Sovereignty and Inuit in the Canadian Arctic
by Paul Kaludjak
What should the Canadian federal government do in the face of the continued American rejection of Canada’s assertion of sovereignty over the Northwest Passage? Inuit occupy and travel throughout the area that Washington claims to be international waters. We will be most affected if the passage is opened to shipping as a result of climate change.
Donat Pharand, a recognized authority on northern Canadian waters, suggests that Canada should make the Arctic Canada Traffic System compulsory; acquire at least one polar-class icebreaker capable of operating year round; install a submarine-detection system at the main entrances of the Northwest Passage; extend radar coverage beyond the North Warning System; and increase the
number of long-range patrol aircraft.
Michael Byers at the University of British Columbia urges Canada to negotiate a Northwest Passage shipping and environmental management agreement with the United States, an idea similar to Prof. Pharand’s suggestion of a transit agreement between Ottawa and Washington.
The proposed deal would recognize Canada’s sovereignty over the passage and grant rights of transit for U.S. ships to protect America’s vital interests, including security. Both Prof. Pharand and Prof. Byers believe that threats to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty are real and may intensify.
Writing in a Canadian newspaper earlier this month, Franklyn Griffiths of the University of Toronto suggested that the issue is overblown, that our sovereignty is “well in hand” and that we are “secure in the benefits of de facto control of the Northwest Passage.” He recommends against negotiating
with the Americans to secure outright recognition of our sovereignty. Instead, he suggests a renewed focus on Arctic stewardship as the “enactment of sovereignty” through a partnership between Northerners and Southerners.
Where is the Canadian government in all of this? In Iqaluit last summer, Prime Minister Stephen Harper promised armed icebreakers, a deep sea port in Nunavut, increased surveillance by air, a beefing up of the predominantly Inuit Canadian Ranger patrols, and the deployment of more troops. He is putting all of Canada’s Arctic sovereignty eggs in the military’s basket.
Mr. Harper’s announcement was welcomed by Inuit organizations. Our nightmare is the poorly regulated use of the passage at some future date by convenience-flagged, oil-carrying tankers. Just imagine what an Exxon Valdez oil spill would mean in the Northwest Passage. This is why Inuit want Canadian law applied to all who use the area. We are being prudent, not alarmist.
The eight-nation Arctic Council will deliver a report in 2008 on the likely level of shipping in the Arctic in 2020 and 2050. Others are preparing for the post-climate-change future. So should Canada.
Here are our suggestions: The Canadian government does not have a strategy to assert our sovereignty. Instead, individual departments have reacted to events. We need a long-term plan that knits together federal and territorial agencies and Inuit organizations. We all have roles to play. Asserting Arctic sovereignty is a national, not a federal, project.
The 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement acknowledges the contribution of Inuit to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, yet key sovereignty-asserting provisions of this agreement, including monitoring, have not been implemented by federal agencies. As recommended by its Auditor-General in 2004, the Canadian government should commit to full implementation of the land-claims Agreement.
In 2007, scientists from more than 60 countries will be working in the Arctic for International Polar Year. Norway has developed world-class research facilities in the Svalbard Islands in the North Atlantic as a means of securing sovereignty. Canada’s research facilities in our Arctic are out of date and inadequate. Let’s learn a lesson from Norway and develop research facilities in the Arctic as an International Polar Year legacy.
The best way to have our sovereignty accepted by the international community is not to restrict entry to territory, but to facilitate use of it in accord with Canadian regulations. This requires deeper political engagement among the federal government, international bodies, individual nations and
international and national non-governmental organizations that want to use the Arctic for research, development, cultural, social and other purposes. We need a far more active and ambitious northern foreign policy.
We need creative thinking. Inuit who live in the Canadian Arctic are proud Canadians, and we invite the government of Canada to engage with us to protect the Canadian Arctic.
Paul Kaludjak is president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which oversees implementation of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement.
July 9th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
great website. Perhaps the most legally defensible claim on the arctic is not military but that of the Inuit people. It is our jobs in Rest of Canada to ensure Inuit benefit from their relatioship and alliegence to Canada. Canada’s interest and Inuit interests should be seen one and the groups indivisable. That would go much further in International Courts to secure our claims North of 60 than will a couple of small boats with a Canadian flag.
two cents!!
Bill
Surrey, B.C..
September 18th, 2007 at 3:52 am
New Coast Guard ships would best fit our Arctic ambitions
By ROD STRIGHT | 4:41 AM
THE FEDERAL government, under its new “Canada First” defence strategy, has announced its intention, during the election campaign, to provide three new armed heavy icebreakers in the Canadian Arctic to enhance maritime security over Canada’s extensive and very valuable and resource-rich Canadian Arctic Archipelago.
In addition, the strategy calls for a new military/civilian deep-water dock to support the icebreakers and boost economic development in the north. This capability has now been modified to a new generation of medium ice-capable Arctic patrol vessels to be operated by Canada’s Armed Forces. While the government is to be commended for its commitment to Arctic sovereignty, its methodology to achieve its goal needs to be tailored to ensure that Canada, Canadians, particularly Northern Canadians, who live and work in this environment, are well-served by this investment in our Arctic Archipelago.
As global warming makes the Northwest Passage the shortest, cheapest and safest route between many, now very distant ports, Shanghai to Rotterdam as an example, many countries will challenge our claim to the Northwest Passage. There will be increased pressure to globalize this important passage.
During the past 30 years, Canada’s icebreaking capability has been reduced from one of the most capable in the world to one of the least capable. While this may not be the current government’s fault, it does provide them with an excellent opportunity to correct the situation and provide Canada with an icebreaking capability able to operate in its proclaimed area of responsibility on a year-round basis.
As it stands now, Canada is less able to operate in its own area of responsibility than most other countries with an icebreaking fleet. Acquisition of new, but less capable icebreakers, operated by a different, less experienced department, will not help improve the current situation.
To achieve its goal, the federal government must focus on the best strategy to improve Arctic sovereignty while enhancing the economic development of the resource-rich Arctic Archipelago in an environmentally friendly manner that is supported by Northern Canadians.
While the prospect of armed troops in the Arctic and associated infrastructure are commendable initiatives, I believe there are other more creative, cost-effective, supportive methods of providing better service, in less time, with greater benefits to the Inuit community and the current and future development of the Canadian Arctic.
In an era when the country needs a strong Canadian Coast Guard to support domestic responsibilities in its waterways, the CCG is being diminished and reduced on an almost daily basis. I believe that a more realistic approach would allow our new government to provide a much more cost- and mission-effective solution to this age-old problem of Arctic sovereignty.
Some suggestions, based upon years of experience with the CCG, would be:
• Assign the responsibility for building and operating the Canadian Arctic sovereignty icebreakers to the civilian marine arm of the federal government, the Canadian Coast Guard, which has been designing icebreakers and operating in the Arctic environment since it was formed (1962) and prior to that through the Marine Services directorate of Transport Canada. The CCG and its personnel have earned the respect of Northerners over the years and the experience of its personnel in this unique operating environment is unmatched by any other organization in the world.
• Acquire three multi-mission heavy icebreakers capable of operating in the Arctic on a year-round basis (not for a few months of the year, as with the proposed medium-capable icebreakers). These vessels need to be the best in the world and capable of delivering a suite of federal and territorial programs and services in the area they are designed to operate in. Such vessel designs are currently available and could be purchased and/or leased and in service in less than five years at a cost considerably below the original estimate of $1 billion apiece.
• Primary missions would include, but not be limited to: search and rescue; Arctic science; hydrography; oceanography; fisheries management and protection; law enforcement; maritime security; pollution response (federal responsibility north of 60 degrees north); icebreaking, ice reconnaissance and monitoring, particularly in light of global warming; ice escort, harbour breakouts; remote community support, supporting Arctic economic development; in addition to Arctic sovereignty.
• Operation and management of these vessels would need to be done in partnership with the Inuit community, as well as the Armed Forces, to ensure the concerns of Northerners, who have exclusive rights to these lands through their land-claims agreements, are addressed.
• Such vessels, although much more capable than the ones proposed by the government, would have smaller crews and have the ability to accommodate appropriate mission-specific personnel (i.e. scientists, pollution response specialists, RCMP, Armed Forces, etc.)
• The design of these icebreakers is such that they can often conduct several missions at once and thus achieve a much greater return on our investment and operating costs.
The support to economic and social development is one that is much deserved by our Inuit community. Given the remoteness of the communities, size of their territories, and the difficult environment, they deserve the support of the federal government in a manner that makes sense. While they do not have access to a national highway (Trans-Canada) or railway system, the marine and air modes of transportation are their only connections and, in most cases, airports are not options. Despite their reliance on marine transportation in their everyday life (fishing and hunting), they do not get the same level of support as their southern colleagues because of their remote location and comparatively small numbers. A federal icebreaker with an IFR helicopter can provide much needed support quickly, in addition to extending the reach and range of Canadian sovereignty.
New Arctic-class icebreakers would also allow the CCG to rationalize its icebreaking capability in a cost-effective manner by concentrating on less expensive southern icebreakers for southern operations, deployed to the Arctic on a seasonal basis, and avoid the acquisition/replacement cost of one or more major icebreakers.
Having taken the initiative to enhance Arctic sovereignty, I would suggest that the new government take the time to get it right so that its solution is in the best interest of Canada, Canadians in general, and in this case Northern Canadians, in particular. The right solution will place us where we need to be and will be of value for many decades to come; the wrong solution will have us watching foreign icebreakers transit “our Northwest Passage” on TV from down south without even the capability to be in that “icebreaking zone” at that time of year and do nothing to help our Arctic citizens on a year-round basis.
Rod Stright is a former director of operations with the Canadian Coast Guard and has more than 30 years experience with the CCG
September 18th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Thanks for the thoughtful comments - the concept of some sort of joint Inuit/government management of the icebreakers is particularly interesting. As a former director of operations, would you seriously see the government being open to such an arrangement?
September 27th, 2007 at 8:09 am
I was glad to see the article! We need to increase public awareness of the many serious threats to Canadian arctic sovereignty.
I fear that in the near future there will be a showdown in the arctic and that both the Canadian military and the Inuit will play important roles.
It would be naive to think that a heavy military presence will not be required to enforce this sovereignty. There are mega billions of dollars at stake in the arctic and these riches are attracting the attention of our more ruthless neighbors who are certainly willing to use force to achieve their goals.
Canada needs to wake up and recognize that we have enemies who would take what is ours if given the chance. I fear that drastic action will be required to secure our arctic sovereignty. With Russia planting flags on the ocean floor of the North Pole, the normally docile Denmark disputing our territory and the USA calling our Northwest Passage an “International Waterway” we should all see the storm comming!!
I have visions of a mined (of the explosive variety) Northwest Passage with Canadian vessels escorting authorized vessels through the minefield - the type and number of vessels authorized to pass through the passage would be determined by the local Inuit people and Canada Customs working together. Hopefully after our adversaries realize that we mean business the mines could be eliminated and sanity would prevail!
July 15th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
[...] waters? Perhaps the best solution is to open the passage and govern it, as Nunavut resident Paul Kaludjak suggests: “The best way to have our sovereignty accepted by the international community is not to [...]