[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, February 18, 1997
.1113 
[English]
The Chairman: I ask if Mr. Whit Fraser would come in and speak to us about the circumpolar report.
While we're asking Mr. Fraser to come in, it would be very appropriate to thank the researchers of the Bloc, and also both the commission staff and the committee staff, and also Gordon and everybody else who spent so much time in the wee hours of the morning working on the report. Thank you all very much.
Sorry to have kept you waiting, Mr. Fraser, but I think you're familiar with how parliamentary committees sometimes get occupied with work that takes a bit longer than originally thought.
Thank you for coming this morning. I gather you are going to speak to us about your report, For Generations to Come. I'll pass the word to you.
Mr. Whit Fraser (Chairman, Canadian Polar Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I do appreciate the opportunity to meet this morning, and I hope my remarks will be of some assistance to you as you consider the important matter of Canadian foreign policy with respect to the circumarctic region.
I'll explain briefly what the Canadian Polar Commission is all about. I am sure you are aware that we serve as Canada's national advisory agency on polar affairs. We were not established as a research institution or a funding organization. Our role is to monitor the state of research and knowledge in Canada, to promote the development of polar research and to help determine scientific and other priorities.
.1115
This commission has been outspoken in defence of polar research programs. We have cautioned the government about cutbacks to marine and freshwater research, a field in which Canada has traditionally been a world leader. We have protested against reduced funding for the polar continental shelf project, which is a vital logistical link for Canada's polar research community. We have been pressing for some time now for the establishment of an Arctic marine research facility to ensure that just basic research on ecosystem dynamics is carried out in the Arctic. We have repeatedly sought support from the government for a national polar information network to link polar data from research institutes throughout the country. These proposals and others were compiled in a statement we produced a little over a year ago, ``Toward a Policy for Canadian Polar Science and Technology''.
The commission has long felt that one of the great weaknesses in the federal government's efforts in northern Canada has been the lack of a full commitment and obligation to polar research. I believe this committee was fortunate enough to be speaking to some of the polar research institutes and agencies in the circumpolar world, particularly the Norwegians. Our circumpolar neighbours, I notice, have a very clear picture of where they want to go in the Arctic and what they want to do in the Arctic, not only this year but in the decade and in the decades beyond. I fear that in that area, Canada is lacking.
However, I am also encouraged that some of the ideas we put forward in our policy paper have since begun to make their way into the working agenda for some of the interdepartmental committees on northern affairs in Canada.
In 1994 the commission also hosted a national conference to examine the elements of a northern foreign policy for Canada. Several of those recommendations focused solely on environmental issues. The commission's general recommendations noted that relations among Arctic countries must reflect a basic respect for the interests and aspirations of northern residents, especially the aboriginal people, and the policy-making process for Canada's foreign policy must involve the direct and active participation of northern Canadians. On that point, may I congratulate this committee for the time and effort it put into consulting directly with northern communities last year.
The commission has also noted that domestic and foreign dimensions of Canada's Arctic policies are in many ways interrelated, and that integration of foreign and domestic policies is certainly essential.
More specifically on the Arctic environment, the commission has recommended that the Government of Canada accord a very high priority to the conclusion of the United Nations protocol on long-range transport of persistent substances, as it is critical to the protection of the Arctic environment; and that through the Arctic environmental strategy and other appropriate avenues such as the Arctic Council, we participate in international efforts to deal with the threat posed to the Arctic environment by disposal of nuclear waste in the Russian north. This commission also believes that we must give a very high priority to studying the processes and effects of environmental change, both natural and human-influenced, in the Canadian Arctic.
We believe that the need to address these points, especially the environmental issues, is now clearer and important than ever because of the scientific knowledge we possess and because of the increased threat posed to the Arctic environment by a variety of sources.
Mr. Chairman, I'm not here to disillusion you about the potential of Canada's north. It is there and it is very real. But I want to stress that we must take action now to secure our northern heritage. The cause for concern will be known to many of you. It is the fact that widespread contamination of the Arctic region from transboundary pollution and other forms of pollution is occurring, and at an alarming rate.
For those of you who may be unfamiliar with the scope of the current situation, I can tell you that as we sit here this morning, toxic pesticides from as far away as Southeast Asia are drifting on air and ocean currents in the north Pacific, across Yukon and into the Beaufort Sea. Traces of dioxin and heavy metals are coming up the Atlantic coast and are finding their way across northern Quebec and Labrador at an equally alarming rate, and into Greenland and the Northwest Territories. Heavy metals from smelting operations in Siberia are also being deposited in the high Arctic and the northern regions of some of our provinces, and radioactive elements from nuclear testing and abandoned reactors are present on the tundra and in northern waters across the provinces and the territories.
.1120
In the space of a few short years we've come a long way in understanding the dynamics of global pollution. In fact, research carried out here in Canada under the aegis of the Arctic environmental strategy and the northern contaminants program has moved us from an era of educated guessing to finally some hard evidence. We now know that a wide range of toxic substances have found their way into the northern food change. We know much more about the damage they can cause to wildlife, but we also have a mounting body of evidence to suggest that the health of the northern peoples may be at risk in cases of long-term exposure. This comes about of course through consumption of country food, that is, the food that is taken from the land and sea, the caribou, the seal, the ducks, the geese, and the fish.
Final assessment reports from both the Arctic environmental strategy and the international Arctic monitoring and assessment program will be released in the spring. There is every indication that these programs will confirm what the commission has been told and what it has endeavoured to convey to the government: major questions remain unanswered about the link between human health and contaminants; however, given what we do know, the threat to northern regions must be taken very seriously.
We do know that northerners who rely on country foods are exposed to higher concentrations of toxic substances than people elsewhere in the world. This is a result of transboundary pollution and biomagnification through the Arctic food chain, and it can and is resulting in contaminant levels in some northern populations that may be ten to twenty times higher than those for individuals living in southern Canada.
What's also extremely troubling is that some of the information now coming from regional studies of organochlorine levels in maternal blood indicates that these substances can and are being passed on to the fetus in the womb and to newborns through breastfeeding. As for toxicology of contaminants, we know there is a very strong scientific body of evidence to show that neurological and neurobehavioural effects associated with contaminants present in the Arctic may lead to memory and learning disabilities in newborns and children.
Reproductive effects, including hormone disruption, may affect the fertility of females and lead to reduced sperm count in males. Immunosuppression effects can damage the body's defences against bacterial and viral infections that cause disease, and of course, finally, carcinogenic effects can enhance the risk of normal cells becoming cancerous.
Regrettably, the future direction of research on northern contaminants has now been cast in some doubt because the Green Plan programs, including the environmental strategy, end at the end of this fiscal year, in about five or six weeks' time. With this in mind, this commission undertook a review of Canadian policy associated with efforts to address the problem of transboundary pollution entering the Arctic. We talked to people right across the north, from Nain, Labrador, to Arctic Quebec, to Old Crow in the Yukon. Everywhere we went, without exception, we heard the same concern. People simply asked us, as I'm sure they've asked members of this committee when you were in the north, is the food we catch out on the land safe to eat?
We held a series of regional workshops to look into the concerns. We organized a national conference on the subject in Iqaluit last October. The findings from those consultations have been summarized in our report For Generations to Come. I won't go into all the details, but I want to give you a sense of some of our recommendations to the federal government.
We've recommended that the government must establish a new national northern contaminants program to safeguard the environment of the north and the health of the northern people. We believe that now the research and the monitoring should be clearly focused on the health of northern peoples and on the food they eat. We must maintain very high standards of health in the northern communities, and we must work very closely with northeners on these issues.
Members should know that some of the highest levels reported in the contaminants are to be found in northern Quebec and Labrador, yet these two regions of the country were not included in the work undertaken as part of the national Arctic environmental strategy. It was a northern program for northern regions, but the research has shown that the problems are far more widespread than we had imagined five, ten, or fifteen years ago when some of these programs were being put together.
.1125
The fact that it is not a national program is a shortcoming that's been noted by the commission in its report. We've recommended that this new contaminants program be made truly national in scope by including the northern portions of these and other provinces.
The commission has also recommended that the Government of Canada provide leadership and encourage cooperation in the international community to reduce, eliminate and prevent the discharge of chemical contaminants. This action should seek the active participation of the aboriginal peoples of the Arctic as well as public interest groups across Canada.
Members of the commission believe that a new and enlarged program is needed to deal with the complexity of the contaminants issue. Here we're not only talking about the sources and the pathways. One thing we have learned from the research, and I think this is very important, is that the cold Arctic climate acts as a trap and holds and contains the pollutants from other parts of the world.
We must then ensure that the scope of Canadian research is comprehensive and reflects the priorities and concerns of those who live in the north. We've recommended in our report that the government seek some additional help, looking for what we've called a ``blue ribbon'' panel, but a very small panel, of independent scientific bodies that can work to ensure that our future program is well focused on human health and hits the basic issues we must concentrate on.
We believe that the exercise at the international level of leadership must be combined with cooperation among Arctic and non-Arctic states.
Our recommendation also reflects a fundamental concern about the veracity of the message we deliver to the public on this issue. We know that the threat to human health is potentially serious, but if we look at much of the literature produced by public organizations operating in the north, it is very apparent that the issue is not receiving the attention it deserves. Instead, we can find an emphasis on the nutritional value of eating country food, and we're calling for northerners to maintain or even increase their consumption.
Now, no one will dispute that northern country food is highly nutritious, perhaps even more so than the imported food from southern Canada, and is an important element of the traditional lifestyles, but there are also cases where the literature goes so far as to suggest that the benefits outweigh the harmful effects of the contaminants. Members of the committee, I think we're moving onto much shakier ground here. There is no research to support that kind of claim - at least the Polar Commission has not seen any - and we can't make that claim with any degree of confidence.
It's become a matter of some concern to the commission that there is now an inconsistency between the line being promulgated here in Canada and the message we're delivering on the international circumpolar stage. The problem to the commission is this: it becomes extremely difficult for Canada, I believe, to make an international case to eliminate, reduce and phase out harmful substances worldwide if the message going out to our own northern population tends to downplay those very risks.
We should not delude ourselves on this. Those countries whose factories spew dioxins and heavy metals into the atmosphere, and whose agricultural industries have been built on the widespread use of DDT and other pesticides, are not going to overlook that kind of ammunition when it comes to defending their own interests.
While we believe strongly that the health and well-being of northern Canadians should be a priority, we should not overlook the economic repercussions of this contaminants issue for the north. Food products from Canada's Arctic have slowly been gaining entry into specialty markets the world over, and it would appear that there may be some tremendous prospects for the future. That this has been accomplished is due in no small measure to images of pure, healthy products derived from natural, unspoiled wilderness. I'm afraid that the contaminants issue represents a threat to the full development of that market potential.
The commission also believes that we must take a very close look at the effectiveness of the existing protocols negotiated with respect to persistent organic pollutants and heavy metals. Are they adequate measures based on what science is now telling us about the extent of the problem? Are there other measures that Canada might consider to protect the interests of Arctic peoples and the environment? How can we best utilize the resources of the United Nations, the Arctic Council and other fora to establish binding targets and time lines for the elimination of chemicals threatening the Arctic?
.1130
In the past Canada has demonstrated its willingness to act boldly and decisively on environmental issues at the international level. I'm thinking, of course, of acid rain. I believe this same resolve is necessary in our approach to the problem of contaminants in the Arctic. Northern Canadians and all Canadians anticipate our role in the region to be one of leadership, both in setting the agenda for multilateral relations among Arctic states and in pushing for change within the global community at large.
For its part, the commission has been vocal in pushing organizations such as the International Arctic Science Committee to include Canadian concerns on the international research agenda and to recognize the Arctic environment and contaminants more specifically as priority items. We think we have made some progress in that regard. We are also dedicated to assisting with this important effort.
It's our hope that the recommendations we have brought forward to the Government of Canada will provide the necessary impetus for stronger, more effective action at every level.
I want to thank you for the time this morning. I look forward to responding to any questions,Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Fraser.
Madame Debien.
[Translation]
Ms Debien (Laval East): Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
My question has two or three components. First, how much is your annual budget?
Second, what concrete measures does the Commission take with its budget? You said the Commission organizes conferences with different stakeholders concerned with Arctic issues. I am concerned with the potential for duplication between your work and what is done by the many existing organizations whose recommendations are almost identical to those in your report, including those on the environment and contaminants in the Arctic.
For instance, there are all those research agencies we have heard here in our hearings, all the work done by the Arctic Council, the Arctic environmental strategy and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. Well, I'm just wondering if the work already done by number of agencies which look quite similar to me, is not just being duplicated.
So there is one main question and a number of related questions.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Our budget for the Canadian Polar Commission is now about $900,000 a year.
I appreciate the question and the concern about duplication. It is something this commission has given a lot of attention to and has had concern about over the past five or six years in our operation. Because we are such a small commission and because we are of small numbers, we have tried to ensure that much of the work we have done does not duplicate what other agencies are doing.
I appreciate that there are a number of other regional, northern and international organizations that are very concerned about the Arctic environmental issue. But this commission would be totally irresponsible if this year, last year and perhaps next year it didn't put a lot of attention and effort into this very question. It is, in my view and the view of the six dedicated people who serve on our board of directors, the most critical environmental health issue facing northern Canada today.
.1135
We are especially concerned - and you will see this in coming months when the science reports are released - that the levels of many of the contaminants coming across the northern regions are very, very high. The highest we'll see will be in Greenland. The second highest will be the levels in Arctic Quebec, among the Inuit and the Cree. The third area will be the eastern Arctic, and the fourth will be farther west, in the Canadian Northwest Territories.
What perhaps separates the Polar Commission from some of the other organizations that continue to work on this issue is that we are the only national organization funded by the public and by the Government of Canada to address northern Arctic polar science issues. There is no other.
Over the past number of years we have seen our effort in polar research sharply diminish, at a time when, in the view of this commission, it should have been increasing. We have seen a lack of policy direction, I believe, on behalf of the Government of Canada to stake out its commitment and obligation to polar research. As I mentioned earlier, other Arctic countries have a very clear vision of where they're going in the north. Canada as a northern nation, we believe, needs to do the same.
In short, I would say that we share and work closely with a number of other organizations on regional issues, particularly the contaminants issue. But this agency established by Parliament has the only national voice in Canada for this whole area we call polar research.
The Chairman: Mr. Sauvageau.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau (Terrebonne): I too have also two questions, Mr. Fraser. The first one is in three parts.
What impact will the creation of the Arctic Council have on the Canadian Polar Commission? Will it affect your work in any way, especially in terms of environment? Should your mandate be modified to reflect the mandate of the Arctic Council? How closely do you intend to work with this new international organization in the North?
I suppose that the Canadian Polar Commission has already thought about those things and that you have an answer for me.
Secondly, is the Canadian Polar Commission concerned with the environment? Is it also a concern for the Arctic Council?
On page 9 of your document, you mention the creation of a committee made up of influential people. Ms Debien was concerned with duplication. Don't you think this new committee would be a case point?
So, is your mandate modified to reflect the mandate of the Arctic Council and what type of cooperation do you anticipate on environment issues?
My third question concerns the location of the commission. It says here that the commission located is on Albert Street, in Ottawa. I don't have a problem with that. Do you have any branches in the North, since that's where your clients are? If we want to create organizations and institutions for people in the North, should they be located in Ottawa or in the North?
[English]
Mr. Fraser: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I'll deal with the second question first because it will help me in the next part.
I spent most of my life living or working in the north. As chairman of the Canadian Polar Commission, I can tell the hon. members that it would not be a hardship for me to live in the north.
The Canadian Polar Commission is not located on Albert Street in Ottawa because we decided that's where we should be. I don't want to be flippant or facetious, but the decision of where we should be located was made by honourable members, and it's in our act of Parliament that our head office be located in the national capital region. As I said, I don't want to be flippant about that, but that's the reality.
.1140
Members of our board and others will not make an issue of where we are located. The issue we will make and do want to stress is not where the head office is. The commission is interested in the extent to which the Government of Canada, its ministers, and its departments will look at and take seriously recommendations made by this commission and other commissions that it appoints, and we believe that's the issue.
In terms of the Arctic Council, I believe the Arctic Council begins to address one of the former weaknesses in the whole system. The commission was a very strong supporter for an Arctic Council because we need to have among the Arctic countries a far greater sense of cooperation and coordination and working together on these issues, such as the environmental question. For the Canadian Polar Commission, it means there is now an agency established that we can give our findings to and hope that there's another international agency that can make the arguments internationally and develop protocols on these very important environmental questions. So that's one void that is filled.
Again, on the question of duplication, as I understand it the Arctic Council has a long and broad agenda, and in fact it's what they call an open agenda. Members of the Arctic Council and countries will determine what issues they approach and what issues they address and to what extent. On behalf of Canada, the Canadian Polar Commission will be there saying that we believe the question of environmental contaminants and environmental protection should be at the top of your list. So we become a voice to make that argument on behalf of northern research and northern science.
I hope that addresses the questions.
[Translation]
Mr. Sauvageau: Are you planning some changes to your mandate because of this new Arctic Council? Have you thought of a cooperative approach with it or will you just be another stakeholder when they want to hear witnesses? We too are trying to think along those lines.
[English]
Mr. Fraser: Sorry, I missed that part of the question; forgive me.
I do not see the creation of the Arctic Council as requiring a change in the mandate of the Canadian Polar Commission. Our mandate in the act is quite broad, and how we address it is largely left to the discretion of the board of directors to determine what are the priorities for the commission. But I do not think it needs a specific change in the mandate, no.
The Chairman: Mr. Flis.
Mr. Flis (Parkdale - High Park): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for appearing before us, Mr. Fraser. In your report, For Generations to Come, on page 13 you do state:
- The fact remains that virtually none of the organochlorines, heavy metals, or other
contaminants originated in the northern regions themselves. The bulk are transboundary
pollutants originating in other parts of the world.
Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, our recommendation is in two parts. We need a program that's going to focus very clearly on the health of northern peoples. I can just try to explain briefly some of the things that we think have to happen in the future that have not happened in the past.
.1145
For northern communities, it's our view that it should be a simple operation for the game officers and others in the north to send to a central lab established someplace in the northern communities, or to a number of labs, samples of seal, fish, and caribou that can be put under a microscope so those labs can determine what's in them and whether they are safe to eat. So far we haven't even gotten to the point of being able to agree nationally on what are the safe levels. So that's the first thing.
We should then have spot checks on a regular basis to determine whether the food is safe to eat, not unlike we do in southern Canada, where the chickens come along the line and someone from Agriculture Canada in a white coat would pull a chicken down and open it up and declare whether it is safe or unsafe. In northern Canada we don't have any kind of testing of the food itself. We need to focus very closely on human health, monitoring, assessment, setting guidelines, and doing the research all across northern Quebec, Labrador, Northwest Territories, and perhaps some of the other provinces that are highly dependent on country food and that have elevated levels of these industrial contaminants.
Having said that and established that, as a part of this program we need to work internationally. It's the commission's view that there should be much greater emphasis put on using and assisting the non-governmental organizations representing aboriginal peoples to make that argument internationally. I believe those very strong spokespeople for the aboriginal organizations are the best equipped to go to the United Nations, Geneva, and London and tell people directly, eye to eye, this is what you're doing to our northern environment, this is what you're doing to our health. It's in that context that we see a double-barrelled program.
Mr. Flis: Honourable members do make mistakes. When the Polar Commission was struck it was recommended that the head office be here in Ottawa. Would you recommend that the legislation be changed to move the centre to the north? The perception we got from northerners was that those people doing everything out of Ottawa can't really appreciate their concerns and challenges out there. You can be there every day of the year, but still the perception is that Ottawa is far removed from their concerns.
Mr. Fraser: I must say that I have heard that, and I wouldn't recommend that we move it to the north. On the other hand, I wouldn't oppose it.
This commission right now is made up of myself as the chairman and six other board members. Three of them live in the Northwest Territories and Yukon. Three of them are there every day of their lives except when they're perhaps at a meeting here in Ottawa. The other members of our commission are eminent scientists from Laval and from the University of British Columbia who have spent their lives in the science community. We also have a representative from Canadian business.
If you move it to the north, I wouldn't see the structure of the board changing any. I think the chairman and others would spend an equal amount of time travelling from the north to Ottawa to speak to honourable members and committees and to do the work that is done in the nation's capital, which is what members envisaged in the first place. It would be the same amount of time that I now spend travelling to the north. In the last month I was in the north three times. Put simply, I won't recommend it or argue it either way, but neither would I oppose it either way. I think it's a 50-50 cut, depending on which way you want to do it.
I would only add one thing. All of the organizations that believe the Canadian Polar Commission ought to be in the north, including the Dene's national Assembly of First Nations, have their head offices in Ottawa. The Inuit Circumpolar Conference has its international and Canadian office in Ottawa. The Métis Association of the Northwest Territories is part of a national organization that has a head office in Ottawa. The Inuit Tapirisat of Canada's head office is in Ottawa. Those same organizations obviously agree that there is some need to have a presence and head office in the national capital.
.1150
Mr. Flis: I think you've answered the dilemma. That's the problem: every organization that works with the north is in Ottawa. It's no wonder we picked up as a committee - I hate to put it in these strong terms - this negativism toward the organizations working out of Ottawa. We've even heard from groups that feel there is no longer a need for the Polar Commission.
With the Arctic Council and with the AEPS continuing the research, is it time to look at how that $900,000 could be channelled into other ways of helping the people who live there, the people who are being poisoned by the contaminants? The commission was formed before the Arctic Council. Now that we have the Arctic Council, is it time to think seriously about slowly disbanding the commission?
Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I'm obviously very biased in this response. I am the chairman of the Canadian Polar Commission. I am not going to advocate our demise.
Look, there is no end of contradiction or dilemma. The same people in the north, many of whom I've known for most of my life, also argue that the north has no voice or that the north's voice is not being heard. Yet at the same time, they seem to want to silence the only voice that is out there for polar research and polar science questions that really affect their everyday life. They perhaps don't see them as affecting their everyday life, but there are quite a number of agencies in Canada funded by the Canadian taxpayer that people don't think about every day, and they tend to look after some of our best interests.
There is no other agency trying to persuade the government that we have world-class research facilities on both the Atlantic and the Pacific, that we fund to millions and millions of dollars, and no one argues that it's not money well spent.
We don't have the smallest Arctic marine research facility, and we have twice as much coastline in the Arctic as along the other two oceans combined - twice as much. We know nothing about the economic potential of the Arctic Ocean. We know very little about the science of the Arctic Ocean, except that it can be as productive as the Mediterranean. There are species of fish in the Arctic Ocean that people have not yet identified, and we don't have a full-time research facility. The only national agency that has ever raised that issue and the weakness in all of that is the Canadian Polar Commission.
I think, members, that there is an incredible amount of work that has to be done in the Arctic in developing where this country is going in terms of the north and in terms of northern research. Again, I come back to the fact that you spoke to the Norwegian polar institute and others who are telling their country, and their country is listening, that the resources and the potential of the Arctic are their future. They are also recognizing that this future has to be protected with long-term, clearly defined scientific programs on the protection of the environment, the development of the resources and the protection of the people. These are the arguments the Polar Commission has been trying to address to the federal government.
I might as well say quite bluntly that if the Government of Canada and the departments of Canada are not going to listen to recommendations and take seriously what agencies like this say, well then by all means shut it down. I think that is the issue.
The Chairman: We have only about five minutes left.
Mr. Flis: I'd like to pursue this in great depth, but I will pass.
The Chairman: I think it's important for Mr. Fraser to understand that we heard a great deal of criticism when we were in the north.
.1155
You had a quick point.
Mr. Speller (Haldimand - Norfolk): Yes, I just had a quick point to say that I've heard those same criticisms too, but it would seem to me that many of the problems in the north are international problems, and if you're going to make an impact on those you're going to have to do that in Ottawa. This is where all the embassies are. This is where all the high commissions are. This is where all the international institutions people are. If you're going to make an impact on them, you need to do it here in Ottawa, and unfortunately not in the north.
The second point is that in order to solve these problems you're going to need to get together with other groups, other international groups and Canadian groups, and lots of them are headquartered in Ottawa too. So I would disagree with my colleague and suggest that in fact you need to do all that here.
As a final point, I think you're doing a wonderful job. Keep it up. And anything I can do on my behalf.... We have all heard in the past that there are a lot of difficulties. I think there needs to be more done in this area, and certainly this committee will support you in that area, I'm sure.
Mr. Fraser: Thank you. I appreciate it.
The Chairman: Perhaps we'll pass to Mr. Dupuy, and then if you want to make a final wrap-up you might take into account Mr. Speller's observations at that time, Mr. Fraser.
Mr. Dupuy (Laval West): Very briefly, Mr. Fraser, you made several positive references to the policies and the objectives of other Arctic countries. You mentioned Norway in particular, and you contrasted their forward-looking approach to what seems to be a bit of confusion on the Canadian side. What is it that they are doing better than we are, and why are we not doing better ourselves?
Mr. Fraser: I think where we can learn from them is, as I said earlier, there is a clearly defined direction in terms of polar research. They see the north, the Arctic regions, the Arctic Ocean regions in terms of future resources for their economy and for Europe.
Where I think we differ and where they're weak is that they're not as concerned about the rights of aboriginal peoples and northern peoples as Canada is. I think it is the fact that we have two northern territories, that we touch on the parts of many of the provinces, and that we have twenty federal government departments and agencies exercising important parts of their mandates and delivering important services to Canadians that makes it far more difficult for Canada to have a clear, precise policy.
But the fact that it's going to be more difficult does not mean we shouldn't have it. The federal government has not staked out this clear national commitment to the north of where we want to go in the next decades and beyond, I think largely because there are so many ministries and departments and mandates at work. We have been advocating for some time now, and gradually we're making inches, that the federal government needs to coordinate its own effort in the north. As I say, we're making great interests in that.
We also must recognize - and I recognize - that the geography and the socio-political conditions and climate in northern Canada is much different from what it is in other countries. But as I say, because it may be more difficult to do here is not reason not to do it.
The Chairman: To conclude then, Mr. Fraser, perhaps I could say frankly to you that we heard some criticisms about the commission when we were in the north. They were the criticisms Mr. Flis was addressing. Specifically, one witness who was very highly placed complained about the fact that of your budget of $1 million, almost $350,000 has been spent on travel.
Now, I understand your point is that if you're located in Tuktoyaktuk, you can't influence the United Nations from Tuktoyaktuk, so you're going to have to travel from Tuktoyaktuk to Ottawa, to the United Nations, and back. So wherever you are, you're going to have to travel somewhere, and travel in the Arctic is expensive.
To what extent is the commission looking at Internet and other forms of reducing expenses? In our committee structure, we've been forced to seriously look at how we can be more up to date in the way in which we deal with these issues. We were very impressed by some young people who came before us when we were talking about child labour who told us they were in contact with India on the Internet. They were just high school students, and they seemed to know a great deal.
.1200
Are you being reviewed by outside authorities? Because it seems to us that you have an extraordinarily big mandate. It relates to this new international environment problem as well as the domestic political framework in which you have to operate. And it may be a mandate that is just impossible to respond to, so your mission statement may need some looking at. I just wondered if you were concerned about that.
Mr. Fraser: Obviously I'm concerned about the perception, but the reality is that the commission has a mandate that calls on the commission to hold more than half of its board meetings in the north, which we do. We try to hold a large number of meetings with northern organizations and we support northern organizations in their travel to other meetings. We do a lot of our committee work in the north. And yes, it costs money.
I heard the criticism that we spend half of our money on travel and the other half on salaries. With respect, Mr. Chairman, I thought that's what the Canadian government established us to do. Our people deserve to be paid their salaries. And I think it is important for members to know that the members of the board of the Polar Commission receive only a per diem on the days we have meetings, and some of them work two or three days a week without pay, without compensation.
The value we get for the $900,000 from the current members of the board is probably almost half again more than that, because they put long days in and do a great deal of work but charge only for the four or five days they're involved in meetings. I think members should know that.
We're concerned about the perception, but the reality is that the costs are high. I know the figure was used of $350,000. I would be much more satisfied, Mr. Chairman, if I could send you a detailed copy of our budget expenditures for last year. I don't think they come to $350,000.
The Chairman: I think it would be helpful if you'd do that. I think the members of the committee would be interested in considering that.
We recognize that often there's a difference between perceptions and reality and that it's difficult to satisfy all constituents. We're just trying to get an understanding of what your mandate is. If your mandate is to go and travel and have meetings in the north and arrange networking among other people, and that's what you're doing, then that's what your mandate is. That's fine by us. I'd presume that with $1 million a year, your mandate is not as a funding agency to fund other things, because you wouldn't have that kind of money.
Mr. Fraser: For instance, in the contaminants conference that we put together, I think we spent about $100,000 or so to hold three regional meetings, plus the meeting in Iqaluit, and about 80% of that was to bring people to the meetings. Some of the very organizations that criticize us, we pay the freight to bring their workers and their representatives there.
The Chairman: Well, we heard recently from Mr. Maurice Strong about the new information technology, and I'm sure you'll be looking at that as well, because that's important for the north as well.
We thank you very much for coming. We're sorry we started you late, but I think we got the essence of what you had to say. We appreciate it very much. Thanks very much, Mr. Fraser.
We're adjourned until Thursday morning at nine o'clock, when we will be looking at Canada-Chile free trade with Minister Eggleton. We might try to meet earlier if we have to for the subcommittee report. Thank you very much.