EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, May 9, 1995

.1924

[English]

The Chairman: Welcome to our committee. We apologize for the delay, in part due to the fact that we adjourned a little later than planned.

We are very pleased and honoured to have His Honour, the mayor of Iqaluit, Joe Kunuk. With him, to represent the Baffin Chamber of Commerce, is Derek Rasmussen.

Would you like to make two brief statements and then we'll have one round of questions? Please go ahead.

Mr. Joe Kunuk (Mayor of Iqaluit): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to welcome you and the members of this committee to Iqaluit and thank the committee for coming to our community to conduct these public hearings.

Last May, when you discussed whether you should come to Iqaluit, I'm sure you had read documents about the north, in particular about our community and Resolution Island, which is quite a ways from here, and about other sites in the north.

.1925

In the north we often read about what is happening in the southern parts of Canada, but we never really get an appreciation of what is happening, because most of us don't have the chance to go down to your cities or to your communities.

Mr. Chairman, I think you will agree with me that it is always better to see in person what is being discussed so that you can get a better appreciation of what it is we face in the north.

As the mayor of Iqaluit, I must ensure that the concerns of our residents are addressed, and the issue of our environment is a concern for all residents in this community and in the north. This is particularly true on a day-to-day basis, especially for our future generations.

Therefore we are concerned about toxins and heavy metals in the food chain, as outlined by the heavy set of documents we received last week, which was released by Environment Canada. The report says that high levels of PCBs and heavy metals are to be found at Upper Base, which is just north of here, and that there are military waste dump sites around our community.

We hope you have had a chance to tour these sites. If not, I would encourage you to visit the sites before you leave tomorrow.

Current studies in the north have shown that these toxins are showing up in the country foods and may be getting into the water supply for our community. For our residents this is unacceptable.

In the past our elders were concerned about activities that created the old military dumping sites. As late as last week I heard from all the elders that they were told not to worry because the government knew what it was doing. We placed a lot of trust in those people, who have since gone back down south.

Now we are being told, through studies and reports, that these sites have unacceptable levels of toxins and chemicals. Our community would like the government to address all the issues that have been identified and not just do a dressing job as they address these issues.

For us, an effective Canadian Environmental Protection Act must ensure that country foods such as seal, Arctic char, caribou, birds and fowl are safe to eat. People should not be frightened of the food they eat and the water they drink. We want to be free to move on the land without worrying about the sites that have been contaminated by the military or other outsiders.

The Canadian Environmental Protection Act should ensure that contaminated sites are cleaned up and that the toxins are removed. As I said earlier, this should not just be a dressing clean-up job, but a total clean-up of the materials that are visible and the materials that are not visible to us.

With our climate, location and scarce financial resources, we are forced to deal with an environment that is not acceptable to our residents and that we're sure would not be tolerated in the south. We wish we could get the state-of-the-art equipment to properly deal with our own waste so that we could contribute to the preservation of our environment.

This is an issue the town continues to address. Presently we have a waste management site that is usable for the next five years and we also have a business that recycles pop and beer cans.

If we were to strictly follow the act, our communities would be in contravention of the act. For example, we have a sewage lagoon in this community that, after a number of days or months, is allowed to settle down before it's released to the sea or to the bay in our area. This is unacceptable in all levels of government, from municipalities to the federal level. We must work together to address this issue and other issues faced by our community.

Mr. Chairman, I hope your visit has allowed you to see what we are dealing with in the north so that you can provide solid recommendations to the government on what needs to be done now and in the future to clean up the contaminants that have been left behind. This is in addition to the projects that will see about $2 million spent to start cleaning up the sites this year. This must not stop, but must continue until all sites are cleaned up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

.1930

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Rasmussen, please.

Mr. Derek Rasmussen (Executive Director, Baffin Regional Chamber of Commerce): Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. To start off, I'd like to extend the apologies of the president of the Chamber of Commerce, Jerry Ell, who's not here today. He had to be in Rankin Inlet on other business.

Today we will be expressing some of the concerns of the membership of the Baffin Chamber of Commerce, which includes hunters, trappers, fisheries and outfitters - companies whose livelihoods depend on safe country foods and a healthy wildlife population.

I understand there were questions raised earlier today about toxins in the food chain. We have a few documents we've collected in the last month or so, preparing for your visit.

First off, this is Broughton Island's report, done in the mid- to late 1980s, on the food chain there and heavy metals and PCBs involved in that food chain. This study in particular is the one that found the most startling statistics. PCB blood levels were found to be exceeding tolerable daily intake in 63% of the population under the age of fifteen.

Mr. Adams (Peterborough): I wonder if it would be possible to give the title so it will be clear what the publication is, for the record.

Mr. Rasmussen: Okay, sure. There are two that relate to this. Probably the better one is ``Inuit Foods and Diet: A Preliminary Assessment of Benefits and Risks'' by Kinloch, Kuhnlein and Muir. It's an abstract from The Science of the Total Environment magazine.

I don't have the next report in hand, but it's a report I got with the help of the CBC here in Iqaluit. It was reported on April 12 of this year. It regards high levels of mercury and toxaphene, which is a pesticide, in Arctic char in Peter Lake near Rankin Inlet.

I'm giving you examples from around the region - not just from Iqaluit, but across Nunavut - because I don't think you're going to have a chance to stop in some of these other communities to hear this from these people.

Finally, and probably the one that got the most press in the Ottawa and Quebec papers, is a report by the Quebec Institute for Public Health. This is an abstract of it called ``Toxins and Tradition: The Impact of Food Chain Contamination on the Inuit of Northern Quebec''. It's a study that reports on umbilical cords of Inuit babies in hospitals just across the Hudson Strait. Lead levels were found to be four times higher than in babies in Quebec City, PCBs were four times higher and mercury levels were 22 times higher. That's summarized in this document.

The Chairman: Is the source of those metals indicated in this study?

Mr. Rasmussen: They theorize that the source of the contamination is trans-border pollutants in air or water movements from southern industrial centres, or in many cases it seems to point more towards the former Soviet Union or northern Europe as a source.

To that end, again, I brought some of these documents to hand out, but I recommend a map that shows Arctic air mass movements from the pole. It shows that most of what we get either comes up from Europe and the Soviet Union over the top of the ice cap or comes over from western Canada. I have several of these documents.

I also have a very good report done by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee on contaminants. It's volume 21, number 4, winter 1993-94 issue.

.1735

Mr. Lincoln (Lachine - Lac-Saint-Louis): Could you repeat the statistics on PCBs in young people?

Mr. Rasmussen: The first statistic I quoted was from a study of Broughton Island in the mid-1980s. I think it originated in 1985, and the second document, or follow-up, was in 1989. The statistic most frequently cited from that study is PCB blood levels were found to be exceeding the tolerable daily intake - which is the fancy scientific name - in 63% of all people under the age of fifteen in Broughton Island.

As an aside I should mention that when this information came out - and I think Broughton was one of the first studies to come out - it was released kind of clumsily by the scientific community and created quite a scare, which discouraged people from eating country foods at first. It should be noted that when these statistics are quoted, we have to be careful that we don't necessarily jump to the conclusion that people should be discouraged from eating country foods, for in fact country foods seem to have the greatest nutrient value for people in the north, as well. So there's a catch-22: it's the best available food source, but it's also becoming the one that's highly contaminated.

Having gathered these materials together, I'll give you the name of the last one, which is a report entitled ``The Contamination of the Eastern Canadian Arctic Ecosystem''. This is by Eric Dewailly of the Quebec Institute for Public Health. It was prepared in October 1993.

The committee can have these copies of all the reports, if they want, for the record. There's a whole bunch more here on food chain contamination and so on.

To continue, most of these pollutants, as I said earlier, are thought to be transported into this region by air and water movements from heavily industrialized areas of North America or from the former Soviet Union and northern Europe. Although we have nowhere near the industrialization the south has, we get the pollutants here.

Therefore our Chamber of Commerce would like to see a Canadian Environmental Protection Act that addresses trans-boundary pollution and protects wildlife as a renewable resource, as well as protecting the health of citizens.

To this end I'd like to quickly address four points. I'm making these points because, in reading the CEPA literature and notes, certain issues seem to come up again and again, so I thought we'd jump in and put our two cents in on some of these. They are: voluntary compliance, surveillance and enforcement, the burden of proof question and also international accords.

First off, an effective environmental protection act should have teeth. It should regulate control of toxins and contaminants with the power of law behind it, because voluntary compliance isn't good enough.

As businesses, we expect the rule of law to govern our commercial interactions. Our clients don't always pay their invoices voluntarily. Sometimes we need the courts behind us. So why shouldn't the new regulations govern the production of potentially harmful substances? Why should we expect voluntary compliance in other areas? There should also be penalties for mishandling or releasing dangerous substances.

The second point is on surveillance and enforcement. CEPA can't work as a toothless tiger. We want to know where the toxins that affect our health and livelihood are coming from. We want to be able to know that these contaminants can be controlled or the flow can be stopped. Penalties should exist for polluters, and they should be enforced.

Third is the burden of proof. This is another question that seemed to arise in some of your previous hearings. Car companies test vehicles for safety before putting them out on the market and recall them if there's a problem. With chemical compounds, a commonly cited figure in the media is that there are 70,000 in commercial use, but only 2% have been tested. Moreover, 1,000 new compounds are introduced every year.

.1940

We feel the burden of proof should be shifted away from the local communities and the government onto the companies that are profiting from the production of these compounds.

Obviously our Chamber of Commerce doesn't have any big chemical companies as members, but from health data available it's safe to assume that we have members who have above-average levels of PCBs in their bodies. These pollutants arrived here either as trans-border air and water pollutants or as wastes from the U.S. military sites that were previously referred to today. They are not here because we requested them, and we feel strong legislation controlling pollutants would be most welcome.

Finally, given the likelihood that a large percentage of pollutants here in the Canadian Arctic originated in the industrialized former Soviet Union and northern Europe, we feel that CEPA must be linked with effective international accords to encourage more environmentally friendly manufacturing and resource extraction in those areas, because we get the consequences here.

That's all. Thank you.

The Chairman: Thank you.

We'll start questions with Madame Guay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Chairman, if I may, I'd like to ask two questions in order to get the information I need. How are you gentlemen?

My first question deals with the sites polluted by the American military. This afternoon, we went to see for ourselves. We were told that negotiations are under way and that a shredder has already been bought for the barrels that can be found on this site.

Could you tell me more precisely when and how this site is going to be cleaned up. Also do you believe we should include in CEPA a specific clause for such sites? I would first like to know what is happening here, at what stage are the negotiations, when and how the site will be cleaned up and I would also like you to tell us how we can improve CEPA.

[English]

Mr. Kunuk: Last Friday afternoon the Iqaluit Town Council was briefed by Mr. Mitchell from, I believe, DIAND and Environment Canada regarding the work that could be performed this summer. The shredder that was used in Coral Harbour to shred the barrels was transported here and is ready to be used as soon as all the details are finalized.

Yesterday the town council passed a motion that the Iqaluit town administration will be comprised of the project leaders along with members of a steering committee from the Baffin Regional Inuit Association and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, so that all concerned are represented when the clean-up is being done.

The products from the shredded barrels will be shipped out to be incinerated. From the information we have so far, the shredding project will start this summer. The work will be performed at different sites in the community.

As I said in my presentation, our elders who weren't elders in the 1950s and 1960s were told they had nothing to worry about. Before any new projects are even looked at for implementation at the community level I think they must go through a strict review through the regulations and processes in place, so that twenty, thirty or forty years from now my children and grandchildren won't have to go through the same heartache and frustration we are facing now.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Mr. Chairman, I have another question.

From the information you have on the process, do you know who will pay for this clean-up operation and how long will it take?

.1945

[English]

Mr. Kunuk: The information I've received so far is that the funding for the clean-up projects will come from the federal government. Because of the different levels of contaminants in the different areas, more emphasis is being placed on certain sites. The presentation made last Friday was to set up the protocol of how to deal with all the sites. This year there will be a concentration on the Upper Base site and the north 40 site, along with the west 40 dump sites.

The area the residents are concerned about is the Apex dump, which is near a small community about three miles from here. Levels of contaminants are reported in that area. The area we talked about is used for fishing and clam digging. We feel those areas should be addressed very soon, not two or three years down the road.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan (York - Simcoe): An earlier witness suggested that people in Europe have a very keen interest in the Arctic. They're interested in the culture and the people here.

I know from speaking with European parliamentarians that they have a very big concern about the vanishing areas of pristine wilderness left in the world. Canada is one example of a country that has large tracts of wilderness left, and for a variety of reasons Europeans are interested in the Arctic and its people.

As some of these trans-boundary pollution problems are coming from Europe and Russia, have you any thoughts about how the federal government might be able to work with the people from that area to promote awareness of these issues in Europe?

Mr. Kunuk: To a certain extent the government has started that process by appointing Mary Simon the Arctic ambassador.

She was here in February with senior Arctic officials from different countries. Her work, influence and visibility in the circumpolar regions will definitely help. If the government gives full support to Ambassador Simon, we can start working towards that. When she was here in February with the delegates, she was very active in talking with them. By supporting her initiatives in her role as the Arctic ambassador and talking with different European countries, you could start moving toward that.

A week before that meeting of the Arctic officials we had some visitors from Russia who were travelling to different parts of the north in preparation for setting up an Arctic council so that the different Arctic regions can get together and go to their respective governments to lobby on issues such as the environment.

The government should endorse Ambassador Simon in her work and provide her with the resources to do that work. She's an individual very capable of promoting awareness of our area.

Mr. Rasmussen: Right now around the world we're commemorating the end of World War II, shortly after which the Marshall Plan was put in place.

.1950

If I could be so bold, I'd like to suggest that after the end of the Cold War, it wouldn't be out of place to have an environmental Marshall Plan put in place, both to clean up the DEW Line sites, for example, across our north and to go over to the Soviet Union and start addressing some of the problems that are sending their waste materials over here.

That kind of thing might catch people's imaginations as well.

The Chairman: Thank you. That's a good suggestion.

Mr. Gilmour (Comox - Alberni): I wonder if either one of you could expand on your tax base and on whether in fact there's enough private influence. I can't see that on our visit here today.

What I'm getting at is the responsibility for clean-up. In many of the municipalities down south, clean-up is a municipal responsibility. I fully understand that you have a legacy here that the tax base could not possibly handle.

How much of a private base do you have within the municipality? I feel that if there's financial input into the municipality, there's also a better feeling, rather than just having money come from the outside to do the total clean-up.

Mr. Kunuk: The tax base we have here is very small. It's the largest one in the eastern part of Nunavut, but if we were to start putting more resources into it, something would have to give. We have a hard enough time in this municipality without looking at bigger projects.

For example, because it's a lease-only policy for the land where the houses and buildings sit, we always have to go through the territorial government to get funding to develop the lots. Right now we're going through that process, but it's very time-consuming and frustrating.

If the municipality here or any other municipality were to look at it, I believe most of the funding sources would have to come from the territorial government, because through grants in lieu, we get the majority of our funding from the territorial government.

In terms of companies that are available to do work here, the business community continues to grow. There are more companies coming up here for construction projects, such as the Panarctic group, the Nunasi Corporation and the regional corporations that have partnered with Frontec to look at supply and labour for the clean-up of the DEW Line sites, or the early warning sites. That's one step that will allow regional Inuit corporations to take advantage of certain projects.

In terms of individual municipalities, other communities are all hamlet-based, and they get all of their funding from the territorial government. If that were to be an option, the territorial government would have to look at grants in lieu and how they'd provide funding to the municipalities.

Mr. Adams: I'd like to make a comment and ask Mr. Rasmussen a question.

Madame Guay asked you about the shredder and we saw evidence of the use of the barrel crusher. I know the shredder came, as you said, from Coral Harbour. It seems to me it would be really worth while if you as a community, as distinct from the technical side of that process, could document the experience of the difficulties you have and the targeting you mentioned. I think that would be most valuable for the communities.

My question to Mr. Rasmussen has to do with his members. I asked earlier today, when the Nunavut people were here, what power they had to inspect and enforce environmental problems. The response they gave me had to do with developers. They said they feel there is now a process in place and they have good input if a developer is coming in and so on.

What about you, as a chamber, and your members? Think about it in terms of the community. If you have a member who in fact is in violation environmentally, do you have any way of inspecting that and enforcing it, for your own members as distinct from someone from outside?

.1955

Mr. Rasmussen: I don't know what the enforcement rules are regarding violation by members. We haven't had an example of it that I can think of for us to have found out how it works. So I can't say how we would go about inspecting a facility, for example, or trying to enforce some kind of reparation.

Mr. Kunuk: Let's look at the example of the Iqaluit sewage lagoon, which ended up in the courts a few years ago. The Fisheries people and the act they were trying to enforce....

The territorial government was taken to court for improper maintenance of a sewage lagoon. I heard at the time the officials were told to relax the act a bit. The officials took a strong stance, saying they couldn't; this was what the act said and this was what they had to do. The town, the municipality and the territorial government went to court, and the territorial government was fined for what happened here.

It was mentioned during that process that if we were to strictly follow the act to the letter, the sewage lagoon here should not even exist. So as I said in my presentation, because of the climate and the location we're in, sometimes we don't have the same options in dealing with these issues as the Cities of Toronto, Windsor or Edmonton may have.

If the environmental acts are to be enforced, the question of financing comes up. As I said, we get most of our funding from the territorial government, which in turn gets its funding from the federal government. So that would have to be addressed and worked in so that if we see something happening that is in contravention of the act, then we would have the resources to deal with certain incidents.

Mr. Forseth (New Westminster - Burnaby): On a couple of occasions you've alluded to the fact that various individuals say the government knows what it's doing, so don't worry. I'm asking you at this point if anyone has said that recently. If so, name them. Who are they?

Mr. Kunuk: When I made that comment it was in reference to presentations that were made to council last week. We have three elders on council who were here in the 1950s, the 1960s and on. Even my deputy mayor, who's lived here since the 1960s, said certain people were concerned about the west 40 sites and the Apex site. This was a long time ago; I don't think they would know who told them.

When someone who does not read English has two heavy binders placed in front of them explaining why it's safe to do this, unless the agency translates all those documents, the normal reaction of most unilingual people is to accept what is being said because the information is not in their language.

Mr. Forseth: But you're not alleging that the kind of dynamic you described is happening currently?

Mr. Kunuk: No. It was in reference to comments from the 1950s and 1960s, when the sites were being created.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Mayor, thanks for meeting us at the airport. We go to many airports; not too many times are we met by mayors. We are very honoured.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

.2000

Mr. Lincoln: I wanted to ask you about this question of waste that Mr. Forseth referred to, especially in regard to a letter we got today informing us that Panarctic is planning to get a permit to dump 7,000 tonnes.

There are three recommendations in the ITC report. One, whatever comes in should be taken out. Two, if it can't be taken out, it should be stored in areas away from sensitive zones and from the sea. Three, traditional knowledge should always be involved; in other words, you should participate in the decisions much more effectively.

If we make a recommendation under the CEPA report regarding the Arctic questions, would it help if we highlighted these things? How do you ensure that people who bring the materials in take them out, especially the big corporations that can afford it? Take the case of the Beaufort Sea, where they were dumping into the sea.

Should there be a bond of a substantial enough amount so that the funds are there for these things to be taken out or stored? In other words, the person who brings them in is responsible for the after-effects of it.

I want to get your reaction to these points, and perhaps also your colleague's.

Mr. Kunuk: I think anything that will address immediate issues such as the examples you gave, Mr. Lincoln, would be advantageous.

The majority of the bigger projects completed in the past thirty to forty years were initiated through federal contracts, federal tenders, territorial tenders and territorial contracts. If the federal and territorial governments are able to build into their tenders that what is brought in and not used must be brought back to where it came from, that would be one step in addressing that issue.

For such things as the early warning sites that have been constructed in the past few years, if there are some ways of dumping those sites, then they should be brought back to where they came from.

Another example I mentioned to a member of Parliament, Mr. Jack Anawak, is the coast guard. The coast guard goes around our region and through the north. Most of the time they bring or fly in their own food. They don't pay the taxes most businesses pay, but they still use our dump.

We've addressed that with our new by-law on tipping fees and so on. I told Mr. Anawak that if the coast guard is bringing this material in, they should either bring it back on their ship or assist the municipality in dealing with the waste they leave behind.

Mr. Rasmussen: I'd like to say that the idea of a bond is an interesting one. Certainly a lot of costs are incurred with operating businesses here. I don't know how our membership would react to having another cost put on top of that, but it's a sensible thing to think of some measure to ensure that waste created here, especially waste that is dangerous and won't biologically break down, is removed from here.

I don't understand why it doesn't happen more often, given that it's relatively inexpensive, as far as I understand, to use the sea lift backhaul when the ships are going back empty in the summer. The ships could remove stuff from the north.

Mr. Finlay (Oxford): I appreciate the mayor coming here, and you, Derek.

What is the source of Iqaluit's water supply now? I hear you saying the lagoon would not be appropriate in the south and isn't doing an adequate job here. What would be the recommended solution to this problem?

.2005

Mr. Kunuk: The water supply is from what we call Lake Geraldine, which is up on the hill, past the power plant.

The lagoon is at the other end of the community. We've talked about a number of ways of dealing with it. My chair of Works and Public Safety has talked about a sewage treatment plant, which hasn't proven to work well in another community because of the climate. In fact it's at Nanisivik Mine, and it's not in use.

I've also been to Siuimuit, Greenland. I don't know what kind of plant they have, but it seems to be working, because they treat it before it's released.

Some of the technologies that have been introduced in the north as pilot projects haven't proven to work well. There was an incinerator in Pangnirtung, which is a community east of us. Again, because of the location and the technology involved, it seemed to create more headaches for the municipality than it it was worth.

We've tentatively looked at another site in our community for a sewage lagoon that would not leak into the sea. Until all the testing is done on the site to see whether it's leaking to one area or another, the life of the site is something that has yet to be looked at.

The problem with that site, though, is it's in the west 40 area, close to the river. There have been reports of materials being buried there that cannot be touched because it might do more harm than good to disturb the site.

We haven't talked at the council level yet, but we've talked to see how we can address both our waste management and our sewage lagoon. As I said, though, we would have to weigh it against our scarce funds.

Mr. DeVillers (Simcoe North): This afternoon we heard from witnesses on the issue of negotiated settlements with respect to enforcement. Something the committee's heard a lot of evidence on are the pros and cons of using negotiated settlements.

You mentioned voluntary compliance and the need for enforcement, but the concept of negotiated settlements provides an opportunity to get some clean-up done once a violation has occurred. I'm wondering what your position would be with respect to that concept of negotiated settlements.

Mr. Rasmussen: I'll be speaking off the cuff, since I haven't been told by the membership what my position should be.

I think we'd be concerned about whether negotiated settlements in the north would be able to recoup the costs of dealing with wastes here, because it seems to me it's going to be a much more extensive problem here than it would be in the south.

A negotiated settlement would be good as long as there were some kind of body or governing agency to make sure the clean-up is done adequately and according to the regulations this committee is looking to set.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I would like to refer to the military waste dump site, in particular the barrels, because you did not really answer the second question I asked some time ago. How much time would be needed for clean up?

We have also been told that the soil was very contaminated and that there had also been an agreement on soil decontamination.

.2010

[English]

Mr. Kunuk: Last Friday we got a briefing from the department. The documents that were presented to us filled two huge binders and had suggested timeframes, including for projects this year.

Mr. Mitchell, who made the presentations, made reference to certain sites being done this year, depending on resources for the future years. It all depends on the protocol that will be set by the government and by the specific department.

So in terms of timelines and timeframes, the documents I've gone through are not specific. There are parts of the report that say certain things, but at the same time, either in the appendices or later on in the report, one says there's heavy contamination and another says it's heavy but still safe, so it's not as important as other sites.

This is the report I'm referring to that was presented to us. Unless I go through every tab in this binder and the appendices, I will not be able to answer your question in terms of specific timeframes.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: Do you have the way to do some follow up or to put pressure? If the timeframe is not respected or if it is not done this year, do you have means to intervene?

[English]

Mr. Kunuk: The presentation that was made would allow for a steering committee or a management committee of the municipality, the Baffin Regional Inuit Association and Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to look at the total project in general for the $2.1 million that has been identified starting this year.

Once we see a contribution agreement presented to us and see what the conditions are, then I think we'll be in a better position to say, okay, the report says this, the contribution agreement says this, the conditions are stipulated in this way. Once we have all the information and the appropriate organizations in place - Nunavut Tunngavik, the Baffin Regional Inuit Association and the municipality - then I think we'll be in a better position to go to our member of Parliament or our territorial government to ensure that the conditions are adhered to by the community and the federal government.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Enforcement has been mentioned at just about every single hearing we've conducted. Could you please outline to me what you feel the differences are between enforcement in the Arctic and enforcement in other parts of Canada? What are your challenges? Also, how might CEPA be amended to more effectively deal with the kinds of enforcement challenges you have to face in the Arctic, given the kinds of pollution you have to deal with?

Mr. Rasmussen: I'm going to bring up an example from last summer. We had an atmospheric inversion here in July; it might have been the summer before last. Silica dust from the rock-crushing plant became really thick in town. I remember cars having to drive around with their headlights on; it was that thick. It was on everything. There were really thick clouds; it was like a fog of silica dust.

.2015

I remember at one point a couple of people from the community came up and talked to us. I was working as an assistant at the Chamber of Commerce at the time. I asked if there were any regulations to govern this, and I was asked to make some phone calls to find out.

I found out, much to my surprise, that if all this silica dust was indoors, then it would be controlled by the territorial government, but since it was outdoors they said there were guidelines that applied on how much silica dust you can release, but there are no laws and the rock-crushing plant is not breaking any laws. It might not be adhering to guidelines, but it's not breaking any laws.

Given that, there's not much you can do in that kind of regulatory environment. You can't say, do such and such or else. There's no enforcement. However, if they had stuck that smokestack inside somebody's house, there would have been all sorts of enforcement, I gather, from the territorial level.

So my point is that I think there needs to be enforcement, some type of regulation across the country, to apply to these kinds of situations. Up here the difference is maybe that in the business community we may have more businesses that come into town, do a job and leave, and they don't necessarily stay around for a long period of time to deal with the results of what they've done. That's one possible scenario I would see, where you have to have a way of having environmental impact statements given to whatever type of work is going to be done, especially if an organization is seen to be leaving town soon after it's done something. That's one recommendation.

The Chairman: Mr. Gilmour, you have a question.

Mr. Gilmour: Regarding the DEW Line sites, are you aware of any agreement with the Americans, or is it put to negotiation, or is it strictly a Canadian problem? What's your background on that?

Mr. Kunuk: The information I've been made aware of is that the different corporations I've mentioned, municipal and regional, have entered into partnership agreements with Frontec Logistics Corporation. It has been brought up by these groups to bid on contracts to clean up the DEW Line sites. In fact the information, from talking with Joe in Ottawa two or three weeks ago and at the beginning of March, is that there's a big movement to allow the Inuit corporations to be part of the contracts for that; the people can be involved. But in terms of other details, I'm not too aware. I'm aware of the initiatives that have been talked about by the different corporations.

Mr. Rasmussen: This is two volumes. There's another volume like this. We got this last Friday. At least that was the first time I saw it. I've been trying to read it steadily ever since. I'm not sure I'm right on this - maybe Andy can correct me - but my understanding is that once the U.S. military left, the responsibility then devolved to DIAND, the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, and they are responsible for the mess that was left behind now. That's what I understand. The U.S. military does not have any responsibility any longer.

Mr. DeVillers: In response to Mr. Gilmour's question, I think witnesses from both DND and DIAND have acknowledged that it's a Canadian problem. Whatever the arrangement was with the U.S. armed forces, it's now ours and that's how it's being treated.

Mr. Adams: First of all, it's a suggestion about your sewage lagoon. It's been suggested to me that you might try a special regulation under section 36 of the Fisheries Act. This would allow you to specify exactly what should go into the sewage lagoon and, more particularly, what would go into water that contains fish. It still begs the question of who pays for what you have to do, but it's a thought.

.2020

It leads me actually into my question, because you've both said you're dealing in very special environmental circumstances here in the north. But another circumstance that I think is very special is that yours is one of the larger of 200 or 300 communities around the NWT, a number of them in the Yukon, many in Alaska, and some others, I would think, in Siberia - tiny communities. They're all facing the same difficult environmental conditions and these very special pollution conditions. So any experience that you get as a community - and this is the point I made before - is really valuable to all these others.

So my question is, in the international area, does Iqaluit have relations with communities, for example in Alaska or other parts of the north, where you can as a council share your municipal experiences?

Mr. Kunuk: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In fact our community of Iqaluit is twinned with the community of Siuimuit in Greenland. Since 1987, when the agreement was signed...in the beginning there was some activity, but towards the latter period there was very little activity, until last week. In 1989 or 1990 the territorial government leader signed an agreement with the Premier of Greenland to share knowledge on environment, land development, industry, and different areas of government activities. Unfortunately that agreement hasn't been active in the past few years.

In talking with the president of the Inuit Circumpolar Conference, Caleb Pungowyi, who was here in February, we talked about sharing information between our community here and Nome, Alaska because of the latitude similarities and different areas. In February there were some delegates from Czechoslovakia and Russia and different areas who were very interested in our different activities in the community. They encouraged myself as mayor to visit their communities to see what is happening over there.

So there have been discussions. There have been formal agreements signed, but unfortunately they haven't been active. From April 28 to May 1 we hosted the NWT Association of Municipalities. All the mayors and senior administrators were in town. That was very useful to talk about community activities, dog control, sewage, pump-outs, water delivery, road maintenance. That forum is available through our own resources here. I think if we would take that activity and transfer it to other countries, it would be very beneficial. We're sharing from our own experiences instead of going through reports like this -

Mr. Adams: We need you to share the mistakes as well as the successes.

Mr. Kunuk: Yes.

Mr. Lincoln: You mentioned four recommendations, three of which reinforce what we are working on right now. We're grateful for that - regulations, enforcement, and the reverse onus.

There was one last one that was of particular interest. You mentioned international accords regarding industrial production and processes. As a matter of fact, that's one of the biggest problems facing the OECD nations, the product and process methods - we call them PPMs. Fortunately, in a lot of our international organizations we've got an international trade advisory committee that looks at these things. The people who sit on it are from the industrial regions and they never think of including people from the ``victim'' regions. I was wondering if you or your Chamber of Commerce should write to the Minister of International Trade and enlist yourself for a future vacancy there, because it seems to me that people like you would have a tremendous amount of input to give. The people who give input now are people from the industrial regions. They understand less because we are not victims in the same way as you are. It tends to get lost in the shuffle. It's part of our lives - plants, industry and pollution - whereas here it's a special condition. You get it from all over the world. I think you could influence that debate quite a lot.

So I just wanted to bring the suggestion that that's one way you might tackle it.

.2025

The Chairman: Mr. Mayor, Mr. Rasmussen, thank you very much. This was very productive.

Mr. Kunuk: Mr. Chairman, I have one last comment. I gave some...[Inaudible - Editor]

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: If possible, I would like the Committee to kept informed of what is going to happen...

[Inaudible] ...American.

[English]

The Chairman: Would you like to put that on the record?

Mr. Kunuk: I'll do that through Mr. Radford. I'll get the information through him so that we can provide ongoing updates to the committee.

The Chairman: Fine. Again, thank you very much.

We invite the other people to the table, the chairman of the Polar Commission, Whit Fraser, accompanied by Eva Arreak. Also, Mr. Bruce Rigby from the Science Institute of the NWT-East. Welcome.

Mr. Whit Fraser (Chairman, Canadian Polar Commission): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me this evening is Eva Arreak, a resident of Iqaluit and a member of our board of directors. Eva Arreak and I will share the presentation. I will struggle in my best English for part of it, and Eva, I think, wants to make some part of her presentation in her own language. I'm sure the committee is geared up for Inuktitut translation tonight.

On behalf of my fellow members of the commission, I want to take the opportunity to commend you on your decision to visit the north and to learn first-hand about the concerns of the northern residents. For far too long many of the decisions affecting this part of Canada were made by individuals who never really set foot in the north or came much north of the tree line itself. Fortunately the situation has changed and northerners and all Canadians are now benefiting.

As well, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today on what is a very crucial issue in the north and one of deep concern to the Canadian Polar Commission, and that of course is environmental protection.

As many of you are aware, the Canadian Polar Commission was established by Parliament four years ago to monitor the state of Canada's polar research efforts and to promote the development of polar knowledge. Our mandate includes both the Arctic and the Antarctic. The commission views itself as a truly national body that represents interests of northern and southern Canadians. We have members from eastern, central and western Arctic, as well as from Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia, and we maintain regional offices in Yellowknife and Kuujjuaq, northern Quebec.

It's not our intention today to dwell on matters of specific concern to local residents. I think you have heard a great deal of that in the past several hours. I am certain that their opinions are going to be most valuable in the review process. Our purpose in appearing before the committee today is to provide some brief comments on polar science and its important and very crucial role in environmental management, protection, and of course in legislation.

.2030

Ms Eva Arreak (Member, Board of Directors, Canadian Polar Commission) (Interpretation): Although it has been said often, I think it bears repeating that the Arctic is truly a distinct part of our country.

When it comes to the polar environment we are dealing with a different set of issues, different processes and a different cultural setting. Therefore, our approach to environmental protection must also be different, to protect our environment.

It is fair to say that the Canadian Arctic has been spared the full impact of industrial development and its attendant problems. A small, scattered population, vast distances and limited road transportation have combined to restrict the possibility of large-scale processing or manufacturing in the region. However, the north has been a major centre for resource-based industries such as mining, oil and gas, as well as defence-related activities such as the North Warning System, cruise missile testing and low-level flight training.

Canada's Arctic has not experienced the same level of pollution-producing industrial development as other regions or other parts of the circumpolar north. For that matter, it is comforting to some degree, particularly when one considers the potential for environmental damage. But this fact should not be interpreted as a signal for complacency when it comes to resource conservation and environmental protection. Here in the north we have the capability to correct our mistakes and to minimize the impact of human activity through a policy of sustainable development. We should take the initiative and work to preserve the north and its resources for future generations. In short, we have the opportunity to get it right in the Arctic.

The other reason for vigilance is the nature of the Arctic region itself. Recent evidence has confirmed that the Arctic acts as a global sink for pollutants. Carried north by air and ocean and river currents, toxic chemicals from distant parts of the globe become trapped in the Arctic basin. Freezing temperatures, ice cover and low levels of solar radiation prevent their dissipation and breakdown. This contrasts sharply with other regions, where natural processes can mitigate the impact of pollutants.

The short food chain in the Arctic means that the effects of toxic substances can be more acute. The impact on human societies, particularly those dependent on hunting for a large proportion of their dietary needs, is also much greater.

In addition to natural processes, the perceived remoteness of the Arctic has tended to expand environmental problems.

Until recently it has been accepted practice to simply abandon industrial sites and military installations or to dump equipment and materials in the Arctic Ocean. Out of sight, out of mind has been the guiding credo for environmental management.

.2035

We are now seeing the consequences of this policy across the full breadth of the Arctic. Perhaps the most extreme example is to be found in the Russian north where nuclear reactors and a wide range of toxic substances have been routinely dumped at sea. Thank you.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you, Eva.

Mr. Chairman, with respect to the legislation, let me turn to some specific suggestions. First, of course, the Canadian Polar Commission feels strongly that CEPA should truly be national in scope, that there must be efforts to harmonize the environmental protection regimes across Canada, and, most importantly, these must be extended to include the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. As well, the legislation must recognize that environmental protection is an important component of the claims-based authorities and self-government legislation.

Second, the act, we believe, should be amended to include sustainable development as a guiding principle for policy development. It should also recognize that sustainable development is inherent in traditional approaches to the environment and environmental protection and that indigenous knowledge can be utilized in the design of environmental protection regimes.

With respect to research requirements, CEPA should more explicitly recognize the importance of science. I take it as a given that the Canadian Environmental Protection Act is among the most important federal statutes concerning scientific research into toxic substances. The entire legislative scheme of CEPA is based on the premise that scientific research can make determinations about substances of concern, such as whether or not they are toxic, persistent in the environment, or bio-accumulate, or whether or not they have an effect on human or animal health or plant life.

Therefore, I suggest that one of the duties of the Government of Canada under the act should be to provide for scientific research concerning toxic substances and their presence in the environment. In addition, the act should provide for more extensive gathering of data important to scientific research into toxic substances and better systems of public access to that data.

The Polar Commission further believes that an extensive monitoring network should be established in the Arctic. This monitoring network would track the levels, sources and distribution of pollutants transported over the long distances to the Canadian Arctic from the foreign sources.Mr. Chairman, we believe that this would be a very important element of where we have to go in the future.

We also believe it's important at the same time to measure the extent and the type of pollution that is originating in Canada. To that extent there would be considerable merit, I believe, in expanding the National Pollutant Release Inventory to include substances of particular concern to polar regions. These would include ozone-depleting chemicals, greenhouse gases, pesticides and other pollutants. The commission of course would be more than willing to work with other departments and agencies in making NPRI data and other such information available as part of a national polar information directory that we are currently trying to develop.

We would also suggest that there be an electronic public registry of all information contained in the inventory, which would greatly expand the resources available to Arctic scientists and to other researchers in the country. I would suggest as well, Mr. Chairman, that the Arctic may be an ideal starting point for this kind of initiative.

Consideration should also be given to the creation of an electronic registry of contaminated sites in the north. This database could include information on the nature of the contamination, if it's known specifically, the site location, legal responsibility, clean-up schedules, and all other applicable instruments such as pollution control orders or water use licences and the like. That could be done in conjunction with the national pollution registry.

.2040

There are a great many issues that we as a commission might wish to raise in respect of the Arctic environment, but I think the basic message that I want to leave with the committee is simply this. There cannot be an effective environmental regime in the absence of a national program of scientific research. At some point, all the words with which we are struggling become meaningless if they're not supported in practical terms in laboratory facilities, in proper field stations, logistical support and scientific training. We have to get right down to the nuts and bolts of the science.

The message then is clear: our ability to protect the environment depends on our knowledge of the environment, and knowledge of that polar science is what this is really all about.

I will take an example. The commission has proposed the establishment of an Arctic marine research station in the north. Some, especially at a time of budget cuts and restraints, may look at it as a luxury item or a frill, but I assure you it's not. It's crucial to our understanding of the Arctic marine ecosystem. Our understanding of basic ecosystem and food chain dynamics in the north is extremely deficient. To suggest that we can somehow devise meaningful regulations and enforcement mechanisms in the face of such a shortcoming is not only unrealistic but it is dangerous.

I've chosen that word very carefully. I believe there is a danger. In native communities across northern Canada, some people have been told that they can't eat certain parts of certain fish or certain animals. This is in a part of the country where people are faced with a decision on their plates every day, because most northern people depend on the land and the animals for their daily food. That is a fact of life of the north.

I cannot help wondering how members would respond, and how the country would respond, if, on a regular basis, the same orders were issued across Canada - on British Columbia fruit, on Alberta beef, on western grain, on Ontario poultry, on Quebec dairy products, on P.E.I. potatoes, on maritime lobster, or on Newfoundland turbot, since there are no more cod. I can imagine what the national outcry would be. I would also wonder what kind of hearings we would be having then.

That is not to say or suggest that nothing is happening. I think a lot is happening. I think a lot of federal government departments and agencies and a lot of very dedicated researchers are doing their best in the face of a very difficult situation.

Environment Canada has noted in its Health of Our Oceans report:

To date, Arctic marine environmental quality guidelines and objectives for selected geographic areas and substances have not been formulated, nor has a formal comprehensive, coordinated monitoring system been established. Existing monitoring programs need to be expanded to provide time-series data on metal, organochlorine and hydrocarbon levels near sources of contaminants and at distant stations. As well, continuous area-wide information on changes in critical marine environmental quality parameters are needed.

That much is known and that much is already laid out in Environment Canada's Health of Our Oceans report. It's not as though we don't understand or know what the challenges are.

The language may be arcane, but there can be little doubt about the seriousness of the situation. In the absence of sound scientific data, the tendency has been to overlook the precautionary principle and risk the chance of environmental damage. That's why there is such concern now about ocean dumping and its sanctions under the act. We simply cannot predict, with any degree of certainty, the future impact of such activity on the Arctic Ocean and the fragile ecosystem that it supports.

To cite another example, the Canadian Polar Continental Shelf Project has been a cornerstone of Canadian Arctic research since its creation by Parliament back in 1958. It has supplied logistical support, transportation, and accommodation to Canadian scientists undertaking research in the high Arctic and it has made an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of this region.

.2045

However, as a result of the last federal budget, the Polar Shelf has seen its funding drastically reduced to the point that many important research sites in the high Arctic will now be inaccessible to many researchers, some of whom have dedicated a lifetime to polar research.

Polar science is not just science for the sake of science; it is vital research with far-reaching consequences at the local, regional, national, and global levels. It must be supported and maintained.

Much of our thinking about conservation and environmental protection is predicated on the assumption that we have at least adequate knowledge of the environment, about the effects of toxic substances on Arctic food chains, about the pathways of chemicals in regional ecosystems and their long-term effects on human and wildlife populations. Yet it is simply not the case, and it is not the case certainly in the north. I strongly suspect it is not the case in other regions too. Not only do we lack sufficient scientific knowledge about the effects of pollution, but we also lack some of the basic knowledge about how the Arctic ecosystems operate.

That, of course, is the bad news. There is some good news, I think, in all of it, and it is simply that we do have abundant knowledge about what already goes on in the north and what's happened in other parts of the Arctic. Certain wildlife species, caribou, polar bear, some of the marine mannals and waterfowl have all been subjects of intensive research over the years. We have some excellent research now under way as part of the Arctic Environmental Strategy. In addition, there are a number of active, important scientific programs in the study of global phenomenon such as climate change and ozone depletion and in specialized areas such as glaciology and permafrost.

In other areas, however, the information is there, but it is simply inaccessible to the average researcher. Here, the commission has been working toward the establishment of a national directory of polar information that would serve as a single window from a wide variety of sources.

Eva, would you like to conclude, please?

Ms Arreak: In reviewing some of the testimony presented before the committee over the last few months, the commission was struck by the fact that the link between science and environmental policy seems almost tenuous. We need good science if we are to have an effective environmental protection regime. And to have good polar science, we need that commitment on the part of the federal government.

The commission is attempting to address these issues. We have a major task ahead of us. We are recommending to the federal government a policy paper on polar science and technology. We are seeking to have the government set out a clear commitment to polar research. We are pressing the government to create a federal interdepartmental council on polar science, and we are working closely with researchers across the country.

Our Canada and Polar Science conference in Yellowknife last year was one of the first to bring together researchers from a number of disciplines to examine the overall state of polar science.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we would like to thank the committee for this opportunity to present the views of the commission and to urge again that the special circumstances and needs of Canada's Arctic region be duly considered in the drafting of amendments to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Fraser and Ms Arreak.

Mr. Rigby, would you like to read your presentation now?

Mr. Bruce Rigby (Executive Director, Science Institute of the Northwest Territories East): Thank you.

We are awaiting the proclamation of our new name for the Science Institute in Nunavut, which we hope will happen shortly. For those members who are not familiar with the Science Institute, let me just give you a brief snapshot of what we do.

The Science Institute of the Northwest Territories was established by the legislative assembly in 1984. The mandate of the institute is to improve the quality of life of residents in the Northwest Territories by applying scientific, technological and indigenous knowledge to solve northern problems and advance social and economic goals.

Research in the NWT includes work in indigenous knowledge as well as physical, social and biological sciences. The institute is responsible for licensing and coordinating research in accordance with the Northwest Territories Scientists Act; promoting communication between scientists and the people of communities in and around their work; promoting public awareness of the importance of science, technology and indigenous knowledge; sponsoring a scientific treaty within the NWT that recognizes and uses traditional knowledge of northern aboriginal peoples; making scientific knowledge available to the people of the NWT; and supporting or conducting research that contributes to the social, cultural and economic prosperity of the people of the NWT.

.2050

On January 1 of this year, by act of the legislative assembly, the Science Institute was split into two in preparation for the division of the Northwest Territories, and thereby the name Science Institute East and West. My responsibilities are for those aspects of the Science Institute within the geographic region that is now referred to as Nunavut.

The other aspect of the act of January 1, 1995 was the amalgamation of the Science Institute with what is now termed Nunavut Arctic College, a territory-wide college system in Nunavut designed and dedicated to training northerners to become active and vital participants in the northern workforce and in the northern economy. That's the brief snapshot.

At the risk of duplicating some of the comments that have been made by my colleagues, the focus of my comments this evening has to do with section 7 of the act, as it's being proposed. In particular, there are four specific areas I would like to touch on briefly.

First of all, as Mr. Fraser has pointed out, there is a need to support and promote quality research within Nunavut, within the north, to provide the basis and the information required to actually implement the act. In particular, I would like to point out that the kind of research work that is possible here should involve northerners, should focus on and make adequate use of traditional, ecological and environmental knowledge, and work at bringing together what is termed working science and traditional knowledge.

One of the other aspects, as has been pointed out in several presentations today, is the issue of harmonization of work currently going on in the north. We've heard several stories this afternoon of various folks going off in different directions, and I believe Mr. Kovic in his presentation referred to his box of lemmings.

This is something that has concerned many people over the years, and I believe Mr. Fraser pointed out the need to coordinate this information. It's really important if we're to move forward with any kind of application of this act.

One of the issues the institute has been involved with in conjunction with Environment Canada is the development of what we're calling ecological sciences cooperatives. It's quite clear that with the budgetary considerations we're all facing right now that the funds available to undertake research will be limited. The question is how do we apply those in a way that best gets the bang for the buck, so to speak.

The folks in Environment Canada, who are involved in the ecological monitoring and assessment network, EMAN, have been looking at establishing ecological sciences centres across the country tied to the geographic regions or the eco-regions of Canada. It's a little difficult to do in the north because Nunavut, as you're well aware, is quite a large geographic area and no one site really represents the territory as a whole.

As a result, we've had several workshops where we've brought groups of federal and territorial claims groups together to look at how we might approach a coordinated role in research from the point of view of establishing base-line monitoring conditions...

[Inaudible - Editor] ...research and documenting research for use in answering questions such as the ones being posed that are associated with this act.

I have with me some copies of the minutes of the last meeting with some of the suggestions made. There were attempts to harmonize some of the ongoing work with regard to ecological work in the north.

Associated with section 7 and other sections of the act is the whole issue of information and information being made available to the public. As you're well aware, we work in a multilingual environment here, and we also work in an environment where our population is at varying levels of education and at varying levels of knowledge about the scientific concerns.

You heard earlier a couple of presenters allude to how information is brought into the north and how things are taken into the communities. That is a concern that the institute has as well.

.2055

One of the important things we'd like to point out to the committee is that in getting information into the community it should be put into the community or made available to the community in a form that the community can readily accept and integrate into the structure. All too often people say we have to simplify the information for northerners or for aboriginal people. The issue is not necessarily simplification, because I believe some people confuse translation with transliteration.

In many cases the concepts that are contained within the act are not concepts that are widely known within our communities. I would therefore suggest that, in making this information available, the information be made available in a form that people can actually accept and use.

Another mechanism that might be useful to the committee in terms of getting information out is through the use of TVNC, Television Northern Canada. Many of our residents use video quite extensively in learning and various other activities. It may be a mechanism by which the information could be made available to a large number of people at a very reduced cost. The worst thing that could happen is that information packages being produced in support of the act are sent out into communities and sit on shelves or go into garbage cans in post offices. That's of no value to anyone.

In terms of the information, as Mr. Fraser has pointed out, one of the key problems we're dealing with is the co-ordination or documentation of existing information and the research that is under way in a fashion that can provide direction to science and to the research in terms of the monitoring that will be attached to this act. Some form of co-ordinated, focused effort is required to have the research so that it can be shared with others.

The Science Institute has just embarked, as have other organizations, on looking at ways of making the process much more timely and much more effective. We're hoping that by the fall the institute will have on-line an Internet serving node with a Web site, which will then make it available to anyone across Nunavut or around the world looking at scientific information and research being undertaken within Nunavut.

At the moment the institute is working with the boards of education in looking at ways of getting this information into the population through the schools. We're working with the Baffin Divisional Board of Education with a system called Takujaksat, which is a student version of an Internet where students can draw information into their schools throughout the small communities in the region simply by using the telephone line and a computer in the school.

There are lots of different avenues here that I think the committee should be taking a look at in terms of the implementation of the act. The outcome of this is a more informed public. Hopefully then that would tie directly into the act.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to point out that in application of the act and in terms of the work that is going on in the north, I'd like to encourage some consideration of the opportunities for training of northerners in applying the research or participating in the research. We have a population that is very interested in their environment and the upkeep of the environment. In the north, training and information go hand in hand.

Thank you for the opportunity.

The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Rigby.

[Translation]

Mrs. Guay: I don't really have any questions to ask you because you covered the entire issue in terms of the Arctic environment. The committee did the right thing in deciding to come here and see what's going on.

It will be important to try and harmonize the research so that the results can be used positively. Of course, we must recognize that we may not have the same means we used to have in the past, but I think that we can nevertheless make good work with the existing research, using the tools in place. Your presentation was quite interesting and it gave us a great deal of information. Thank you.

.2100

[English]

Mr. O'Brien (London - Middlesex): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the information from witnesses as well.

I'd like to put the same question I put to the witnesses this afternoon. I think your remarks relate to that. It's about the possibility of a special section in CEPA to deal strictly with the north, with the Arctic, and even the possibility of some tougher standards given the food chain problem you mentioned.

Mr. Fraser: Mr. Chairman, let me be the first to say that I would be the last person on the face of the earth who would object to the Arctic finally getting special treatment. In that regard, I think it might be a very fine idea.

Not long ago I was paid a visit by some of the people from Fisheries and Oceans on behalf of Mr. Tobin as they began to do the early leg work to develop the oceans act, looking for recommendations as to what should be in the oceans act in terms of the Arctic. I stressed then that whatever you do - and we went into some detail - at the outset the Arctic Ocean should be treated separately because it's a different ecosystem; it has different problems for all of the reasons of environment, culture and all of the rest. I would stress that maybe you could be on the right track if you were to look at an Arctic section in the Canadian Environmental Protection Act. It might be complicated, but at the end of the day it might be the most effective.

Then you would get the answer to the second part of your question as to whether or not they have to be tougher. If they were different, they may be tougher by nature. There may be, on the other hand, because of distances and other circumstances, some areas where they may not need to be as tough. But that would be a judgment that would have to be made at the time. Certainly, to give the Arctic the special attention that I think it so very much needs, I would encourage that.

Mr. O'Brien: The second question I have relates to the comment, which I think is very appropriate, about translation and transliteration. It's not as simple as a straight literal translation when you're trying to communicate in different languages. We even see that between the two official languages of French and English. Just a straight literal translation doesn't always convey the meaning. I hear you saying that is much more magnified when trying to translate it into the aboriginal language of the Arctic region.

I don't know if this is practical, but should we have a CEPA version targeted or communicated for the north? The whole act, or just the part that would deal with the Arctic, if indeed we had a special section?

Mr. Fraser: I would encourage you at the least - and I have heard the questions this afternoon - to have a section for the Arctic that people would understand.

Sir, I'm not proficient at all in the Inuktitut language, but I do know enough about it to know that it is by no means a restrictive language, and whatever we can communicate in English the Inuit can communicate as easily in their own language. I want Eva to pick up on this, but I do not believe you would have any difficulty at all translating it into the Inuktitut language.

Ms Arreak: I agree, Whit. Even though we may not have your scientific English or French terms, we can interpret them in phrases and what not so that they are understood by the public.

Mr. O'Brien: It's a matter of idiom, and that's really where my question was going, to get it into the idiom of the aboriginal people of the far north.

I think I have my answer. Thank you.

Mr. Adams: Mr. Fraser and Ms Arreak, I really would like to endorse some of the things you've said about basic science, monitoring science. I think it's extremely important. I wish the Polar Commission well in everything that it can do to integrate so-called western science and traditional science.

For some of our members your remark about the Polar Continental Shelf Project...it's such an obscurely named organization, but members know it is the aircraft support organization for all science north of here.

.2105

The way you would learn the most, Mr. Chairman, is when you see someone arriving at the north pole on one of these expeditions or something of that sort. You often see, with the Polar Continental Shelf Project, a Twin Otter in the background. It's one of the basic support organizations and it is very important.

Ms Arreak, you stressed the special nature of things up here, and I noticed this morning that Jose Kusugak, who has been president of the Inuit Tunngavik, stressed the oceans. He also mentioned, as the two of you did, the proposed oceans act. He made the point that the Inuit are a lean people. That's what he said.

I was very interested, Mr. Fraser, in what you said about this proposed marine station and how it tied into the oceans act. We have been told, you should know, that the Fisheries Act in many respects is a very good environmental act, but it does seem to me that we have three oceans, two that were fisheries oceans and one that is not a fisheries ocean. Could you elaborate on your thoughts about the oceans act and the station?

Mr. Fraser: I'd like to pick up on the point that, yes, we have three oceans, and in the third ocean we do not have a full-time, fully operational, adequately funded marine facility.

Mr. Adams mentioned that the Arctic may not be considered a fisheries ocean. I would beg to differ because I think the Arctic food chain is very much a fisheries for marine people. The Arctic sealing industry may depend obviously on the Arctic Ocean. There may be some substantial fisheries that can be developed in the Arctic Ocean that we know little or nothing about, simply because we have not done the research.

In our work, in evaluating the need for an Arctic marine station, we were told by one of the best known and most dedicated marine biologists that just off the community of Resolute Bay he has come across clam beds of unseen size and density - huge clams. His question was, is there a small fishery or even a large fishery here that could support the community? But no one knows whether harvesting clams on a commercial basis would destroy the fishery because it has taken 500 years for them to get to that level, or whether, on the other hand, if you begin harvesting them they would become even more productive because they are now dormant. Nobody knows the answer either way. So there may at least be some economic initiatives that could be taken, but we simply do not know the answer because there is no Arctic marine station.

For whatever reason you approach the question for a marine station, whether it's from the point of view of what we should have as a nation - from our sovereignty point of view we ought to have an Arctic marine station, just in terms of the national balance. We should have an Arctic marine station to identify what economic opportunities may be in the ocean. Perhaps most importantly though, above all of them, is to understand and gather the necessary research and base-line data we need to support all the research necessary in the ongoing concerns about the pollutants and other contaminants that are coming into the Arctic waterways.

Mr. Adams: [Inaudible - Editor]

Also, Mr. Chairman, two other aboriginal people who have appeared before our committee... [Inaudible - Editor]

.2110

The communities in the north, here and in Alaska, have been leaders in the use of electronic communications.

We have given a good deal of thought to making CEPA information available electronically. I wonder if you could give us very briefly an indication of how well developed the Internet and other means of electronic communication are between the communities at the present time.

Mr. Rigby: It's highly variable, but it's taking on quite a rapid development evolution, particularly with the Nunavut Implementation Commission's involvement in moving it forward.

A meeting I'm missing this evening is on what's called the NT Net, which is wiring a server node into here and into other communities. It depends on the phone system in the communities. But, as I say, that's increasing dramatically, and the communication is sort of a function of how quickly NorthwestTel gets their act together, I guess.

But I think the bottom line here is the people are ready for it. The experience of the students in the schools using Takujaksat, which is a very simple protected system.... For instance, the Science Institute has a board on Takujaksat called ``Science Info''. So if a student in Clyde River is doing a project on sharks, or a teacher, for that matter, needs the material for use in the classroom, they can put the question on Takujaksat and have the Science Institute or, for that matter, other teachers or people on the net provide information to help them out.

So I think the potential is there and it's ready to take off.

Mr. Lincoln: Mr. Fraser, I was very interested in some of the recommendations you made in regard to CEPA. I picked up a few that were new to us that haven't been brought up before: for example, extending the harmonization process to the Northwest Territories and the Yukon; starting a monitoring network of pollution in the Arctic; extending the NPRI to the Arctic; an electronic inventory of contaminated sites; and building up a better scientific database. I was wondering how we sort that out with all the various players, who are getting more and more numerous.

We have DIAND with the Arctic Pollution Prevention Act, arctic waters, the Fisheries Act. We have CEPA. We have the Arctic Environmental Strategy, the federal one. We have the International Arctic Environmental Protection Strategy. We have the Arctic Council that's going to happen - maybe, hopefully. Then when Nunavut is created it will start its own environmental regulations.

If we are to develop a chapter in our report on the Arctic, somehow we have to try to create some cohesion, especially if there is to be an oceans act.

I was wondering if you would agree with some people who say that CEPA should be the paramount toxic instrument nationally and also for the Arctic. It would look after the NPRI for the Arctic. It would look after toxic sites and toxic control. Maybe then marine research would fall under the oceans act.

Perhaps there should be harmonization that would start with the people who are going to create the environmental department of Nunavut so that at least we create a model here. I was wondering what your thoughts were as to how you bring order out of all this stuff that's going on.

Mr. Fraser: I have a lot of thoughts on this. I'm just thinking of how I can condense them into a few minutes rather than a few hours.

As to whether the act, CEPA, should be narrow in terms of toxic matters and then a separate oceans act, I don't really have a view on that one way or another.

My concern, the commission's view, and I think the concern of all the people you've heard is to do it whatever way you think it needs to be done, but for God's sake do it; get the strong legislation in place.

.2115

Our concern is that under that legislation, whether it's under the oceans act or whether it's under CEPA, we have the mechanisms to do the supporting scientific work that needs to be done to make sure we can enforce it and we can understand it and it can be meaningful legislation.

I think you make a very good point about all the various players and organizations and establishments that are now there, and even more that may be coming along. The commission has given that a great deal of thought over the last three years. In fact, we've been mostly preoccupied with it.

I think you underscored, with respect, the complicated number of players that are involved. I think it's far greater than that. There are 20 federal departments and agencies that have been extensively involved at one stage or another in polar research. There is not, and there has not been, any coordinated, clear federal policy on what we want to achieve in Arctic research and what we want to get out of it. We do not know with any degree of certainty, I'm afraid to say, what this country is spending on polar research, except that we know it is a lot of money; it is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Further, we do not have any way of reading what value we're getting out of it.

We are recommending to the government - we're in the process of doing this right now, of formulating to the government what we see as a clear policy for what the country wants to come out of polar research. Part and parcel of that policy is to encourage the federal government to establish, either through the Privy Council Office or among other federal government departments, a very senior, very accountable interdepartmental committee to coordinate the total federal effort on research. We believe if that is done there will be substantial savings in the overall process that we can put right down to the researcher on the ground to attack the very concerns that have been outlined here today.

We think that in many ways, for all the concern about budget cuts and everything, it at least opens the door to review all of this. For that reason we can see some very positive things coming out of it. I would encourage members and the committee to make that point, that we have to do a lot of things at the same time. The act and the legislation are important, but we have to know how we're going to enforce it and how we're going to see that the regulations are right. The only way I can see us doing that again is to have a clear, coherent policy that is directly related to the legislation and, under that policy, the efforts of the federal agencies to coordinate and make sense out of their effort so that we're attacking the issues and setting up the priorities.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I checked with our research help here, François, and he told me that we have 12 international definitions of the precautionary principle, and as a committee we are trying to make a decision about what to use.

I'm wondering if you could help us. Where is the trigger? When do we start to use it? How can science help us better understand it?

We were at a meeting of the Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, and someone suggested that there seems to be a lot of dialogue with policy makers around the precautionary principle, but in terms of making it practical and realistic in the field we have a long way to go. I'm wondering if you can help elucidate the matter for us.

Mr. Fraser: I don't know how I could add more than what I've already said. When I'm talking about a clear, coherent federal policy, it is to stake out what we want to achieve out of what we are spending, what our commitment is to Arctic science, and where we want to go with it.

I think what we have now is from 7 to 20 - maybe more than that - various departmental policies and objectives. But we don't have a national policy or a national sense of what we are going to do in this Arctic that is home to so many people.

I don't think I've helped you with it, but I don't think I'm capable of helping you with this specific question.

.2120

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: I was asking about the precautionary principle. Are you seeing that our way of understanding the precautionary principle is to have a clear mandate of what we want in the Arctic?

Mr. Fraser: With respect, I'm not actually sure what you mean by the precautionary principle.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: The 12 definitions that we're looking at are at variance in degree. The idea is if we don't have all of the science in, we're still not going to do it because it's going to cause harm to the environment. It's the trigger point. Is it irreversible? Is it major harm? Unfortunately, I don't have the definitions on hand here. It's fine to say that we're going to use the precautionary principle and we're going to talk about whatever harm - qualified harm - from a policy perspective, but what does that mean when we give it to the science arm or the enforcement arm or the people who have to make it practical and workable?

Mr. Fraser: I still don't think I'm going to be able to help you with an answer. But I would say this. You're talking about the dilemma northerners are now facing. Already we're into that in the north. The previous presenters had outlined a number of reports that outline concerns. You've heard me say I'm concerned when I see these reports in communities where people have been told they shouldn't eat certain parts of certain fish and animals.

On the other side, people are also being told - and this is where the tough choices come every day at the dinner plate - that the risks of shifting your diet to southern-based foods are greater than if you continue to eat this. Yes, these things are in the food chain, but we're doing studies and we're continuing to do them. No one is yet prepared to make that statement that people should not eat their food any longer.

All of us face the same dilemma. I don't know what the point is, but that's one of the things that we're pushing. Together we have to get down and make it. If the only message we're getting now from the scientific community is that we need more research, then let's set the monitoring stations in place, let's hold their noses to it, let's push them to it until they can answer the questions. Our frustration may be sometimes that we can't get those questions answered either.

Mrs. Kraft Sloan: Perhaps the thing is that if we can't fix it, then don't break it.

An earlier witness mentioned that because there's such a small population in the north, it's hard to identify the kind of sample sizes that you need to study the health effects and that sort of thing.

Mr. Rigby: To the point about sample sizes, the north is probably one of the biggest smallest towns you've ever been in. Everyone knows everyone else. Everyone knows of everyone else. So when you begin to look at some of the scientific work that goes into this, and principles of confidentiality and ethics and those kinds of things, you get into some very sticky things that you would not get into in Toronto, where it's very difficult for people to know who is down the road.

The cautionary note, picking up from what Mr. Fraser was saying, is that it's not a definable; it has to be looked at within the context. It's going to take an awful lot of work.

Mr. Finlay: My question requires a little preamble, because there are three messages that I'm getting today.

Eva said the Arctic is becoming a sink for pollutants. She also pointed out that one of the problems with pollution and waste in the Arctic is that it's very cold and we lack the heat units and the sunlight to break down some of these things naturally. Yet there's a note of positive attitude on the part of all of you that something can be done and important things can be done.

.2125

We know that the rain forests of the equatorial regions are huge sinks for carbon dioxide. We know that they are sources of great biodiversity and we're trying to protect them.

It seems to me the Arctic is a very particular habitat and a conglomerate of a lot of ecosystems that must be in some ways very important to the earth or to the balance of nature. You've mentioned the oceans, ice, glaciers, tundra. We see caribou that can live off lichens that grow on the surface of rocks and be perfectly healthy and form a good food supply for the indigenous people. There must be algae and plankton, etc., in the oceans too. Could you suggest to me what you think might be some of the scientific and balancing values of the Arctic? I'm thinking of both the northern Arctic and Antarctica, where a lot of work is being done. Or are they just wastelands and deserts that are cold?

Mr. Fraser: I have been told that the Arctic Ocean is probably the most productive and fascinating ecosystem on the globe, compared in its own way to the Mediterranean. It is anything but a wasteland.

I will let Eva comment on how it is home to many thousands of people who, for many, many thousands of years, lived here without destroying or putting one animal or living thing into extinction.

Ms Arreak: There certainly is a need to know. I heard a gentleman from one of the communities say he was going to eat seal meat as long as he didn't see anything growing out of his skin. They're not going to stop unless there is substantiation that there is a limit to contamination.

So I think there is a strong need to communicate to the public the results of scientific research that are substantiated.

Mr. Fraser: One of the concerns people have is that by the time we've finished all of the research and they've come to the definitive answer, the things may be starting to grow in their skin. That's why we are suggesting that we are not putting enough into the monitoring now and into getting the base-line data and making that concentrated effort to get to the answers as to how much people can take, the level at which you hit the alarm button, and where we are now in that whole equation. The difficulty is we don't know where we are right now in the whole equation.

I'll use an analogy. I've thought about this considerably. Is it going to be another situation like the Newfoundland cod? By the time we figure out we have a problem, the cod are gone. It's too far on. That's our concern.

Mr. Finlay: I'm seeking some suggestions that would help us prevent that by understanding how important the Arctic may be. I recognize what you're saying about the Innu, the people who have lived here for thousands of years, but they're not the people who are necessarily going to make the decisions about it. It's millions of people elsewhere who are going to....

Mr. Fraser: I'd like to respond to that. Canadians are a funny crowd when it comes to the Arctic. The last time we got ourselves exercised about the Arctic was some time about the mid-1980s when the Americans decided they were going to put an icebreaker through here and all hell broke loose. Canadians are willing to go to the wall for the Arctic. As Canadians we all love it and we want to preserve it. It's part of our country and our heritage, but we don't get exercised about it until it's too late.

I'm wondering at what point it is going to be too late. I'm suggesting that we're getting very close to that. I'm also suggesting, because Canadians see the Arctic as such an integral part of who we are as a people, that Canadians will have the attitude and tolerance, even in this time of restraint, to say if we have to have extra effort, extra time, extra science, and some extra money to protect the Arctic, then let's do it because it is worth protecting and saving. If we don't do that, what kind of a country are we?

.2130

The Chairman: You are raising here some considerations that require a brief comment, and I also invite your comment.

You have raised matters that relate to research and international political action. We are not in a position to tell you how much is being spent on polar research. Maybe it would take us weeks to find out. One of us can put a question on the order paper in the House of Commons and eventually get an answer. But there are people around who can give you that answer much quicker and with equal accuracy, such as Fred Roots, whom you probably know very well, and other people who have been in polar research all of their life. If that figure is not adequate, let us know and we will do the leg work for you to give you that figure.

You want a policy for polar research, better coordination, base-line studies and the like. Maybe this is something that could emerge from our report. But when it comes to scientific evidence about the fact that there is a serious problem here affecting the population and the ecosystem, there is plenty of that evidence around already. We don't need to get that particular evidence to make a case.

The fact is that there is considerable international inertia in arriving at protocols and agreements for the reduction of certain types of pollutants that are found in the Arctic. That process is very slow. It is also very cumbersome. This is because there is not enough political will behind it. Canada, whenever it goes to New York - the United Nations Commission on Sustainable Development, for instance - systematically raises the question of the food chain in the Arctic, breast milk being affected, you name it. The speeches are made and the event is over and another year goes by.

The latest international protocol of some significance was signed almost a year ago and it was just on SO2. But you know there are other substances, POPs, NOx, you name it, that are trans-boundary pollutants of importance desperately waiting to come onstream. Even if they were to come under a protocol, you know that to arrive at a common denominator amongst some 60 or 70 nations, as a minimum, the agreements are for such modest reductions that it isn't quite clear whether they will have a beneficial effect on the Arctic ecosystem, the way they ought to have. That is to say that unless a specific initiative is launched for the protection of the polar communities through a number of like-minded nations for the promotion of strong protocols - at least amongst the like-minded nations - we would be having these kinds of discussions for the next 25 years and getting more and more depressed.

Now we have an ambassador for sustainable development. That ambassador could devote the necessary time to this particular issue if other issues are not heavy on his agenda.

.2135

We have a global section now within the Department of Foreign Affairs, which was created a few months ago. There are four sections in this department. The purpose of this section is to promote global issues, including sustainable development. So you have a reorganization within government that is beginning to look for issues of this nature.

The point I am trying to make is that while it is important to have the research and the base-line studies and the continuation in the efforts made so far - because we have to get the refined samples and better readings - it is on the political side that the action has to be launched, by testing and trying various avenues until the right button is pressed. Otherwise, the trend will continue in the direction you have already identified. The availability of food that comes from the Arctic fauna is going to be negatively affected.

This is the big question, whether the necessary action can be triggered from a community that doesn't have the numerical mass to command action, because there are only 2 ridings involved out of 295. So there is not much political action. There is a committee that can generate some action in addition to that base. Then there are individuals who would probably be receptive to initiatives. But somehow the answer has to come by way of these international protocols that would begin to tackle the reduction of these trans-boundary pollutants. Even if we reduce the Canadian pollutants, we will not do the job. They come from the south, the east, and the west. The evidence has been there now for as long as I've been around, for almost 20 years. There will be other polar commissioners tearing their hair out in desperation unless we focus on the required political direction.

We can be of some help by way of certain recommendations in the report. Tonight has been very helpful, but it is far from being adequate. The question is, how do we go about that? Some of us have worked with circumpolar parliamentary associations. Mr. Lincoln has been in Stockholm to deal with the next event when they come to Canada for the ministerial meetings. As you know, there was one in Iceland, one in Greenland, and the next one is in Canada. The ministers meet, they disband, and the policy comes virtually to a grinding halt. That is the fact. That's what we need to watch and turn around possibly, because they are just individuals who have then to go back to their respective cabinets and face another massive inertia and get the system moving and turned around.

This is the problem as I would assess it. Now, over to you, and let me have the benefit of your comments.

.2140

Mr. Fraser: Well, sir, I'm not going to disagree with anything you say. I would say a few additional things we can do and are doing. We have to make our point in every venue we can and get everyone we possibly can aware of the situation, which is part of the reason for wanting to take the time before your committee. What you can do with your legislation and recommendations following that legislation is clearly and obviously going to be one more important step in the right direction.

The idea of monitoring stations spread throughout the Arctic, and using protocols and good relations with other countries to ensure that they are also circumpolar...we can then begin using those monitoring stations to pinpoint the sources of many pollutants and begin to lay blame. Part of the problem now is that we have all the scientific information about quantities and qualities of various compounds, chemicals, toxins or whatever in the environment, but who do they belong to? Which radionuclide belongs to the United States, which belongs to the plant in Suffield, England, and which belongs to the Soviets? Who has the most in what particular area? That kind of monitoring would allow us to start taking a few fingerprints or, in today's terminology, start doing some environmental DNA testing to see who are the culprits. Then begin approaching them directly, even perhaps publicly embarrasing them if we have to.

In terms of politics, I think there's much that can and should be done tied to our aid or trade programs. Yes, they may wish to buy our wheat or they may wish us to buy something from them, but what are they doing about the Arctic?

It seems to us that where we really have to start is focusing nationally on the issues, on the Arctic. That's why we are pushing the government so hard, through the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs, to begin with what sounds to be just another policy, but it is at least a step. It's as hard to make the arguments nationally, and internationally, when our own house is clearly not in order and when we do not know exactly where we are going in terms of staking out our national commitment and obligation.

So all of these things I think have to happen on or about the same time. The changes to the Canadian Environmental Protection Act are a very good opportunity for a number of us, this commission more so, and even more importantly those people you heard from earlier today, to force parliamentarians and others to take a solid look at what's happening.

I'm encouraged by the fact that you took the time to come north to hear from people here, but it's going to take all of us together to raise awareness in every way we can. I appreciate the difficulties you mentioned, especially bringing other countries on board. I guess the thing to do is to make the start, and that's what we're really pushing now.

Canada is doing things. We can't forget the important initiatives that are happening in that regard under the Arctic environmental program that you mentioned, where ministers come together, but they are the eight Arctic countries. That's to a large extent preaching to the converted. It's not the other industrialized countries of Europe, which really don't want to hear about it and are looking at the Arctic for other reasons, such as to exploit its resources to drive their own economies coming into the next century. If we think our Arctic is under attack now from pollutants from other sources, I suggest that we haven't seen anything yet. Again, that's another argument for the need for the extensive circumpolar monitoring networks.

Further development will help. It will be one more step. One more small piece will be the creation of an Arctic council. Other countries...the United States was once reluctant to join, perhaps for many of the reasons we are talking about. It is going to serve them on notice that we have to start addressing some issues that may be difficult. But we are encouraged. I've been told that there will be productive negotiations beginning early next month that will hopefully lead to the creation of an Arctic council by next year. That will give Canada a venue internationally and in the circumpolar world to be a leader in terms of instituting programs and protocols on some of these questions. At least we will have eight countries beginning to focus on the attention rather than just ourselves.

.2145

So each little step, I would suggest, helps along the way, and I know of no other way to do it except to do it together.

The Chairman: Any other comments?

To Eva Arreak we say...[Chairman continues in Inuktitut]...and to the others we say thank you for a very interesting evening. Thank you for your input and your advice.

Mr. Fraser: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We appreciate it very much.

The Chairman: The meeting is adjourned.