The Wrong Way To Promote Arctic Sovereignty
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”.
Cut me some slack here, because I am confused.
In this case, you are not happy for obvious reasons.
But as Jane Q Public in the lower portion of the country, I have to ask: How much SHOULD we pay to create a deep sea port that will service… what percentage of the country’s population?
Forget land claims and all that for a moment, and let’s talk reality. What percentage of Canada’s population will be affected, one way or another, by the location of the deep sea port?
Because I have to mention, as an Edmontonian, that our so-called “international” airport is a $50 cab fare to downtown, and likely somewhere around 20 klicks. So I have a problem grasping the inappropriateness of a deep sea port that is 20 klicks away from the nearest town, since it’s not the first time the gov’t has made assinine location decisions, nor will it likely be the last.
To label this as an Aboriginal issue (which it appears you are trying to do) is, IM-not-so-HO nonsense.
It may be an idiotic decision (in your not-so-HO), but I would argue that it is no more directed at the local population’s race than any other stupid gov’t decision. And as a taxpayer, I’m curious as to how much more (if any) it would cost to locate the deep sea port closer, and what the economic justification to the rest of the country might be if that cost is significantly higher.
Please note that I am not defending the current decision (I don’t have enough info one way or the other to do that), I am asking for info.
Cheers!
“I have to ask: How much SHOULD we pay to create a deep sea port that will service… what percentage of the country’s population?”
Good question. Two responses, either of which could be expanded.
1) A deep water port “services” Canada, as well as the residents of Nunavut. It enables international cruise ships to dock, could provide a refuel point for the expanded commercial traffic anticipated as a result of global warming (no kidding, this is actually factored into the planning), and allows access to larger military vessels.
2) Literally ANY investment in infrastructure in Nunavut results in a net saving in the medium and long run. There are just as many folks up there who want to operate businesses, deliver services or become professionals as anywhere else: but remoteness, low population density, and absence of infrastructure make the cost of doing business prohibitively high. There are some huge potential revenue generators up there: resource development, fisheries and tourism are three. All would benefit from a deep water port located with benefit to those industries in mind. That creates jobs, tax AND resource revenues, brings revenue into the territory, and diminishes the tax burden on you and me.
“So I have a problem grasping the inappropriateness of a deep sea port that is 20 klicks away.”
It’s not the distance from Arctic Bay I’m talking about. It’s the disconnect from the rest of the transportation network of Nunavut. A deep water port in Iqaluit could deliver services, people and material to a hub linked with Southern Canada, Baffin North (all flights to North Baffin run through Iqaluit), Baffin South (ditto), Northern Quebec, and Rankin Inlet (the Kivalliq hub). Arctic Bay is one stop way up the North Baffin string of communities.
“To label this as an Aboriginal issue (which it appears you are trying to do) is, IM-not-so-HO nonsense.”
Shrug. “Label” it whatever you want. I don’t care. If there are facts in the argument you would like to dispute, please be my guest.
“And as a taxpayer, I’m curious as to how much more (if any) it would cost to locate the deep sea port closer, and what the economic justification to the rest of the country might be if that cost is significantly higher.”
Well, I love blogging, but not enough to commission a private cost comparison analysis to respond to your question. Sorry about that. Given that Iqaluit is further south, has already done an initial feasibility study, and has the largest airstrip in Nunavut, I don’t think the cost would be much different. As for economic justification: see point above on investment in infrastructure.
Hopefully you’ll all forgive for being skeptical about big promises for future infrastructure from the mouths of politicians, federal, provincial, or territorial.
According to the articles I’ve read the environmental studies are scheduled to start next year with, an expected 2012 opening, and a fully functional operating date 3 years after that.
Yes, I know, something like this doesn’t fall into place overnight, but neither does the decision to do it – why aren’t the environmental and economic studies being started now instead of [potentially] after the next federal election?
With respect to where it is located, I’m not gonna quibble, I like it.
1) Iqaluit is too far south of the passage to get there in any sort of hurry if we need an official presence there for any reason. The fact has to be faced that with the warming of the Arctic regulation of who goes where, and what they are carrying on board, is important to the people who live there and the very fragile environment they live in.
2) The tides (and all that goes with them) and geography of Frobisher Bay make a deep water port there problematic, Nanisivik does not suffer that problem. Are there other places, yes, but the mouth of the Northwest Passage has obvious benefits.
3) There are communities in the area that will certainly benefit from any ice breaking capability in the area. Pelly Bay, Spence Bay, Resolute Bay, and Grise Fiord, not to mention Arctic Bay, are probably tickled pink about this. Nanisivik has a big runway and is only a [relative] hop, skip, and a jump, from the Kitikmeot regional center, and, for that matter, Greenland and points east of it.
That being said, any plan that does not include the Inuit people is less than 1/2 a plan. The ultimate claim to the Arctic is a healthy, happy, in control of their own destiny, population of Canadians who live there – and, as you noted in your post, Harper’s regime is failing quite spectacularly at promoting any of that.
I note the announcement and subsequent coverage don’t include any statements from the Nunavut Premier, Cabinet, MLAs, or organizations. It seems to be pretty much Conservatives congratulating each other.
Stageleft, a feasibility study was done two years ago on the engineering feasibility and benefits of an Iqaluit deep water port (coordinated by a certain consulting firm you know rather well). No significant issues with tide.
Thanks for the info.
Balb: “I note the announcement and subsequent coverage don’t include any statements from the Nunavut Premier, Cabinet, MLAs, or organizations”
Federal funding announcements don’t usually include premiers unless it is a joint-funding announcement.
“Federal funding announcements don’t usually include premiers unless it is a joint-funding announcement.”
I said “announcement and subsequent coverage”. So far not a word from any Nunavummiut – government or Inuit – on the announcement, in any media that I’ve seen. Point being that this is not what Nunavut asked for or recommended. No surprise there.
“So far not a word from any Nunavummiut – government or Inuit – on the announcement, in any media that I’ve seen. Point being that this is not what Nunavut asked for or recommended. No surprise there. ”
I have a hard time believing that the media aren’t all over that, then, getting quotes stating that position. Why is that? (a serious question)
I’m not sure, but I would guess it’s a combination of three things:
- the Nunavut politicians and Inuit organizations – don’t like this decision, but it’s politically difficult to say no to a few millions dollars that will be spent in your territory (even though the vast majority of it will go to outside contractors);
- Nunavut media are pretty wimpy;
- National media don’t care.
Some coverage from CBC here.
My favourite quote, from Harper, defending his unpopular choice of location: “Obviously military decisions have to be made on a military basis.”
Got that? Exactly as I said above: “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.”
Never mind that the people and political leadership of Nunavut begged for a port in a place that would the people of the Territory some good. This is a MILITARY matter.
Candace: one more, from the Mayor of the town allegedly benefiting from this stunt.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/north/story/2007/08/14/arctic-stunts.html
She’s not impressed.
Convinced yet?