Mary Simon,
"Sovereignty from the North"
(page 2 of 3)
The Manhattan voyage led to urgent legislative action: the enactment
of the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act, which was intended to
demonstrate control, on paper at least. The preamble to the act states:
Parliament . . . recognizes and is determined to fulfil its
obligation to see that the natural resources of the Canadian arctic are
developed and exploited and the arctic waters adjacent to the mainland
and islands of the Canadian arctic are navigated only in a manner that
takes cognizance of Canada's responsibility for the welfare of the Inuit
and other inhabitants of the Canadian arctic and the preservation of the
peculiar ecological balance that now exists in the water, ice and land
areas of the Canadian arctic . . .
Fine words indeed, but statements of principle do not secure
sovereignty.
Similarly, the Polar Sea episode in September 1985 led to an
announcement by the then secretary of state for external affairs, Joe
Clark, about measures to strengthen Canada's claim to Arctic waters,
specifically the drawing of baselines around the Arctic Archipelago to
delineate Canadian internal and territorial waters. Clark also announced
increased aerial surveillance and naval patrols, and spoke of Canada's
intention to build a class-eight polar icebreaker. In January 1988,
Canada signed an agreement with the U.S. on Arctic cooperation.
The current iteration is the "use it or lose it" tour by Prime
Minister Harper, which accompanied announcements of a deepwater port at
Nanisivik and an army training base at Resolute Bay. What does Harper
mean? Have Inuit not been using the region for millennia? Amid the
latest round of promises, has Canada forgotten the northern governments
and aboriginal institutions that have been negotiating and implementing
arrangements for the better governance of the Arctic for the past
thirty-five years? Harper seems genuine, but Canada's interest must be
sustained through comprehensive policy development, infrastructure
development, and investment in the people of this region. We cannot
continue to lurch from crisis to crisis.
Luckily for Canada, the Inuit are always here. Without the Inuit,
could we really claim to be masters of the Arctic house? Probably not.
Ultimately, the Arctic sovereignty issue will depend on people, not
ports or training facilities or military exercises. If Canada is to
secure a long-standing and unimpeachable claim to the Arctic, it must be
grounded in the daily realities of the Inuit and other Canadians who
make this region their home. Why does Canada seem to forget that we are
there each time a crisis looms?
Canada's mistreatment of the Inuit in using them as human flagpoles
to assert sovereignty was laid out with excruciating honesty during
hearings convened by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples in the
early 1990s. A settlement was finally achieved and a semi-apology
delivered. How ironic now for Canada to brandish the fact that Canadian
citizens—Inuit—live in the Arctic in order to add legitimacy to its
sovereignty claims.
Inuit across the Arctic see the lack of action by Canada in
fulfilling land claims agreements. In December 2006, for example,
Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. (NTI), which represents Nunavut Inuit in these
matters, launched a lawsuit against the federal government for violating
the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement (NLCA). NTI is asking for $1
billion in damages. The organization's president, Paul Kaludjak,
explained that Canada was not living up to its responsibilities and that
every attempt to negotiate a satisfactory implementation contract had
been derailed:
"The Government of Canada keeps Inuit dependent and in a state of
financial and emotional despair despite promises made when the NLCA was
signed in 1993. The Government of Canada is not holding up its end of
the bargain. Canada got everything it wanted immediately upon signing
the NLCA. Inuit are still waiting for full implementation of the
Agreement."
In 2004, Thomas Berger, a former justice of BC's Supreme Court, was
brought in as a conciliator. After conducting a review, Berger concluded
that Nunavut is in a state of crisis, and that Inuit will only get their
fair share of jobs in government and elsewhere when the education and
training systems are transformed. Will the recent Labrador Inuit Land
Claims Agreement and the new Nunavik Land Claims Agreement live up to
Berger's recommendations, or will these accords suffer the same fate as
the NLCA?
Page: 1 | 2 | 3
Next page
|