One of Steven Harper’s election commitments was the promotion of Arctic Sovereignty. His noteworthy accomplishments in that area have so far included:
- the quiet elimination of the position Canada’s circumpolar ambassador, a post focused specifically on the promotion of Canadian interests in the Arctic;
- the cancellation of the Kelowna Accord (which would have provided funding for health and education across the Inuit territories);
- a blanket refusal to implement key portions of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement, or to meet with land claims leaders on the issue;
- a retreat from specific campaign promises to build icebreakers, to develop an underwater surveillance system, and to develop an airborne battalion for the north. For this last, Mr. Harper has substituted some smaller boats that will work in the summer. That’s the ARCTIC summer.

In fact, Mr. Harper’s chief northern accomplishment so far seems to have been to fly north several times for photo ops of himself in the north talking about how important the north is. It’s wearing a bit thin. As one Iqaluit friend put it drily, “Really, I’d rather have the White Stripes back again.”

Today Mr. Harper’s latest junket takes him to Nanisivik, where he is expected to finally announce the fulfillment of another campaign promise: a civilian/military deepwater port at the site of the former zinc mine. This will be greeted with bleats of joy from conservative pundits, who will rhapsodize about Mr. Harper’s firmness and commitment and northern vision and whatever other drivel his PR goblins stuff into his speaking notes.

Unfortunately, as usual, Mr. Harper has got it dead wrong. He has opted for an expensive, piece of political theatre, instead of simple strategies that would promote real change in the North, and ultimately the only assurance of real sovereignty.

What’s wrong with this most recent grand gesture of the PM’s? Oh, God, where to begin…

The notion of a deep water port for Nunavut has been around for awhile, conceived as a measure to promote economic development and self sufficiency. EVERYTHING that comes to Nunavut - construction materials, toilet paper, cars, packaged food, gas and oil - arrives either by plane (hellaciously expensive) or sealift (slow, limited to summer delivery, and restricted to small boats because of the absence of a deep water port). If large quantities of material could be transported to a deep water port linked with the territory’s existing air network (with its hub in Iqaluit), a number of things would happen. The cost of living would drop; the feasibility of operating a whole new range of small businesses and services would rise; and a number of sectors would experience an immediate boost (including construction, fisheries, tourism, and the various suppliers and services associated with operation and maintenance of the port).

The Premier and Ministers of the Government of Nunavut have proposed a few locations that meet those conditions. They include Iqaluit, Kimmirut, and possible a facility at Bathurst Inlet in the west to service the booming Kitikmeot mining industry. Apparently, however, the Prime Minister is ignoring the advice of the people most affected and most knowledgeable (quel surprise!) and is opting for a site that maximizes the military utility of port.

The Nanisivik location makes no economic sense at all. It is about twenty kilometers away from Arctic Bay, the nearest settlement. Located in mid-Baffin Island, it has no air links to the Kivalliq or Kitikmeot regions. It is, however, isolated, which presumably makes it a better choice for training and conduct of military exercises designed to impress Americans and Russians and Danes.

Which brings us to the point. Canada’s “battle” for Arctic sovereignty is not an military issue.

Yes, Arctic-specific training is a good idea. Yes, CF boots on the tundra in the Arctic is a useful supplement to any assertion of Canadian sovereignty. But there are dozens of others considerations in assessing sovereignty. The biggest factor is traditional land use and occupancy. Then there’s the maintenance of physical and governance infrastructure in a territory, and the integration of the territory into national systems, including its economy. The best way to assert our sovereignty in the Northn is not by planting a handful of soldiers in Nanisivik. It’s by promoting real, sustainable economic development and governance capacity. And the roadmap is already in place.

Many conservative pundits have mocked the Nunavut Claim as a “handout”, with the usual contemptuous dismissal of lazy natives. It’s an argument that seems to play well on that side of the fence, and certainly Harper and Prentice have done nothing to educate their followers about the real nature of the Claim. But the fact is, Inuit in Nunavut don’t get direct personal payments from the Claim, with the exception of a modest elder’s pension. It provides startup funds for businesses, access to bidding opportunities on contracts, money for training, protection of Inuit owned lands, a percentage of resource royalties - all funding to be invested over the long term in the communities themselves. Claims are not handouts - they’re investments.

Harper and many of his supporters appear to be absolutely indifferent to that side of sovereignty. The government is silently, sullenly ignoring the findings of the Auditor General, the recommendations of Justice Thomas Berger, two huge independent studies by PricewaterhouseCoopers, and literally dozens of other reports that confirm Canada’s failure. Officials at INAC generally respond to these findings by saying they need “more study”, with a reproachful reminder that actually doing what Canada has contracted to do would cost “millions”.

They are, however, prepared to spend those millions to establish a deepwater port in precisely the wrong location to have any real beneficial impact on Nunavut. Like his American soulmates, Harper appears to believe that sovereignty is simply a matter of putting enough soldiers on a piece of ground - the world viewed as a giant Risk game.

As our friend the Shmohawk points out, the government’s tender concern for northerners seems to surface every time corporate or economic interests in the north are threatened. Too bad that concern never seems to translate into action that will actually benefit the people they claim to be “protecting”.