are not here yet. I have been assured that they will be arriving momentarily.
This morning we have the pleasure of welcoming Mr. Michel Allard and Professors Paul Painchaud and Branko Ladanyi. I suggest that we begin with Mr. Allard.
Mr. Michel Allard (Director, Centre d'études nordiques, Laval University): Certainly, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: We usually ask the witnesses to speak for 10 minutes and we reserve as much time as possible for question period in order to be able to go into things more in depth.
Before giving you the floor, Mr. Allard, I'd like to say that yesterday I learned that the trip to Russia had been approved. I thank all the members for the support that they gave me. Believe me it was quite an experience to get approval for something that seemed so simple at the outset. In any case, thank you very much, everyone.
Mr. Allard, you have the floor.
Mr. Allard: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have for this occasion drafted a short brief which the clerk, Ms Hilchie, has probably distributed to you. I'm going to follow it quite closely, without reading it word for word, since you have it in front of you. I'll try to highlight the substance.
.0925
My brief proceeds from a particular point of view which is the importance of scientific research and training in the Canadian North. But since this committee deals with foreign affairs and international trade and my recommendations are mainly applicable within Canada I will nevertheless bring out certain links and emphasize that it is very important that we maintain the strength of our research within Canada if we want to continue to provide leadership and even have some influence in the international scientific and commercial fields.
My brief is entitled: ``Scientific Research and Training: Canada's Main Source of Strength vis-à-vis the Rest of the World''.
At this time when our government is carrying out an in-depth investigation of the possibility for Canada of increasing its leadership in circumpolar affairs, a multitude of important topics are simultaneously worthy of interest and consideration.
In the committee's terms of reference one can find a long list of things, among these the environment, health and a number of other topics. When I read it, it seemed very dense and I had trouble determining what its guiding principles might be. That is why I decided to use my own.
The Chairman: For the moment, you're in charge. We'll see what develops later.
Mr. Allard: Very well.
Carried out by departments and academics, Canadian scientific research in the North produced, especially from 1950 to 1989, ie during the cold war, spectacular results with investments that were in fact inferior to those made by the major powers. The current political situation in our northern regions is changing, in particular because of the increasing control exercised by native populations over all facets of their daily lives and political and economic power. These changes in turn are imposing changes in the way we do things. The growing power of our fellow citizens in the North also encourages us to open up to the outside and to develop trade and cultural relations in large part because our northern populations' ethnic, cultural and environmental characteristics are held in common with other populations in the circumpolar world.
In my opinion, no northern or circumpolar foreign policy in Canada will have tangible success if it is not based on the continuity of Canadian research in the North. But that research must heretofore also offer opportunities and possibilities for development: development in training, education, economic development and business opportunities for our northern populations.
This twofold perspective which advocates that we continue our research and create conditions favourable to northern populations means that we must continue to support research and training in the North if we want Canada to maintain its important place; we must at the same time renew ourselves and the way we do things in order to adapt to these new internal realities.
It is with this twofold perspective in mind that I will be making two simple and clear proposals to you this morning.
The first proposal I wish to submit to you is the creation of a new Canadian partnership program for northern research.
Everywhere in the world, not only in northern matters, the context of scientific research is evolving. Quite rightly, populations and their political leaders are making increasing demands to share in the educational, social and economic benefits of research. Our northern populations are not an exception in this regard. Their demands are very much in the mainstream of demands made by various populations who are now asking that research and development provide them with more immediate benefits.
.0930
At the same time, we are experiencing in Canada a contraction of the resources available for research, both in terms of funding and logistical means. This is a growing preoccupation that is shared by all concerned.
In all areas of research, partnerships are now being set up among interested groups and researchers; this is becoming the normal way of doing things. This is now one of the criteria in many subsidy programs for scientific organizations.
The time has probably come to adapt Canadian northern research to this evolving and new context. In fact, it may be timely for researchers themselves, as I am doing this morning, to propose new initiatives, emphasizing their expertise in realizing low-cost scientific projects which still provide significance spinoff benefits.
In the current context of political change and financial restrictions, governments and universities must co-operate to create a new dynamic by launching an original program to support Canadian northern research.
For instance, with a modest budget, let's say of a million dollars a year, it would be possible to set up about ten projects in the very first year. One could use as models programs which already exist, such as Eco-Research. My colleagues who have just arrived and whom you will be hearing later this morning take part in the Eco-Research program and in the NSERS partnership programs. By following those already existing models we could assure the best possible scientific quality as well as the validity of partnerships in these projects.
We could have a program which would be administered by departments and federal agencies such as the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs and the three granting councils. A research project on the order of $100,000 per year over three years is generally the norm.
We should encourage multidisciplinary research while allowing all disciplines to compete.
The projects would necessarily be proposed by teams made up of university researchers, scientists from departments and the private sector and members of northern communities who will have an important role to play in the realization of projects.
Scientific research projects involving international cooperation for instance by the United States, Russia or the European Economic Union could also be acceptable, on condition that the other countries also contribute to the program.
Some of the most important selection criteria might be the following: the financial contribution of all partners, as well as contributions in kind, including northern groups; the quality of the technical and scientific training which would be offered to young northerners and graduate students from the South; the quality of the multidisciplinary links within the scientific programming for each project; the quality of the co-operation proposed between the northern communities, the northern teaching and research institutions and the southern universities; the impacts and potentials spinoffs for the northern social groups; the spinoffs expected for the Canadian economy; the scientific impacts expected from the projects; and the probable impacts on Canada's positioning at the circumpolar and international levels.
I'll grant you that the selection criteria for research projects are numerous. Over the past few years, we have done our utmost to meet all of these criteria whenever we presented a proposal, and this has become the norm.
Programs such as Eco-Research have been in place and continue to exist. They're now in their final phase. These programs were focused on environmental research or very specific technological developments. I am referring for instance to the pharmaceutical industry, salvage technologies of the Sanivan type, and not to environmental technology at the basic research level.
The specific characteristics of northern areas were not at all a factor in those programs. Canada's northern territory endows it with a very significant feature which in itself largely justifies the priority it should be given in this period of socioeconomic and political reorganization of our country. Since we could have two three-year cycles we would probably have time to see to it that just about every part of the North and the majority of Canadian universities were given the opportunity of participating.
.0935
I will now go on to my second proposal which deals with the strengthening and expansion of existing programs to support logistics and training in the Canadian North.
Here I will be talking about two programs which already exist and are quite fundamental, i.e. the Polar Continental Plateau Study (PCPS), which we commonly refer to, even in French, as the Polar Shelf Study, and the Northern Scientific Training Program (NSTP) of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
The PCPS provides logistical support which most of the members of this committee are familiar with since they have visited its two bases. That organization provides material support and communications from its two bases.
In our opinion, these excellent services are only offered to a fraction of Canadian researchers who work in the Arctic Isles and around the Beaufort Sea, that is in the sector of the two bases, which means that a vast portion of the Canadian North is without organized logistics services. The services provided by that program are recognized worldwide for their excellence and efficiency.
The PCPS or Polar Shelf project, which has been in existence since 1950, is at the very origin of Canada's excellent scientific reputation in northern and Arctic studies. It is a model which is truly the envy of research organizations in all of the countries of the Arctic rim. Whether you go to the former Soviet Union, to the United States, Alaska, China or the Scandinavian countries, nowhere will you find another program that functions as well, that provides such integrated logistics to its national research as does the Polar Continental Plateau Study.
The Northern Scientific Training Program provides support to individual Canadian university students who go to the North to do research work, essentially for their masters and doctorates. It is a complementary program which only pays part of their expenses, and the average subsidy per student this year is $2,555. Your committee has been up North and I wonder whether you noticed the cost of your plane tickets. The grants are quite modest. The rest of the costs inherent to the students' field work...
The Chairman: [Inaudible]... the clouds. Not just intellectual, but...
Mr. Allard: That is another northern reality. But you went there during the summer.
The Chairman: Professor Allard, since we will be hearing five witnesses today, may I ask you to give us the highlights and perhaps let your colleagues provide us with further details?
Mr. Allard: I'm almost finished in any case.
I will conclude by making two recommendations.
I recommend that we increase the budget of the Polar Continental Plateau Study, which was to be reduced by 47 per cent in the course of the three fiscal years from 1995 to 1998, and - this is a new element - that its mandate be broadened to allow it to support, in cooperation with partners, research elsewhere than on the Arctic Isles and around the Beaufort Sea.
There are in fact research bases elsewhere in Canada, for instance in northern Quebec, that could effectively participate and profit from a partnership with the Polar Continental Plateau Study. The Canadian North would thus be better covered geographically and this would profit all northern researchers and communities and not just some of them, as is the case at the present time.
I also propose that you increase the budget of the Northern Scientific Training Program to its 1985 level which was approximately $825,000.
.0940
The investments discussed in this short brief total about $2 million. This amount represents but a small fraction of the investments Canada will have to make to assume the costs of developing circumpolar foreign affairs. It is a modest sum in comparison with the amounts that will no doubt be granted in assistance to circumpolar countries experiencing economic difficulties. And yet, that modest amount would ensure a solid foundation to Canada's circumpolar intervention capability.
Thank you very much.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Allard. As we had the opportunity of visiting several research centres during our trip, I'm sure that all the members of the committee are in full agreement with you about the need for investing in research.
I now want to welcome Professors Duhaime and Grondin who have just joined us. As I pointed out to the other witnesses, normally, we ask the witnesses to give a ten-minute introduction and we then use the remaining time for committee members to ask questions.
I will first of all give the floor to Professor Painchaud, and then to Professor Ladanyi.
Mr. Paul Painchaud (Professor, Laval University): I have put my watch, there, Mr. Chairman, in case you cannot stop me. I will try and stop myself.
As a first remark, I would like to say that the existence of this committee is a disgrace for Canada. Ah! Why? because it should not exist. It should not exist because Canada should have had a circumpolar foreign policy for such a long time that it should not be necessary in 1996 to take the trips that you have taken and convene members and experts to talk to you about the Arctic. All of this should have been done a long time ago. That is what I mean when I say that this committee is a disgrace for an Arctic country such as Canada.
The Chairman: Professor Painchaud, I accept your criticism with regard to the past, but I hope that you will have some praise for us, or at least for what we have undertaken.
Mr. Painchaud: Mr. Chairman, one can't build the future without an understanding of the failures of the past.
The Chairman: I agree.
Mr. Painchaud: Otherwise, you run the risk of producing another report that will be shelved somewhere, as others have in the past.
This is not the first time we have proposed that the federal government formulate a circumpolar foreign policy. I prefer that expression to ``Arctic foreign policy''.
The same recommendation was made to another committee in the 1980s, a joint committee of senators and members - from the Conservative Party at the time - and the government had agreed to include the North in its foreign policy following the report that had been presented by that committee. But nothing was done.
I remember a time when we used to go to the Department of External Affairs as it was called at the time and we would look for whomever was responsible for the Arctic at the Department. We would spend a long time looking and finally an underling would be produced who worked in the Danish subsection or something like that and he would say: ``Yes, on occasion, we do take an interest in circumpolar issues.''
Some steps have been taken recently. An ambassador for circumpolar affairs was appointed. That is a first step, but it is not at all sufficient. Within the structure of the Department of Foreign Affairs, there should be experts, people who focus on circumpolar matters, just as there are experts who are specialized, more or less, on China, Latin America, etc.
It is not the vocation of the Department of Foreign Affairs to develop overly narrow specializations. Nevertheless, you will within the Department of Foreign Affairs find, if you look around, a very competent China specialist in an embassy such as the Kinshasa embassy, for instance. It happens that the Department of Foreign Affairs uses its resources in that way.
.0945
There are no Arctic or circumpolar region specialists within that department. That is the first thing that needs to be said. With your permission, I will make more positive suggestions later, as you quite rightly would like me to do. How has it come to that? Why does our country, which is a great Arctic Power, not have a circumpolar foreign policy?
I will not give you a seminar on Canadian foreign policy. I simply want to say that Canada's foreign policy is characterized by the absence of geopolitical reflection. Rarely have we been able to frame our international interests in a geopolitical perspective.
We have done so in what we have traditionally called the North Atlantic triangle, but after that there have not been any further intellectual forays in Canada's reflection on foreign policy with a geopolitical dimension.
We are excellent when it comes to moralizing and championing lost causes, spreading our influence throughout the whole international system. That was indispensable and I acknowledge that. But Canadian thinking in this area lacks a geopolitical dimension which could also have influenced our defense policies. Our defense policy is sadly lacking from that point of view.
What exactly do I mean by geopolitical? I mean that the country's foreign policy or international policy will be inspired among others by geographical factors. Until quite recently Canada only belonged to one region in the world, the Arctic region. It is the only region to which Canada belongs.
I said until quite recently, because since we discovered Latin America, since NAFTA, Canadian diplomacy is beginning to take on a vertical slant rather than being horizontal as it had been until very recently. We can now say that we belong to the North American region. Perhaps we belong to the Americas region, but that remains to be seen. That does not yet seem all that clear.
There is at least one region within which we are present and which is important because of our geography, which was important in the cold war context for strategic reasons, and which remains important for all kinds of other reasons, and that is the Arctic.
I won't belabour that point, but it is quite obvious that we must change our way of thinking and this committee should contribute to that. Less moralizing, Mr. Chairman, less talk and more geopolitical reality. If the Arctic is seen in a geopolitical perspective, that will mean that we will not only be interested in the Arctic because of environmental problems, because of Aboriginal populations, the economic potential, etc., but essentially because the Arctic or the circumpolar region is the important region for Canada.
Kahn, the futurologist, used to say that Canada was a regional power without a region. What did he mean by that? A regional power in his jargon meant a medium power, a power without a region. But that isn't true. We have a region.
If we make the geopolitical choice of putting the Arctic in a central position - not the only region of concern, but in a central position - in our thinking on our foreign policy, that will mean that we will concentrate a whole series of problems that we are dealing with separately, such as, to begin with, the management of our relations with all of the countries of the circumpolar region.
I am very surprised to note, in analyzing Canada's foreign policy, that countries such as Scandinavian countries, that were what we used to call like-minded countries, have not received much attention in our foreign policy even though we have affinities and considerable similarities with them.
.0950
I am going to stop here because I believe I've used up my ten minutes. I would have other things to say to you, and proposals to make. I will make them later, if you have questions for me.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor Painchaud. I am sure that we will have questions for you on how we can put the Arctic in its proper place, where it should be in Canadian policy. I believe the members of this committee have chosen to carry out this study precisely because we agree with you. But we have a lot to learn in order to achieve that.
Mr. Bergeron (Verchères): Had Mr. Painchaud really used up his ten minutes? I would be quite interested in hearing the proposals he would like to make to the committee.
The Chairman: I am sure that we will have questions for him. If I understand correctly, Mr. Bergeron, you have a special link with Mr. Painchaud in that he used to be your professor. It is now your turn to ask him questions.
[English]
Mr. Assadourian (Don Valley North): So far he has succeeded.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Assadourian: We don't know...in two or three years' time, we'll see.
[Translation]
The Chairman: The committee is ashamed, professor, but the members of the committee are not ashamed, I hope.
Professor Ladanyi.
Mr. Branko Ladanyi (Professor Emeritus, École polytechnique de l'Université de Montréal): It is a shame to interrupt these two speeches, first because I have not prepared long notes and secondly because I am not as good an orator as Professor Painchaud. I am a simple civil engineer and have been teaching in the field of Nordic problems for 30 years.
I would like to begin by saying a few words on the history in this field. It is very short, but how can we understand our Canadian policy on support for Northern research, especially in the area of Northern engineering?
I am a civil engineer specialized in geotechnics, in problems having to do with permafrost in particular. I taught a Northern engineering course at the École polytechnique from 1967 on. Because of budget cuts that type of course disappeared from most universities at a certain point. I find it unfortunate that it no longer exists because we did train engineers and specialists in Northern construction problems. There is no special action that would allow universities to continue to provide that type of course. The only thing to do is to provide specialized courses outside the university. The disappearance of these courses occurred about five years ago.
In the beginning of the 1970s, what is known as the Northern Engineering Centre was set up at the École polytechnique; it has had continuous support over the past ten years and plays an extremely important role because it is the only centre in Eastern Canada that keeps documentation on Northern engineering. It has a vast collection of manuals and books in Russian as well as a large number of documents on international contacts, etc.
Because of the loss of support for the central infrastructure as Quebec in general and throughout the country, the Centre has had to stop most of its activities. The only thing left is the documentation centre, which is managed by one person. That person is myself; I have been retired, Professor Emeritus, for three years.
So, things are constantly shrinking. I am very happy that the Centre d'études nordiques of Laval University still exists and I hope that it will continue to exist. It is an extremely active centre and I am very happy to be one of its members.
.0955
Something else has disappeared and I think this is really unfortunate. I am referring to most of the research dealing with construction in the North, work which was concentrated at the National Research Council in Ottawa. That group no longer exists. They do a little research in that area on matters which are applicable immediately to industry but there is no more Northern research as such at the National Research Council.
Some of this research, but not the engineering part, was taken on by the Geological Survey of Canada, with a great deal of success I might add, but the most eminent researchers in this area have all retired. Three persons, Alan Heginbottom, Al Taylor and Allan Judge, continue to work in spite of the fact that they have retired. There is no one to replace them and we wonder what will happen when these people really decide to give up their former pursuits.
Secondly, there is the international co-operation accord. What are the facts in that regard? There is international co-operation among universities. For instance, you meet someone, you publish, you meet them at certain conferences and you decide to co-operate. Personally, I have always worked in co-operation with Russia, Norway, Alaska and the universities.
I might point out that that type of co-operation which has existed for years does not really enjoy any kind of support from any particular fund. It is, unfortunately, financed by our meagre research funds. I don't think it is at all normal that real co-operation, not the kind that only exists on paper, is not directly supported by the government. We have very limited research funds and they too are gradually disappearing.
There is international co-operation at the government level. Quite frankly, I am not well acquainted with everything that is going on. That is due to the fact that I don't receive anything from the Canadian government that would allow me to know that certain things are going on, or to assess their merits.
However, I am very well acquainted with everything that is going on in the United States because I regularly receive news twice a year on Arctic research in the United States from the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee which tells us in detail who is doing what in the United States. Here, there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten or twelve departments who deal with Arctic policies.
Most of the research aid in the United States comes from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Agriculture, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Defense, the Department of Energy, the Department of Health and Human Resources, the Department of the Interior, the Department of the Secretary of State, the Department of Transportation and the Environmental Protection Agency.
I have here the 1995-1996 budget. All of these departments taken together devote $170 million a year to this kind of assistance.
The Chairman: Mr. Ladanyi, forgive me for interrupting you, but may I ask a question? Who publishes the document you are referring to? Is it one of those departments, or an agency?
Mr. Ladanyi: It is the Interagency Arctic Research Policy Committee. My proposal is that Canada do something similar, to inform us.
.1000
I am not informed. I simply observe things which I have not been told about. I cannot even criticize because I don't know what is going on. I may be criticizing things about which I know very little; this isn't normal. There ought to be a document telling me what Canada is doing. I have no idea what Canada is doing, whereas I have a very clear idea of what the United States is doing, and I even know quite a bit about what the Scandinavian countries are doing, but not Canada.
In other words, we need something of that type to inform us on Canada's actions. The efforts that are made must be grouped together even in a very simple way so that we can see what each of the departments is doing. Finally, if we draw everything together, we may see that what Canada is doing is quite impressive. But I don't know what is happening. So, we must make an effort to have that kind of information presented adequately.
In my field, permafrost engineering research, Canada takes part in several working groups. Canada is really quite active in this area. For instance, there are 17 countries participating in constituting a global cryological data base. There are 40 respondents taking part in a study on global change in permafrost.
So, an international effort is being made in which Canada is a very active participant, especially through the offices of the Geological Survey of Canada. There is the International Tundra Experiment and the Circumpolar Active Layer Monitoring Program, which is to produce a CD-Rom in this area. All of this to say that you have to know which aspect of the North you are talking about, for there are several: the human ones, environmental aspects, etc.
There is no way one can talk about the environment without knowing the environment. To know the environment, you have to make the effort of going to work in the field and producing documents explaining what is there, and how all of it is affected by global warming, what the effect has been on vegetation, communities, hydrology, etc.
That is being done currently. We are producing geographical maps. For instance, there is the Circumpolar Arctic Vegetation Map, and the Permafrost and Ground Ice Map of the Northern Hemisphere. All of this is being produced in co-operation with the Geological Survey, and some of the people working on these projects have already retired. Fortunately, they are continuing to work.
I consider it very important at this time that we realize that the environment we now know is not something that is stable. This environment will be affected in a few dozen years by climatic change. Everyone agrees on that. These climate changes affect local climate, the climate in general, regions, vegetation, water flow, etc., and of course, obviously, fauna and the life of the inhabitants in general.
Canada is making an effort in this area and this is being done by the Department of the Environment. There is a group called the Environmental Adaptation Research Group which is based in Toronto. It's financed by the Panel on Energy Research and Development. Fortunately, something is happening in this area, work is being done. These efforts have an international impact.
You must first of all know your own country in order to be able to co-operate internationally. I think we are investing much too little in getting to know current reality in the North, which would allow us to participate in the rest.
.1005
I am not going to go on speaking for very much longer, as I see the time is slipping by, but there are a few things that I should mention. What are the activities taking place at this time in the Canadian North? The event that stirred up a great deal of interest for Northern problems in the community of future engineers in engineering faculties was the oil crisis at the beginning of the 1970s. People began to think about building pipelines, etc. And this led to a certain amount of activity. In Quebec, there was the James Bay development and Mr. Bourassa was promoting certain activities. At this time, engineering activities have been so reduced that the study of work methods specific to the North no longer attracts engineering students.
The impact of that may not be considerable now, but in five years if we want to begin working in the North again it will be tragic. We are going to have to import specialists as we did 30 years ago. We should not break the continuity; we must maintain the continuity in the training of our engineers.
But let me go on now to the topic of Aboriginal education. Of course, everything that is in your committee's report concerning the Arctic Council is extremely important. I agree. But we always forget one thing which is that if Aboriginals are to become self-sufficient, they need tradespeople. They don't need political scientists. They may need geographers, but most of all they need specialists of every kind. So I am wondering who is supporting the training of Aboriginals in this area, who is teaching them these trades. You cannot have a Northern community without people who know how to repare snowmobiles, houses, heating systems, etc.
We need engineers, but this may not be enough. Engineers have a tendency to leave. Those who remain behind are the tradespeople. I have always wondered who trained the native peoples when it came to them learning a trade. I have wondered about this for the past 30 years and I have never been able to find the answer. If you can tell me, I would be very pleased indeed.
Lastly, there is much said about sustainable economic development and self-sufficiency. Perhaps what I am about to say is somewhat unorthodox, but I will say it nevertheless. We always hear people talk about environmental protection. It is extremely important to ensure long-term environmental stability and to practice conservation. I totally agree with this. However, I don't see how we can hope to achieve a balanced economy solely through conservation practices or why we should even try to.
This is something I do not understand. Conservation alone is not enough. Let me give you a few examples. If you travel to Finland or to other northern countries, you will note that their native economies are completely different. For example, the native peoples raise animals and participate in the tourism industry. They are involved in activities that we do not normally see here.
There is one more thing. In Canada, it is impossible to buy caribou meat or northern fish except perhaps in Ottawa or in Montreal. Again, this is due to total conservation practices. If these areas were controlled, I don't see why we can't find a way to ensure the survival of these species. Game meat can be purchased anywhere in Europe, unlike the situation in Canada where total conservation is practised.
I agree with you that controls are necessary, but I don't believe that total conservation makes for a sound policy.
There is something else that is discouraged in Canada, despite the fact that some have demonstrated that it is possible to produce food in the North. As long as we harbour the belief that northern residents must buy all their foodstuffs at the grocery store, we can't talk about true self-sufficiency.
.1010
Methods have been developed to grow certain vegetables in northern climates and if you are interested, I can tell you who is involved with this research. This is not really my field of expertise, but Professor Joseph Svoboda of Toronto's Erindale College could tell you exactly how this is done because he has tried it and it works quite well. Of course, it is a little more costly, but there is nevertheless greater pleasure to be had in growing something oneself than in buying everything one needs in a store.
Therefore, it is possible to achieve a more balanced economy to meet the needs of native peoples without relying strictly on fish and game conservation practices.
In closing, I would like to say a few words about tourism. Last summer, I travelled to Troms and Svalbard in Norway. I hope that you will go and visit this part of the country yourselves. The amazing thing is that even in Svalbard, which is basically a mining community, tourism is a thriving industry. Svalbard is not so very different from communities such as Kuujjuak.
Something could be done here , but nothing is being done. We are letting tourists fend for themselves and this isn't right. We have to come up with ways of attracting them. Svalbard regularly draws tourists from a wide-range of countries such as France and Germany. Why not provide the necessary services, access and infrastructure to develop the tourism industry?
Take, for example, Alaska which I know well. This region is highly developed and tourism is an important industry, second only to the oil industry.
Therefore, there are some things that can be done without having to make substantial investments, simply by changing our attitudes.
This concludes my presentation. If you have any questions, I will be happy to answer them in either language.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Professor. We will now hear from Professor Duhaime, and then from Professor Grondin, following which we will move to questions.
Mr. Gérard Duhaime (Director, Inuit and Circumpolar Study Group, Laval University): Thank you. I would like to draw the committee's attention to a number of problems that come to light when we look at Canada's North from a social sciences perspective.
I will not speak about pollution because I know that my colleague will be discussing that subject at some length. However, there are a number of very serious problems that exist in the North, the first one being the problem of industrial development. I know the committee visited a number of northern communities and was able to see some of these problems firsthand, but I also know that some of these problems weren't visible during these brief visits.
Industrial development problems in Canada' North are not linked to the fact that the region is being developed in a manner which poses a danger to the environment or to northern resources. The problems have mainly to do with the fact that generally speaking, this development has virtually no impact on the residents of this region. Northern residents do not usually work in the industrial development sector. If they do, it is only after they have received some low-cost training for jobs that generally don't last very long. Nevertheless, northern peoples will continue to coexist with industrial development and its repercussions.
.1015
Another major problem with respect to development in Canada's North is that activities associated with the exploitation of so-called traditional resources are no longer viewed with the same importance. The document submitted to us by the committee points to the problems experienced by the northern fur industry in the mid-1980s and which continue today to seriously affect communities which rely primarily on hunting for their survival.
In addition to the diminished importance of traditional activities, game has also lost a great deal of its attraction. I am pleased to note that Mr. Ladanyi, an ordinary engineer as he calls himself, has a clear understanding of this problem which to my mind is extremely important.
The Chairman: We are not convinced that he is, as he says, only an ordinary engineer.
Mr. Duhaime: Neither am I.
The Chairman: I think his presentation proved otherwise.
Mr. Duhaime: Game has become an expensive commodity because of the efforts required to obtain it and despite the abundance of resources, it has become far less attractive because of the abundant supply of commercial foodstuffs.
This brings us to another problem, namely the fact that Canada's North is becoming something of a Third World country. If we exclude resource development in general, that is mineral or hydraulic resources - this corresponds perfectly to the Third World development model - , there are virtually no industries in Canada's North. The one industry in the Canadian North, as well as in Northern Quebec and Labrador, is the government. It supplies the majority of jobs. This is a very important feature, one that is relatively unique from a circumpolar perspective. The fact that the government is the leading industry is not a problem in itself. The problem is that there are no other industries to speak of.
The transformation of Canada's North into a Third World country is also reflected in the food dependency to which I alluded. It is also reflected in the exporting of resources and the little positive impact this has on local economies.
These are the economic aspects of this Third World assimilation process, but there are also social aspects which are relatively difficult to see. For the past 30 years or so, there has been a significant trend toward social stratification in Canada's North. In the name of equality, which is also the South's credo, major differences have been established according to income group.
No doubt you are also aware of the serious deterioration in the social climate owing to the large number of social problems, particularly in the case of young people. This has led, among other things, to demands for internal sovereignty based on similar observations on the part of native peoples and based on sometimes acrimonious representations that decisions affecting northern residents should not be taken by non-residents.
These demands also stem at times from a desire to blame governments for having intervened in the past when developing Canada's North was not a matter of exploiting resources, but rather a matter of ensuring the people's survival. Successive governments since the 1950s have intervened in the North because they were required to do so, because people were dying. To base the demands for internal sovereignty on the desire to blame governments for intervening or for the sedentation process is not, in my view, the right approach to take.
.1020
These trends observed in Canada's North can also be observed elsewhere in circumpolar regions to greater or lesser degrees. For example, ten years ago, the pollution problems in Siberia did not officially exist. Today, the governments of the independent republics have made the battle against pollution their sole policy priority.
In Greenland, problems such as the collapse of groundfish stocks have affected all coastal villages, in particular those on the west coast.
What I'm getting at is that the problems observed in Canada's North are also circumpolar problems. Depending on our perspective, we can draw a number of different conclusions.
As citizens, we can ask ourselves what action we can take and what representations we can make and conclude that the establishment of the Arctic Council can only be a positive thing. However, with your permission, I want to speak more as a university researcher than as a citizen, as one who views things from a social sciences perspective.
My colleagues underscored the problems associated with research funding and I will not elaborate further on this. They described the situation in their respective fields and I would say that the situation is similar, and I would even venture to say worse, in the social sciences field where major research infrastructures are of little benefit to our researchers because they do not take core samples of the ice. They travel from one village to the next and consequently, they generally make very little use of the infrastructures.
National councils are slashing their research budgets and priorities are shifting. In the light of this fact, one of the important roles that the Arctic Council will assume, in my view, will be to support the initiatives, particularly those of the Canadian Polar Commission, aimed at halting the decline in funding.
The social sciences field is also grappling with a serious problem which is inversely proportional to our research budgets. I am talking about the problem of student exchanges which I brought on at an earlier meeting of the committee last spring. In francophone countries, programs have been developed to make university student exchanges possible. The European Union has created the Erasmus program which allows students from one country to pursue their studies in another.
In circumpolar countries, no such institution exists and our research centres feel the impact of this on an almost daily basis.
Two weeks ago, I received requests from a Russian student and a Norwegian student who wanted to do post-doctoral work at Laval University. They wanted to know where they could get some funding. I was forced to refer them to general programs where they must compete with students in all disciplines from around the world.
As Professor Ladanyi pointed out, succession is a real problem and I have observed this to be the case in my own research centre. The lack of infrastructure doesn't help. One concrete proposal that I would like to make, and that I have already made to the committee and which is outlined in a brief article that I plan to submit, is that the Arctic Council, or at least Canadian foreign policy, promote the creation of a researcher, professor and student mobility program in circumpolar regions.
The committee has many questions concerning the priorities of the Arctic Council, in particular its research priorities. I would caution it against legitimately attempting to intervene insofar as the content of university research is concerned.
.1025
This is especially true in the social sciences field where problems are characteristically not visible. Our job in the social sciences field is to do things that are not visible.
Problems such as the Third World assimilation process affecting the economy, as I mentioned earlier, as well as the despair of young people would never have been reported in scientific journals or discussed at scholarly conventions if all northern research had been focussed on the study of environmental problems.
I'm not saying that we should not do research into environmental problems. I would be shooting myself in the foot if I said this because I too carry out this type of research. What I'm trying to say is that we must ensure that priorities do not become obligations, that the Arctic Council's priority with respect to the environment does not become an obligation on the part of researchers wishing to do research on the North, at great expense, as you well know.
I would also like to point out that a great deal of circumspection, or at least caution, should be exercised in determining these priorities, in particular environmental research priorities. Quite often, research priorities are, if not false, at least partial. I am grateful to Professor Ladanyi for having also pointed out that the agri-food industry in the North is not very developed. Do you know why this is so? One of the main reasons is conservation, not nature conservation, but cultural preservation.
The marketing of wild game should be prohibited because this is not in keeping with the culture of northern residents. Our current research indicates that most of the products consumed by northern residents are purchased at a store. Granted, it is important to establish priorities, but these priorities must not become obligations.
I would also caution the committee against any well-intentioned attempt at introducing guidelines for research, on the grounds that northern residents should have their say in this. This issue is not, in my opinion, to oppose well-founded practices. I simply would say to the committee that as scientific researchers, and my colleagues are dealing with the same concerns, we must answer to committees whose only role is to monitor such situations.
At Laval University, we have an ethics committee. The Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies has established ethical standards for northern research. The Canadian Polar Commission is also interested in these questions.
My recommendation to the committee would be that at this stage, we already have what it takes. If you must insist on something, I would strongly encourage you to push for the communication of these research findings to northern residents. This implies not only good intentions on our part, but also the appropriate budgets to proceed.
There is one last thing I want to draw to the Committee's attention and on which I would advise caution. It is mentioned in the documents that the participation of aboriginal peoples or Northern residents should be provided for within the Arctic Council.
.1030
If we're talking about re-balancing demographic effects and providing for democratic participation based on the concept of a majority vote, it is clear that Northern residents are at a disadvantage. But we must be careful here; are Northern residents any more entitled than people living in Chibougamau, Sarnia or the Gaspé to provide input on Canadian foreign policy in the North?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Professor Duhaime. We will move now to Dr. Grondin, who will be talking about health issues, or so I gathered from reviewing his papers.
Dr. Jacques Grondin (Centre de la santé publique du Québec): I would just like to begin with a quick description of our work in the North and the limitations we're facing there.
In Nunavik, a variety of environmental health research projects have been conducted in tandem with public health initiatives, with a view to finding answers to specific questions and dealing effectively with issues related to environmental contamination. Efforts made in this area over the past ten years have indeed born fruit, to the point where the Quebec Public Health Centre is now at the leading edge of research in the circumpolar region. We now have about 40 people working up there who work as part of a large multidisciplinary team that includes people with expertise in health sciences, biological sciences and the social sciences, as well as established links with a number of research institutes in Canada and abroad.
Indeed, our centre has initiated a substantial number of international cooperative projects. In Quebec City, Dr. Éric Dewailly is coordinating the program that I checked off here to help you identify it, namely the Arctic Populations' Organochlorinated Contaminant and Heavy Metal Exposure Monitoring and Follow-up Program.
Also, clinical studies are underway using seal blubber collected in Quebec, and other clinical studies are being carried out in both Ontario and Denmark to try and assess the benefits associated with the consumption of marine mammals; in other words, both the benefits and risks associated with consumption of marine mammals are currently the focus of international research and evaluation.
In order to conduct this work, it is sometimes necessary to support - at least partially - some international projects using our own funds. Our small team in Quebec has no choice but to fund projects in Russia. The latter has serious economic problems, as we all know. Our colleagues there thus have extremely limited means.
However, environmental health problems are not only limited to Russia. Indeed, substantial amounts of money are being spent in the Arctic for research on environmental contamination, conservation and protection. A lot of research is being conducted on exposure of wildlife to contaminants, and on the sources and fate of water, air and soil contaminants. However, this money is not being made available to health researchers, and I'll tell you why. When they go to see the Department of the Environment for help, they are told that that Department is only concerned with wildlife and that they should talk to the Department of Health. At the Department of Health, they are told that the issues that Department is handling, such as drug addiction, suicide and trauma, are considerably more important than environmental contamination. And it is the same story around the globe. Everyone is the same.
When we launch international projects, of course, it looks good, but everyone involved works on week-ends and in the evenings, which means that people are not actually paid for the work they do. They do this on a volunteer basis in addition to their clinical hours, because they are not recognized by their respective Departments of Health.
In order to conduct proper research in the North, it is clear there must be access to appropriate funding. That is obviously not the case now under current programs in Canada's North, where we are still debating the importance of the issue of environmental contamination and the scope of the problem.
In Nunavik - in other words, Inuit New Quebec, we have moved beyond that stage. We have not relied on the major environmental programs in the North. We are now measuring the subtle effects of these contaminants in the environment - for instance, using bio- markers of early facts or events or, in terms of modernizing economic impacts, health advisories that discuss those environmental risks.
So, because we have to get funding somewhere, and that funding is not available in Canada, we have no choice but to look elsewhere.
.1035
That is why we have recently started turning to the United States, where the N.I.H. has advanced us $2 million for research on the neuro-behavioural effects of contaminants on Inuit children.
That money has made it possible for us to extend the project, to include not only Nunavik, but Labrador and Greenland, so as to have a larger cohort and include higher exposure levels in other areas.
Beyond the matter of funding, one of the obstacles to developing an external Arctic policy, as your paper points out, is the apparent lack, at least as far as we can see, of any consistent domestic policy in the North. For example, up until now the Canadian Polar Commission seems to have been having trouble defining it mandate. At least as far as some of its activities are concerned, it is definitely being carried along by other super- organizations such as the Arctic Environmental Strategy.
There is an apparent lack of coordination, and one notes some unfortunate duplication in the activities undertaken in all good faith by the Canadian Polar Commission. Similar initiatives are already underway in other organizations.
Ethics is one such example. Some 15 organizations in Canada have already looked at this. And yet the Canadian Polar Commission continues to debate the issue and hold conferences to that end. That is just one example.
Health reports on contaminants are another. People who do not have the proper training are wasting their time preparing health reports, when such reports are already available. Those are just a couple of examples.
Their last conference on environmental contamination, held in Iqaluit at the beginning of the month, is a blatant example of that. People in the different areas were notified only as the last preparations for the conference were being finalized, and as a result they had no chance to provide their input with respect to the conference's content or even the usefulness of such a conference. Furthermore, this eminently political meeting harmed efforts currently underway in the regions to manage environmental risks. A couple of very good examples of that would be the Canadian Polar Commission's implicit messages about the urgent need for action on the environment, and its choice of alarmist speakers, such as Theo Colburn, who told everyone we were all going to die, and what's more, with shrivelled penises.
So, the decision was made to organize a conference, supposedly for the benefit of the regions, but virtually ignoring everything that is currently being done there. That's particularly serious since it's in Nunavik that risk management is being carried out. And that is also where we have been trying for a number of years to reassure the public, based on data collected from the latest research, with respect to the safety of regional foods. Then along comes the Canadian Polar Commission and undoes all of that work in one fell swoop.
And here is another example of the lack of consistent policy in the North, to follow up on the one about transborder contaminant risk management: those responsible for the Arctic Environmental Strategy recently issued a health advisory to people living in the Northwest Territories about the need to limit their consumption of traditional foods, on the basis of their latest figures.
The fact is, there were four different organizations debating among themselves who was going to issue the health advisory. Their message is precisely the opposite of what is being said in Nunavik. We have been looking at this issue for some 20 years now. When you issue a health advisory telling people they should limit their consumption of food, that is a very serious medical procedure. In the Northwest Territories, that advisory was issued without the input of health experts.
Furthermore - and this is where the shoe really rubs - all the research carried out in Nunavik has shown that the standards these people used were inadequate and that the advantages of eating these foods far surpass the risks associated with environmental contamination. So, it's extremely frustrating. Are they deliberately trying to ignore what is going on in Nunavik and Labrador? Is this advanced knowledge on Nunavik seen as a threat to the personal agenda of researchers in the West or to the agenda of organizations such as AES? It's hard to know.
Our research activity is better known outside Canada than it is inside the country. But there is something else as well. You will see these maps in a whole series of documents. The Arctic Monitoring and Assessment Program, which all circumpolar countries are involved in, recognizes, as evidenced by its maps, the need to include Nunavik and even that part of Northern Quebec located south of Nunavik - in other words to the bottom of James Bay, as well as all the coast of Labrador - whereas the Arctic Environmental Strategy, as you will see on the other map, limits its field of action essentially to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories while continuing to claim to be a panarctic Canadian environmental research plan. That sort of thing is hard to accept.
.1040
On the other hand, let's be honest: it's only in the health field that research carried out in Nunavik is considered to be partly funded by the Arctic Environmental Strategy, because of its international reputation. Thus, under the Arctic Environmental Strategy, everything related to communication, education, community involvement and even contaminant measurement in wildlife does not apply to Nunavik and Labrador.
When you know the kind of financial problems people in Labrador and especially the Inuit are experiencing, it is clearly unfortunate to see the way in which they have been abandoned by the Arctic Environmental Strategy. There are practically no data on wildlife contamination in Labrador, even though such data are readily available elsewhere in Canada. It's an absolute disgrace.
And, you'll excuse me for saying so, but even the paper we have here, that we received before arriving today and which was prepared by the Research Branch, strikes me as biased in favour of the West.
On page 6 of that paper, it says:
- In Canada, furthermore, the vast northern reaches from the Yukon to northern Quebec and the
eastern Arctic...
- That's a distorted view of things. Why not from the Yukon to Labrador?
As you also point out in the paper that was handed out, yes, communication is a major issue. Gérard also emphasized that. However, one the dangers with the approach being taken to the debate on communication is that the ultimate goal may become effective political management of issues that are really more appropriately handled by other experts. For example, making the potential effects on humans of environmental contamination an essentially political issue, the focus of a power struggle between organizations, as we are currently seeing, can only lead to anomalies.
As I said, in Nunavik as in other circumpolar countries, health problems should be managed by public health experts and northern organizations.
In order to ensure proper communication, scientific data and analysis must also be adequate, to avoid prompting the kind of witch hunt we tend to get caught up in - we, the self-righteous and bleeding hearts of the North. Communication must rely on science rather than oppose it, as is currently the case.
The politization of environmental health issues, where politicians and biologists assess human health problems, can only undermine the public's confidence.
Indeed, the quest for political correctness even in relation to Canada's North has already made us objects of ridicule in the eyes of neighbouring circumpolar countries, that are starting to think that research in Canada is getting bogged down in sterile, fruitless debate rather than focusing on concrete action.
That was certainly the case, for example, when they discovered that environmental health surveys in Canada had been delayed, on the pretext that knowledge in this area is incipient, while at the same time researchers who have studied wildlife exposure levels are being allowed to make alarmist comments about the risks associated with eating animals.
This was also the case when they discovered that pressure groups were demanding that with anything related to health, the message to be conveyed to the public be prepared before actually researching the facts, so as to assess its ethical character. The idea was to get an opinion even before being in a position to diagnose the problem.
That kind of attitude can only adversely affect international exchanges. Indeed, these exchanges have enormous potential and could be expanded far more than they are currently. For example, the expertise developed with respect to mercury in Bay James would clearly apply to the Amazonian basin. That kind of expertise is in demand.
Similarly, research carried out in Nunavik and Labrador on organochlorine compounds and omega-3 type fatty acids are of interest to all fishing communities, particularly in circumpolar countries where consumption of fish is high. Unfortunately, once again that potential is slow to be recognized in Canada.
That completes my remarks. Thank you.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Dr. Grondin.
Mr. Paré (Louis-Hébert): Could you give us a minute or two?
.1045
The Chairman: Two minutes.
[English]
We will take a three-minute break.
.1046
.1054
The Chairman: If you have a question maybe we could put you in ahead.
Mrs. Gaffney (Nepean): No, that's okay.
.1055
The Chairman: I'm sure we could accommodate you.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the panel members for their most interesting and, in a sense, provocative presentations. I want to thank you on behalf of all the members of the Committee.
We will now begin the questioning.
Mr. Paré.
Mr. Paré: I, too, want to thank our witnesses who, it seems to me, really spoke the truth this morning. They didn't package their opinions for our consumption. I think that's very important.
This morning's presentations naturally dealt with research, in both the natural sciences and social sciences disciplines. In a way, they complemented what we heard at meetings held at the University of Edmonton and the University of Calgary.
The general view that seems to emerge from your comments this morning is that budgets are decreasing, something I recognize and that we all know to be a fact, and that we are having trouble establishing proper communication between researchers working in different countries. A number of you made that point. Mr. Allard suggested that the task of coordinating and ensuring proper communication between researchers, and especially of providing them with the necessary funding, could be entrusted to the Arctic Council, which I see as an interesting suggestion.
My first question deals with that very possibility and I address it to all of you. Do you not feel the divergent interests of the eight countries that are represented on the Arctic Council would tend to make that sort of collaboration improbable, even though it would certainly be valuable?
And the second part of my question is this: the presentations we heard this morning highlighted a certain amount of disorganization as far as action being taken even by the Canadian government, because of increased numbers of stakeholders. I don't remember which witness it was who told us that there were eight, nine or ten different departments involved. Mr. Grondin, using concrete examples, showed us how these different departments are constantly throwing the ball into each others' court, not maliciously, but because of an unwieldy bureaucracy that is too inwardly focused.
Do you think it would be possible and even advisable to have a single department take responsibility for all the dimensions of Canada's North as well as all the associated budgets, in order to clean up the current mess?
The Chairman: I was going to put pretty much the same question and ask whether Professor Painchaud's comment about the lack of a geopolitical dimension might also be the result of scattering decision-making across so many departments and branches. Would you say that one of the reasons why there hasn't been better coordination is that we do not have any geopolitical sense of the Arctic?
Mr. Painchaud: Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by making a comment about the role of this Committee.
This morning I heard the very well-prepared and interesting presentations made by my colleagues. The information they have provided is clearly essential to the work that lies ahead of you. At the same time, one mustn't confuse development of Canada's foreign policy in the Arctic with the specific problems we are facing in that same region. It might be a good idea for another committee of the House of Commons or the Senate - either one - to examine the specific problems we are experiencing in Canada with respect to the management and implementation of Arctic-related policies. That is one thing.
.1100
Of course, there is interference in terms of the international dimensions of those same domestic policies. But the role of this Committee is to flesh out our foreign policy thinking, something that is sorely lacking in Canada - and I don't have the least hesitation in saying so - not only generally, but in the specific area of circumpolar affairs.
Coming back to your question, there is no doubt in my mind that in a number of areas, including the environment, foreign policy itself and northern issues, the temptation is always to say we're going to put a massive bureaucracy in place. That simply isn't possible. There are too many dimensions that would have to be reflected in it for that to be possible.
What I'm really saying is that we do have the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. That department is pretty well hopeless when it comes to international policy, despite the fact that it did have a role to play in that area. In addition to the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, the Department of the Environment has a Northern Affairs Branch. But your job is not really to discuss that here. I am even tempted to say it's a waste of your time.
However, as my colleagues Mr. Allard and Mr. Duhaime pointed out, the international mechanisms we require in order to maintain an appropriate presence in the Arctic are your responsibility.
In other words, it seems to me your role here is not to solve all the problems in the Arctic, but rather to look at how Canadian foreign policy can protect Canada's fundamental interests with respect to circumpolar affairs, and to see whether, in order to protect Canada's fundamental interests, we need to borrow from foreign scientific initiatives. That should be your only focus. As I see it, your role is not to look at the whole issue of polar research. Your only focus, as foreign policy experts, should be to define the specific instruments that are needed to implement foreign policy, rather than trying to solve problems in the North. It is those instruments that you must set out to identify.
If science - and this is certainly the case - is an instrument of foreign policy, you must include it in your recommendations.
If international cooperation is useful to Canada, we will get involved, but again from the standpoint of its impact on our foreign policy. That is what I call developing foreign policy thinking. The danger with this Committee - and I will come back to this later, particularly with reference to the Arctic Council - is that everything is mixed up together. We mustn't mix up the requirements of a made-in-Canada policy for the Canadian Arctic and the international dimensions of Canada's circumpolar affairs. It is by putting everything into the same pot that we end up having no proper policy whatsoever, either domestic or foreign.
Is a central agency necessary? I am tempted to say that these agencies already exist. I believe it was Mr. Allard who referred earlier to the Eco-Research Program. We have a number of research councils in Canada, in medicine, science and engineering, the humanities, and so forth. An organization that includes all three disciplines was put in place and told to look at everything taking place in the environmental area to see just how those activities could be developed.
We could have something similar for the Arctic. We don't have to set up... At the same time, departments will continue to have their own research programs. However, the role of the Department of Foreign Affairs will be to ensure that scientific cooperation programs developed by all departments respect a certain logic from the standpoint of foreign policy.
No systematic review has ever been carried out. In the environmental area alone - which is one of the areas I'm interested in - no one really knows the direction bilateral cooperation between Canada and many other different countries is taking.
The Department of the Environment is involved in this kind of cooperation, as are the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Department of Agriculture and Agri-Food. Environmental cooperation is occurring everywhere. That may well meet the needs of those particular departments, but there is no overall vision associated with that instrument, because Canada's foreign policy is indeed such an instrument.
.1105
As far as the Arctic is concerned, one can easily imagine there being cooperation among organizations that support research with specific application to the North and its international dimension. The Department of Foreign Affairs could continue to oversee all of that. That is something that should be explored. But I, personally, would be against creating another huge administrative or bureaucratic structure. We already have enough of them in Canada as it is.
There are other aspects of that question that I will address later.
Does that answer not satisfy you?
Mr. Paré: Yes, it does. I was just trying to find a way of...
Mr. Painchaud: You have raised a question related to domestic policy.
Mr. Paré: But does foreign policy not flow from domestic policy, and vice versa?
Mr. Painchaud: That is another facile truth. Foreign policy has two functions: to protect the country from without, which would include defence policy, and to obtain resources outside the country that are not available domestically to ensure our development. That is the purpose of external trade. External trade is most definitely a domestic policy.
Why do we engage in external trade? Because our market is not adequate. So, external trade is not an international policy. It is a domestic policy carried out with external instruments. We will have to learn to think in terms of actual foreign policy and not mix everything up together.
The organization and conduct of Arctic-based research in Canada is a matter of domestic policy that should be reviewed by another committee, unless there is an international dimension to it. Don't get involved in that, because you will only get bogged down. You don't have the means to conduct that kind of review; you are international policy specialists. Focus on foreign policy, because that is your mandate, and for once you may be able to make some worthwhile recommendations in that area.
I have other comments I might like to make, but I don't want to monopolize the discussion.
The Chairman: We will move on now to Mr. Dupuy.
Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): I'm going to put my cards on the table right off the bat. I am an admirer of Professor Painchaud. I have been following his work for a number of years now.
As I was listening to your comments earlier, I couldn't help thinking of the old saying that goes something like this: Every good quality hides a flaw.
You are what I would call an Arctic explorer. Intellectually, your contribution has been considerable, but I think you may have missed certain important aspects that relate to the development of Canada's international strategic policy.
Of course, I have no desire to start a controversy...
Mr. Painchaud: Oh! it certainly wouldn't bother me; quite the contrary.
The Chairman: Don't worry about that. We want to encourage controversy.
Mr. Dupuy: Because I was very closely involved in developing Canada's international vision back in the 1970s and partly during the 1980s, I can tell you right away that there are a couple of points that seem to have escaped you.
You say that we have no geopolitical vision. I can tell you that on the contrary, if there is one country whose foreign policy includes a geopolitical vision, that country would certainly be Canada, because never a day goes by at the Department of Foreign Affairs when we are not thinking about our situation vis-à-vis the United States. That is our geopolitics.
Geopolitics is something we have to deal with on a daily basis. Whether we like it or not, it is at the very centre of our foreign policy. So, I deeply disagree with you when you say that we have no geo-political vision or sense of geopolitics in general.
Secondly, another question flows from the first. Do we, in our specific geopolitical situation, require a foreign policy that has a regional vision - and you said that we should have one, particularly in the Arctic - or are our interests better served by a global vision?
I can tell you right now that having been an advisor to a variety of governments, including a Conservative government, I've always believed that a comprehensive view of the world and of Canada's responsibilities across the world better served our national interests than a more limited vision.
But things change, and I believe that we can superimpose a regional vision on that global vision.
.1110
That brings me to the specific matter of the Arctic. You are very harsh in your assessment of how things have been done in the past and I must say I can't blame you. But in order to have a foreign policy, one must have foreign partners. You cannot, by definition, conduct a foreign policy alone. But exactly happened in the Arctic? Where were our major partners? Where was the Soviet Union? Yes, maybe they did decide to open a tiny window in the field of research, and when they did, we responded. But do you really think we had contacts in Moscow with whom we could really talk about a foreign policy in the Arctic? We were not there and they didn't want one.
Do you think we had that in Washington? I can tell you we did not. On the contrary, the Americans did not want to develop a foreign policy with Canada with respect to the Arctic - except in one area, defence, because the region had strategic importance. And that brings us to strategic geopolitics, which practically prohibited the development of a coherent foreign policy. That is all in the past, of course, but you yourself said that we had to know where we were coming from. Well, that is where we are coming from. So, what should we do now?
There I fully agree with you: we are way behind because of the global situation. But now, windows of opportunity and doors are opening up. We can go to Moscow, as some of us are intending to do two weeks from now, to talk about these issues with the Russians. We can also start to discuss them with the Americans. But this is where my first question arises: is not the first challenge we are facing with respect to our foreign policy in the Arctic to engage these other as yet recalcitrant countries and make partners of them?
The Americans were very reluctant to join the Arctic Council. A number of countries had to do a lot of coaxing to get them on side. And the country that played a leadership role in this operation - a foreign policy operation that involves bringing in the stakeholders that have been missing from the process - was Canada. So I find it hard to listen to you condemn the thinking that has in fact developed and even haunted successive Canadian governments.
The log jam is now starting to clear. That brings me back to my question. Do you not think our first priority is to engage other countries and make partners of them as part of a cooperative foreign-policy vision in the Arctic?
Mr. Painchaud: Should I respond immediately, Mr. Chairman, or would you like to give others an opportunity to put questions to my colleagues before letting me address Mr. Dupuy's question, which has opened up a very interesting debate? There are many things I would like to say by way of response, but I don't want to think I am monopolizing the discussion.
The Chairman: We are here until 12 noon. So, if you want to go into the past...
Mr. Painchaud: No, no.
The Chairman: Don't go too far back. I think it might be better for you to respond now and then we could move on to other questions. I see this as a very important point.
Mr. Painchaud: I have no intention of dwelling on the past, Mr. Dupuy. If you like, we can discuss this at greater length in private. I simply want to say, by way of response, that just because the United States or the U.S.S.R. or other Arctic countries don't want to discuss the Arctic does not mean we cannot have our own foreign policy in the Arctic. Indeed, our foreign policy in the Arctic should reflect those reservations.
Although the Arctic may be very important to us, it is perfectly clear that we are not going to change people's opinions in Washington overnight. However, I don't think one can say that we had a foreign policy in the Arctic simply because we took an interest in defence issues or in other issues that preoccupied our American neighbours.
A true Arctic focus would have translated into a systematic determination, such as we see in Scandinavian countries, to develop a whole set of instruments through which to maintain a presence in the Arctic, and that is precisely where the domestic dimension coincides with the external dimension.
.1115
Today, using the paper you circulated to us, I would like to give you a specific example of the weaknesses of our foreign policy, a policy that does not reflect that region's needs in any integrated or coherent way.
Let's talk about the Arctic Council itself. At the request of the United States, the decision was made not to include military issues. The danger with that is that there is now no room for military issues in Canadian thinking in the Arctic, because we have created a gadget called the Arctic Council. But the Arctic Council is nothing more than an instrument. It is a good beginning for Canada's foreign policy in the Arctic, but it should not be the sole dimension that you address in your report.
For example, your report should address the problems of military security in the Arctic, if you believe such problems exist. You should also talk about political relations between Canada and its various Arctic partners. As well - and we referred to this a few times - the Arctic is no longer just the Arctic. The Arctic has indeed become a global problem. I believe one of my colleagues mentioned that earlier.
So, we cannot simply talk about the Arctic in relation to the Arctic. We have to talk about it in relation to a whole series of global problems.
Also, there are a number of environmental problems my colleagues already referred to. Some of those problems pose what are now called environmental security problems. So, if we are talking about security, we cannot talk simply in terms of military or purely political security, if you will.
There is also another concept that should be introduced into the deliberations of the Arctic Council, that would tie together a whole series of issues relating to security. But based on what I see in this paper, given that the decision has been made to exclude military issues, strategic thinking in this area will be completely absent.
So, the Arctic Council is one thing, but Canada's foreign policy in the Arctic is something far more comprehensive.
I won't dwell on that any further. I just want to say that it would be a simple matter for me to demonstrate that even though we may have done things in the Arctic, Canada has never really had any policy on the Arctic. It is one thing to be there; it is quite another to have actually developed your thinking and have a policy in place, as some Scandinavian countries have.
I would like to make one last comment, if you don't mind, because this goes back to what some of my colleagues have already said. Here the paper says:
- The introduction of a coherent Arctic component to our foreign policy, including a provision
guaranteeing democratic participation, including by Canadians living in the Arctic...
The kind of political correctness that prompts people to say, let's create a little niche for the aboriginal peoples and we'll see about the rest, is completely wrong-headed. If you really want a foreign policy for the Arctic, all Canadians will have to consider that part of the world as one of strategic importance to Canada.
It is in that area that your Committee has a very important role to play.
The Chairman: That's precisely the reason why the sub- committee chose this issue to review from a vast array of other potential matters for consideration.
Mr. Painchaud: Well, there you are!
The Chairman: Like you, Committee members strongly believe there is a lack of consistency and knowledge here in the South in terms of our approach to problems in the region. That's why this kind of review is so essential; we at least have to try to educate people.
.1120
Mr. Painchaud: Congratulations, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Believe me, there were a lot of other subjects...
Mr. Painchaud: I don't doubt there were.
The Chairman: Mr. Grondin.
Mr. Grondin: You asked earlier whether this should be opened up to countries other than the United States. But just to cite the example of the project that involves measuring contamination levels in people all across the world, it was in fact a lot easier to get that underway in the depths of Siberia. They sent us samples of maternal blood and, from Lapland, we received blood samples taken from babies' umbilical cords. We received some from small villages all across Greenland, from Reykjavik, from all over the place. In the United State, they are all caught up in their bureaucracy. They tried to get around it but ended up shooting themselves in the foot and as a result, there was never any data.
People in the Faero Islands came to see us to tell us they had samples, that they give them to us and that they wanted to get involved as well. It was very easy to arrange. We had an international symposium in Fairbanks, Alaska, attended by health experts from all the regions - about 1,000 delegates. The Americans, who kept talking about people who were experts on the Great Lakes, came to the symposium and said: ``Maybe we should look at what's happening in the Great Lakes to get a better understanding of the situation in the North.'' It was a slap in the face to everyone in attendance; it was an absolute disgrace. Everyone was ashamed of the way they had behaved.
That is just my own personal testimony, but I do want to make the point that Canada has a lot of affinities with people from other countries. We get along very well and we find them very nice to work with. But things are always complicated in the United States.
The Chairman: I'm not sure the interpreters were able to absorb all your comments, Mr. Grondin, but we certainly understand your frustration. Thank you.
Unless there are any other comments or questions from Mr. Dupuy, we will move now to Mr. Sauvageau.
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): If you don't mind, Mr. Painchaud, I would like to put a question to Mr. Ladanyi.
Mr. Painchaud: You don't need my permission to do that.
Mr. Sauvageau: No, of course; I say that only because the questions have been addressed to you for the last little while.
In your presentation earlier, you eloquently made the point that as far as coordination of northern activity is concerned, we are doing a little bit of everything all across the country. At the political level, we have 12 different departments that are involved in this and that scientific initiative. There is no process of review or consultation among departments to ensure a minimum amount of logic and coordination across the board. I have two questions on that.
The first was to a certain extent raised by my colleague Philippe a little earlier. What can we do to correct the situation at the political level? I put that question to you in all humility. As for the scientific level, something you know a little bit more about, I am wondering what has already been done. In the brief period I have been taking part in committee work, I have noted that we often find ourselves trying to reinvent something that has been done previously, and that after spending two, three, four or even five months putting together an intelligent solution, we discover that our idea has already been explored and shelved, as Mr. Painchaud said earlier.
So I would be interested in knowing what you think can be done to correct that problem. I would like to know what has already been done and possibly shelved, so that we don't duplicate that work.
Mr. Ladanyi: As far as I'm concerned, to develop a foreign policy in the Arctic, one must first know oneself. Of course I agree with Mr. Painchaud that perhaps another committee should get involved and that someone must take responsibility for finding the facts. That is absolutely necessary if we are going to be in a position to benefit from Scandinavian or even American experience, and know what to do in order to benefit from that experience. But that is only possible if we know what we ourselves are doing in that area.
In my comments earlier, I said we were not really aware of what was going on, that there were probably things being done that are not well known, that there may even be parallel initiatives in place, and thus duplication of effort.
We could ask government departments - one doesn't dare get provincial governments involved, though it would be useful - to at least report on what they are doing in various regions of the Arctic and the amount of money there are devoting to these projects. I'm really talking about a fact-finding mission of sorts. That is what I have in mind. Once we have done that, we would be able to determine whether or not there is duplication of effort.
.1125
But first we must know what each department is doing, how much money it is spending, and how that money is being used, not only from a national perspective, but from an international one as well.
In answer to your second question, I would say that some action has been taken - for instance, to determine which Arctic specialists are doing what.
Another international initiative involved looking at how many courses dealing with the Arctic are given in universities. That was an American initiative. A number of reviews were published, but I don't know whether there have been any by the federal government. I would be interested in knowing whether any such reviews exist. However, I do believe I received some forms to fill out from the National Research Council on...
But there are reviews that provide information on circumpolar activities. For example, during the 1970s, a private company was given the task of publishing a review of northern engineering operations and it produced quite an extensive report. That report was useful at the time because it explained exactly what was being done in that area in Canada.
I'm just wondering whether it might not be a good idea to do that again, because things have changed a lot in 25 years. Those reports are very useful and I think they should be maintained. Everyone benefits, particularly as regards international cooperation, from knowing exactly what we are doing and what others are doing. It is important that information be exchanged on our respective experiences.
Mr. Allard: I don't know how many Committee members have read the U.S. Arctic Research and Policy Act passed in 1984 under the Reagan government. It is a very instructive piece of legislation. I think everyone should read it, because it provides for coordination of American research.
It was after that legislation came into effect that the Arctic Research - and I stress the word ``research'' - Commission was established in the United States to coordinate this work. If you read the Act carefully, you will see that it deals with international affairs.
This goes back to what Mr. Dupuy was saying earlier. By passing this legislation, the American government was really saying: any international project or initiative in the Arctic concerns us; this addresses all aspects of current research and the American government is taking charge.'' The end result is that there is not much room for others and the United States is not particularly interested in having anyone else take charge.
In Canada, we were slow to get involved. Around 1988-89, there was pressure to establish a roughly equivalent commission. So, under the previous government, the Canadian Polar Commission was created. But there was a shift in goals. Although the original intention was to establish a research commission, what was actually put in place was a body that deals more with polar affairs, and having become extremely political, it may well have missed its target. That, at least, is my interpretation.
.1130
Mr. Painchaud: May I make a comment?
At the time the Canadian Polar Commission was being established, there was an incident that I think provides a good illustration of the way Canada works. I'm going to get into a little constitutional politics here, Mr. Chairman.
That commission was established following a study conducted by a number of eminent English-speaking academics in Western Canada, if I'm not mistaken.
Mr. Allard: And Ontario.
Mr. Painchaud: Yes, and Ontario. Their mandate was to conduct a review of polar studies in Canada. They produced a report that discussed all the significant polar research being conducted in Canada. They just forgot one small area: Quebec. There was practically no mention whatsoever of northern research being conducted in Quebec.
The reality is, though, that most northern research is being conducted in Quebec. When we received the report at Laval University, I took one look at it and said: ``This is unbelievable! This can't be!''.
So, we got in touch with the proper authorities at a certain level. They had not even come to see us. They had gone all across Canada, but they had not even come to Quebec.
The Task Force responsible for this whole project was ashamed when it realized what it had done. They were terribly embarrassed and came to see us at Laval University. I don't know whether they went to the University of Montreal or not, but they did come to see us at Laval.
We received them with great formality in the University boardroom and there, we talked. We gave them a demonstration of the expertise that exists within Quebec institutions in the area of northern Arctic affairs.
Unfortunately, however, this is still a problem, because northern affairs in Canada have been managed, as part of its broad policies, by a department in Ottawa which was primarily made up of Anglophones. I have no hesitation in saying that, and I want you to know that is not a value judgement I'm making on the people who were there.
Why is that? Well, because the North is clearly part of a long tradition in Canada. The North developed within the framework of federal policies and, as a result, Quebec always had its token Francophone somewhere in the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs.
However, in terms of the historical workings of the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, it is clear that Quebec has barely been present. Yet in Quebec, we have done a great many things - my colleague Duhaime is a very good example of that - particularly in terms of the social dimension of Northern affairs.
Since we are talking about domestic policy, if research is to develop one day in Canada, there will have to be a conscious effort, particularly as regards international policy dimensions, to include Quebec resources.
Let me give you a very immediate example of what I mean. Three organizations got together to propose the establishment of an Arctic Council. None of the three was from Quebec. The Canadian Arctic Resources Committee is an Ottawa group composed entirely of Anglophones. I don't remember what the other organizations were, but I know that no Quebec institution took part. And yet we have institutions in Quebec with involvement in international affairs that could have made a valuable contribution.
Pardon me for saying so, but that is what I call reverse separatism. As far as Arctic matters are concerned, there will have to be a change in federal government thinking in future. In that area, there is significant scientific potential in Quebec.
I don't mean to suggest that we are the only people doing things, because that's not true. I know of colleagues at the University of Toronto who are doing remarkable work in the area of political and strategic analysis. I imagine you have already met them. I'm talking about Frank Griffiths and others like him.
.1135
But as far as Arctic affairs are concerned, that attitude will clearly have to change. When you travel to the Scandinavian countries, to England and elsewhere, I do hope that the picture you paint of what is going on in Canada in the area of polar research will be far more balanced than the one the Task Force presented when it suggested establishing the Polar Commission.
The Chairman: I have two quick comments to make, Professor. When we went to the Western Arctic, Mrs. Cournoyea, the former Premier of the Northwest Territories, harshly criticized the Canadian Polar Commission, saying that its budget should be spent in other ways. Mr. Sauvageau was with me. So, you are not the only one to take that position.
Getting back to your reference to ``reverse separatism'', I remember, back when I was a jurist, being present during a conversation with Judge Jules Deschênes of the Quebec Superior Court, who was saying that Anglophone jurists in Canada are the real separatists, because they are totally unaware of what is going on in Quebec, whereas Quebeckers are fully aware of what is going on in the rest of Canada. So, this is an issue not only in this particular discipline, but in many others where there are also communication problems. I can assure you we will do our utmost to avoid that problem in this Committee.
[English]
Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I too want to thank all of the witnesses for sharing their expertise with us. I thank Professor Painchaud for reminding this committee about what our mandate is: to develop our Arctic foreign policy.
I'm also pleased that my colleague Mr. Paré reminded the professor that there is no fine line between domestic and foreign policy. It's a field. It's a blend.
And I'm also pleased that my colleague Michel Dupuy reminded all of us that you cannot develop foreign policy in isolation. It took us many years to get our Arctic partners on side. Now that we have them dialoguing and meeting, etc., and Canada is hosting the first round, what do we put on the agenda of the Arctic Council to help develop a future Arctic foreign policy for the Arctic?
Could the witnesses address that specifically? And yes, I do think we should talk security issues, but if we put that on the agenda for the first two years we can spend two years arguing that and not achieving anything.
Mr. Duhaime reminded us of something very important, the dependency the north has on governments of the south and on the federal government. And really, if we want to help the local people, aboriginals and the people living in the north, and if we want to help all of the people in the north, the first thing we have to do is to help break that dependency.
I was in Iqaluit and in Tuktoyaktuk and I saw what happens when the paycheques come in. The stores were emptied. People all went home with Coca-Cola, ginger ale, potato chips, etc., and the next week they had no money for nutritional food. Again, this dependency on the cheques coming from Ottawa... Do the other countries have the same problem? And if they do, maybe that's the number one issue the Arctic Council should address. Maybe we can start comparing all of the research we've talked about and heard here.
My other question may be for Mr. Ladanyi. When we were in the west and up north, we did meet with the Edmonton Canadian Circumpolar Institute. How much cooperation is there with research institutes in Quebec, Ottawa, the west and the north? I know I've tossed out a lot here but if any or all of the witnesses care to respond, Mr. Chair...
Mr. Painchaud: I agree with you. You cannot separate domestic and foreign policy - certainly not. But that's part of the geopolitical thinking as well. You cannot think about Canadian foreign policy without thinking about our dependence on foreign markets, for instance. I have no problem with that.
.1140
As for the council, I understood that your mandate was to look at Canadian foreign policy in general in the Arctic, not only Arctic foreign policy. I think the distinction should be made between what you will put on the table at the Arctic Council and what should be Canada's foreign policy in general.
My suggestion as to the role of the Arctic Council is that you look - among other things, I must say - at the global dimensions of the Arctic today. The Arctic Council should not look only at the local Arctic problems as such. It should look at the Arctic as a global issue. And it has become a global issue. What Mr. Grondin is doing on the food chain, for instance, has a global dimension. So the Arctic Council should put the Arctic on the global agenda of the countries that are immediately concerned by the Arctic. That is one of my suggestions.
You shouldn't eliminate or discard other issues that are of a more bilateral or multilateral interest for the countries concerned with the Arctic. But it seems to me that with the council you have an opportunity to make the Arctic a global issue just as Africa has become a global issue, for instance. The comparison might not be good, but...
Those are my suggestions, among other things, of course.
Mr. Flis: Sharing of research...
Mr. Ladanyi: Sharing of research, yes. We have shared research for a very long time in each of the particular subjects or domains. We don't stay in Quebec and just sit there and do research. Most of the research is applicable elsewhere. When I do my permafrost engineering research, I publish it and it is eventually used in Alaska, western Canada and Scandinavian countries.
What is international cooperation? I am very happy to say that I actually did research in Faro. Many people go to these places and that then is the change. It's usually in cooperation with local institutes or the national institutes of these countries.
It was the same thing in Alaska. I didn't go to Alaska just for a conference. Several years ago we went there to do research in the field. There is obviously very good east-west cooperation.
When you talk about the institutes or centres, it's different. Each of these centres has a different orientation. I am very glad to be one of the research people involved with the centre for northern studies at Laval University. On the other hand, look at the majority of what Laval University is doing in geomorphology, geography, biology, forestry and so on. I am an engineer, but in multi-disciplinary research it is very good to have different kinds of people working together.
If I say maybe I won't participate in the institute in Edmonton... Personally I am very interested in what they are doing, but it has very little to do with my own field. On the other hand, there is a very interesting establishment in the United States, the cold regions research laboratory in New Hampshire, which is doing most of the Arctic research for the U.S. army. That's a place I really would like to keep in contact with in order to profit from their experience and to try to show them my own experience. This is very particular and it depends on the domain in which I am working. If there is an institute in Edmonton doing something completely different, I am not particularly interested.
.1145
Mr. Flis: And what can we build into our foreign policy to break the dependency of the north on -
The Chairman: Mr. Flis -
Mr. Flis: Sorry. It's still my question. I haven't been answered.
The Chairman: That's all right, Mr. Flis. I think Mr. Duhaime wants to make an addition to that observation. Then maybe we can come in with the other question.
[Translation]
Mr. Duhaime: The issue of breaking the dependency is certainly an important one. But I think it's also important to understand that the problem that you see in the Canadian Arctic is not unique. That dependency on pay cheques from Ottawa does not only exist in Iqaluit. It's the same story in St. John's, Newfoundland. Seventy per cent of the Newfoundland government's budget comes from the federal government. And I don't hear Newfoundlanders or the Newfoundland Legislative Assembly complaining.
The problem of economic dependency...
The Chairman: You obviously haven't met Mr. Tobin!
Mr. Duhaime: ...is a complex problem that cannot be easily resolved, even if there is a coherent Canadian Arctic policy. The Arctic Council should be able to determine which problems associated with development are a priority and are in fact common to the entire circumpolar region.
One problem that seems to be common to the entire circumpolar region is the problem of education. If, as Mr. Dupuy claims, we are quite advanced in Northern Canada in many areas, it is clear that in the area of education and the economic development that goes along with it, Canada is very, very far behind every circumpolar country. And if the Arctic Council can play a useful role, that role would be to facilitate contacts between practitioners and researchers working in such areas as economic development or education, for example.
The Council must realize, as part of a comprehensive approach, that economic development driven by external projects, and financed with federal funds, will never have any lasting impact until people living in the region have been able to benefit from an education geared not to the contemporary culture of Northern residents, but rather to the contemporary realities of the global economy.
In my view, comparisons with other circumpolar countries are essential. If there is one thing the Arctic Council can do in that area, it would be to identify some of the problems that are common to the circumpolar region and then, where scientific research is part of the picture, to facilitate learned exchanges in those areas.
Mr. Allard: I want to try and answer one of the other questions Mr. Flis raised. It has to do with east-west cooperation in Canada, or the way of conducting research and managing teams and groups.
Mr. Grondin demonstrated that environmental health research was highly advanced in Nunavik - in other words, Northern Quebec - and that it included major international links with countries outside Canada and, albeit with some difficulty, elsewhere in Canada, although he didn't actually say that, and in the U.S. I can tell you that the situation is the same with respect to natural sciences and engineering, although to a lesser extent in Quebec, as Mr. Ladanyi was saying.
A recent study by the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies has just been published showing that almost 10 per cent of all Northern Canadian research is conducted by Laval University. One of the reasons for that is that in Quebec, research is well organized, and there are actual research centres in place. There is one at Laval that I am currently in charge of, but there is also another well-structured group at Laval that is not part of the Centre, and that is the group represented by my two colleagues here. Those groups work as a team. They have developed critical masses of researchers; they are very competitive when it comes to seeking funding from federal and now international organizations.
.1150
As for research in English Canada - this is my perception - it appears to be spread across several universities. The study published by the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies that I read last week-end makes that important point. Research is currently concentrated in certain universities. What is surprising is that it is mainly concentrated in Quebec but is expanding in Vancouver, at both U.B.C and Simon Fraser University, whereas it is decreasing in the rest of the country.
So, dissipation of effort in English Canada does pose a problem. To go back to what Mr. Painchaud was referring to earlier, there is also the problem of traditions not evolving quickly, both at the federal government level and in English Canadian academics' thinking and approach to research problems. In any case, that is my perception.
The Chairman: Mr. Allard, I have a technical question for you. Do you receive funds from foundations in parts of Canada other than Quebec, such as the Gordon Foundation, that funds a great deal of research? Do you have access to that kind of support or does your funding come more from Quebec?
Mr. Allard: The last foundation our centre dealt with was the Donner Canadian Foundation. In fact, reference is made to these foundations in the report on Canadian universities. Most of these foundations have pretty well withdrawn from the North. They have decided to concentrate on other issues, such as policies for developing people, social groups, and so forth. But less and less research is directed at the North.
The Chairman: I would like to ask a question before Professor Painchaud comes back, because he will probably want to answer that question.
We will be going to Europe in a few weeks. I would ask that each of you, in reference to your own area of specialization, tell us which of our partners in the Arctic have a policy that is beneficial to the North and which have a policy that is harmful to the North? What should we be seeking to achieve on our next trip?
There is no doubt the problem of nuclear waste in Mourmansk is a huge one. We are obviously aware of the major issues, but perhaps you could give Committee members a more precise idea of what we should be looking at while we're over there.
Mr. Bergeron, did you want to add something?
Mr. Bergeron: Unfortunately, my colleague, the member for Terrebonne, and myself have to leave now, and he had asked for the floor earlier. So, before we leave, we want to ask our witnesses to clearly identify the themes we should be concentrating on. My apologies.
The Chairman: Go ahead, we only have ten minutes left.
Mr. Sauvageau: I want to apologize for interrupting you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to extend my thanks to the witnesses for giving us the benefit of their knowledge of circumpolar affairs, as they relate to Canada's international relations.
I particularly want to thank Mr. Flis for being here. Earlier, Mr. Painchaud said that he was ashamed of the Committee. I, too, am ashamed of the Committee and I just wanted...
Mr. Painchaud: I hope you understood what I meant by that.
Mr. Sauvageau: Yes, I realize you meant it at a different level. I just want to assure you that when a group of Anglophone witnesses appears before the Committee, you have no reason to be ashamed of us. We are here today, unlike Reform Party and Liberal members.
The Chairman: You're not that partisan.
Mr. Sauvageau: There is no Reform Party member here today. They have absolutely no respect...
The Chairman: It's not a question of respect. They have other concerns.
[English]
A point of order?
Mr. Flis: In the House and in committees it's agreed we do not raise the issue of who is present and who is absent. One of my colleagues has another meeting, in the heritage committee. Another colleague had to leave because she has another committee meeting. One thing I like about this committee, witnesses, is that we do put partisan politics aside.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Could someone try to answer the member's question?
.1155
Mr. Painchaud: We can expand on the suggestion and comments made by Mr. Allard. I would like to ask you this, and I think this is a question you should be asking yourself: How many people are there in Canada who could be considered Arctic specialists, in the full sense of the term, just as there are African specialists? My colleagues Duhaime and Allard, myself and others like us can be considered to have expertise with respect to certain Arctic issues, but how many Arctic specialists are there with expertise in every single area? I doubt that you will find many of them.
We meet Latin American specialists, who are called area studies specialists. We don't even have any. We don't even have an integrated area studies program on the circumpolar region. How many study programs on the Scandinavian countries do we have in Canada? Indeed, how many actual courses are offered on Scandinavian countries? We have courses on the U.S.S.R. and on the United States, but do we include regional perspectives in our curricula?
You have asked for suggestions. I made some rather vague ones earlier, but I would like to add one more. This is a suggestion with respect to both Canada's domestic and foreign policy. Canada's foreign policy cannot develop properly if it is not based on an comprehensive body of knowledge and research all across the country. That is already the case in a certain number of areas - for example, on north-south issues, and to a point, strategic issues. If the Arctic is seen as a priority for Canadian diplomacy...
[English]
I will conclude in English, Mr. Flis, to make your task a little easier. I must say, you have been exposed to a lot of translation today.
Mr. Flis: C'est mon cours de français.
Mr. Painchaud: Anyhow, this is my practice in English.
I suggest the committee make the proposal that in Canada - both in Quebec and in other parts of Canada, because I'm quite sure we would look at that in different ways - one university at least, or an inter-university program, should be developed to train and inform people in Arctic issues, and not only from the social sciences point of view or from the natural sciences point of view. What is so missing in Canada is the political dimension of the Arctic. That illustrates, unfortunately, Mr. Dupuy, the lack of interest we had in the past in the Arctic.
Some sort of regional program, integrated, as we see it, with other regions - with European studies, for instance, or African studies, or whatever... We don't have that. And I don't think it exists anywhere else. It would be a first. Why not take the initiative to do it in Canada, as long - and I repeat myself so I am clearly understood - as there is one element of that in Quebec and another element in the rest of the country. But don't try to establish some sort of integrated circumpolar studies in Toronto, or even in Ottawa. It doesn't work. If you want a contribution from Quebec, it will have to be established in Quebec also. It's more costly, but in many ways it's enriching.
The Chairman: Following up on your last point, Professor, wouldn't you agree also, given the present climate, there would be an insistence that there be an element in the north? When we were in the Yukon we went to the university there and it was very clear there was a great deal of disenchantment. I understand exactly where you're coming from when you say geopolitically the Arctic is our concern. That's why we put it on. We wanted to get it onto the radar scope of people in this Parliament to understand it's an important issue for all of Canada, not just northerners.
But it was also very clear when we travelled in the north that there is a tremendous sense of alienation up there - a tremendous sense they are far away. So if we were going to do this, wouldn't we have to have some element, apart from just odd visits, some concrete presence there? There is an element of alienation in the fact that the Arctic Council is going to be in Ottawa rather than in the north. These are difficult regional issues.
.1200
Mr. Painchaud: That's true, but I doubt very much if you would find the resources in the north to establish that kind of program. You need experts on the United States, on the Soviet Union, on strategic questions, on economic questions and so on.
In other words, the north or the Arctic doesn't belong to the native people or people who live in the north. That should also be clear. There is no way you will be able to defend a Canadian foreign policy in the Arctic if that vision of the Arctic is not stressed very strongly. The Arctic doesn't belong to northern people.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Duhaime, would you like to add anything?
Mr. Duhaime: Along the same lines, I was going to suggest to Committee members, who will soon have an opportunity to see how things are done elsewhere, that they ask questions about the attitude of these foreign governments to the people living in their Northern regions. I think you will be struck by the difference in attitude.
Issues such as alienation, a sense of belonging, ownership or involvement in problems are never on our colleagues' agenda, particularly our Northern European colleagues. It just doesn't happen.
Norwegians living in the North don't give ethnicity a second thought when they put policies in place, no more than the Danes do. The Parliament of Greenland is made up of officials who are elected not on the basis of ethnicity, but on the basis of residence.
I would also suggest, as my colleagues have pointed out, that it would be a good idea to look at how research is organized in Scandinavian countries, in Denmark, Greenland, Iceland, and even in Siberia, where resources are even scarcer than they are here.
How is that research coordinated? Take a few minutes or a few days to look at the role of polar commissions that operate along similar lines as our own. Polar commissions in Northern Europe fund research. That is certainly not the case with the Canadian Polar Commission, which should be coordinating research but is clearly not doing that. I think it would be useful for the Committee to look at that.
Mr. Ladanyi: I strongly support what my colleague said. I would suggest something similar with respect to policies relating to inhabitants of Lapland, which is divided among Sweden, Norway and Finland. I had an opportunity to visit Northern Finland and I had the feeling that things were working quite well. Of course, someone observing the situation as an outsider can get a mistaken impression. What is the policy there as regards self-sufficiency for aboriginal groups living in the North? That's the first thing to look at.
Secondly, I have been very impressed by the efforts made in Scandinavian countries to open up educational possibilities in the North. Recently, in Norway, a university branch opened up at Longyearbyen, in Svalbard.
Of course, we did the same thing in the Yukon with the Yukon College. So, we have done something. There are indeed Northern branches in universities in Canada, but is that enough to provide on-site educational training to aboriginal people and others who want to study in the North? Learning about the North is very different from studying the North on site.
We do give courses in the South, and we talk about the North, but we don't even have enough money to show students what it looks like, except on video. So, there have to be a great many more opportunities for Southerners to learn about and to actually visit the North.
It is my impression that people living in the Southern part of Canada know very little about what's going on in the North. They have no conception of the vastness of Canada's North. That idea, which we tend to be exposed to only on paper or on television, should be more thoroughly explored, and Canadians should be given a lot more opportunities to visit the North. Something must be done to facilitate access to the North. That is what the Scandinavian countries have done.
.1205
Mr. Painchaud: Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
The Chairman: I'm sorry, but I believe Mr. Allard wanted to make a comment.
Mr. Allard: I just want to make a comment, and this will probably be my last, unless someone puts a specific question to me.
[English]
I will express this one in English, for courtesy.
I come back to one suggestion I made to you, for the personal culture of every member of the committee. Please do read the Arctic Research Policy Act of the United States. Then you will understand the challenges we have to face and the necessary actions we have to take. I proposed just a few actions this morning.
The Chairman: Perhaps we could suggest Mr. Martin read the act. That might be a more practical suggestion.
Mr. Allard: You will be making recommendations and you will have to deal with it.
[Translation]
Mr. Painchaud: I have a question for my three colleagues.
The Chairman: You have a question?
Mr. Painchaud: Yes, to them.
The Chairman: All right, but after that we have to wrap up because...
Mr. Painchaud: Could one of them say something about the Northern Research Centre at the CNRS in Paris?
Mr. Duhaime: All I can say is that we've heard about it.
The Chairman: Myself, ten years ago...
Mr. Duhaime: Perhaps I could just add that a number of students who were registered there are now at Laval University.
Mr. Painchaud: So, this centre is no longer making any significant scientific contribution in French? No. That was the point of my question.
I'm sure you understand now why I asked that question. Even though France is not a Northern country, it may have been conducting research there that could have benefitted Canada. While I am not happy to hear Mr. Duhaime's answer, at least it satisfies me.
Mr. Grondin: Italy also has a polar research centre, as do Germany, Japan and England. A number of countries can contribute.
Mr. Painchaud: In Hokkaido, there is a very important Northern study centre that is extremely well organized.
The Chairman: Given the time, I'm afraid I have to bring this session to an end. I want to extend the Committee's sincere thanks to our witnesses. I am pleased to note that at the end, at least, we will have proven the usefulness of a parliamentary committee. Sometimes this gives colleagues an opportunity to get to know each other better and to exchange views. So, I do believe this morning's session contributed something to scientific research in Canada.
Your observations and the challenge you have given us of looking carefully at our role in current research were very much appreciated by all members of the Committee. I can assure you, despite Mr. Sauvageau's comment, that the other members of this Committee, who cannot necessarily always be present, do indeed read the documents. I also want you to know that the short paper you have in front of you is only a small part of what we've looked at so far and that we try to ensure our research is as extensive as possible.
I want to thank all of you on behalf of the Committee.
Before we leave, I would ask that a member move a motion authorizing us to buy presents to offer our foreign hosts when the Committee travels to Europe, as part of this study, and to the foreign delegations that the Committee will be receiving in Ottawa. We need the Committee's authorization to buy something to offer our hosts, just as they do when they come to see us. Mr. Flis, Mr. Paré.
Motion carried
The Chairman: Our thanks to our guests.
[English]
We will adjourn until Tuesday at 9 a.m. We will have a trip briefing, but then we will move to the Canada-Israel free trade agreement in the afternoon, and we may be here that evening to get through the clause-by-clause. It will be in camera for the briefing.
The meeting is adjourned.