Evidence of meeting #34 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was language.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Welcome everyone.
I would now like to call to order the 34th meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence. Pursuant to Standing Order 108 and to the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 23, 2009, we continue our study on Arctic sovereignty.
Mr. Hawn.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Before we do that, with apologies to our guests for what will be a little bit of a delay—hopefully, we can deal with this quickly and move on—I need to raise a question of privilege.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Before that, I want to tell the members that concerning a question of privilege, in Marleau and Montpetit, chapter 3, on page 129, it is written that, “Unlike the Speaker, the Chair of a committee does not have the power to censure disorder or decide questions of privilege”. But the chair has the privilege to recognize that a member can raise a question of privilege and to hear the question. So I will ask you, Mr. Hawn, to go on.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Can I ask, on a point of order, can we move in camera to deal with this?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Wilfert.
The other question is, do the members want to have this discussion in camera or in public? If it's in camera, we can have....
Monsieur Bachand.
9:10 a.m.
Bloc
Claude Bachand Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I would agree to going in camera, but not to asking our friends to leave.
Mr. Hawn, perhaps we can deal with that matter after we have heard from the Nunavut Tunngavik witnesses.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On a point of order, are you making it in camera at 10:30, or is it going to be open at 10:30?
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
The decision will be to have a discussion in camera on this point of privilege at 10:30, after our witnesses.
Do we have a consensus here?
9:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
9:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Okay, we'll proceed like that.
Thanks, Mr. Hawn. We'll do it at 10:30.
We have before us representatives of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.: Mr. Kaludjak and Mrs. Pelly and also Mrs. Hanson. Thank you for being with us. We appreciate your time in front of our committee, because we are doing a study that is very important for the members of this committee and also for other members of Parliament.
You'll have the floor for five to seven minutes. After that, members will ask you questions.
It's over to you.
9:10 a.m.
Paul Kaludjak President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Good morning.
My name is Paul Kaludjak. I am from Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
Thank you for inviting us this morning. Qujanamiik.
[Witness speaks in Inuktitut]
Good morning.
First, thank you for the invitation. I want to acknowledge, before I present, that we had a 20-to-25-minute presentation, and now we're told we have seven minutes, so we will have to talk fast. I will try to do the best I can to keep within the timeframe allocated.
But I want to welcome my delegation here, and also the visitors behind me. Firstly, I'm glad to introduce my wife, Dorothy, and also my assistant, Joanasie Akumalik, and all the other Inuit visitors that I don't see from where I'm sitting. Also, we have my delegation here: Laurie Pelly, who is our legal counsel; and Udloriak Hanson, who is our policy adviser.
My name is Paul Kaludjak, as I said. I am the president of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., the Inuit organization that implemented the land claims agreement in 1993. Thank you for inviting us to appear before you today.
I understand I have only a short time to present our views, but I would like to begin by referring to the recommendations you received on October 1 from Mary Simon, president of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami. Mary was formerly Canada’s Arctic Ambassador, and she has a very clear perspective on Arctic policy in both its international and domestic aspects.
Mary made six recommendations in her presentation. I won’t repeat them now. I would like to note that I agree with all of them and endorse them.
I also want to acknowledge and welcome the Prime Minister's commitment to assert Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. We appreciate that he has familiarized himself with the Arctic through his visits every year.
We support many of the measures being taken to express Canada’s Arctic sovereignty, including strengthening the Canadian Rangers and increasing the ability of Canada’s armed forces to operate in the Arctic.
At the same time, we emphasize the need for a comprehensive approach to development in Nunavut. We have basic housing and infrastructure needs that must be addressed on a long-term basis.
It is important that parliamentarians approach Arctic sovereignty as a national issue and not on a partisan basis. When it comes to Arctic sovereignty, Canadians should sing from the same song sheet, no matter their political views.
On April 29, Professor Suzanne Lalonde from the University of Montreal appeared before you and stated very clearly that “the principal challenge facing Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic concerns the Northwest Passage”. This is the most important Arctic sovereignty dispute. It is the Northwest Passage that runs right through Nunavut. It is good that MPs from all the political parties agree that this is a highly critical issue, and it's why Daryl Kramp's motion to rename the Northwest Passage has received all-party support.
The term “Northwest Passage” raises an immediate question: northwest of where and of what? The reference point seems to be London, England, and that, I think, is the mindset we are trying to get away from.
We are from Nunavut. Nunavut means “our land” and not anyone else's transitway. Article 33 of the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement requires Inuit Heritage Trust to review traditional place names in Nunavut and to review proposals for name changes.
The Inuktitut name for the Northwest Passage, which Inuit Heritage Trust has recorded from elders in the region, is Tallurutik. On Devon Island, along the passage, there is a side of the mountain that looks like tattoos on the chin of a woman. Talluq is "chin", and tattoos on the chin of a woman are called tallurutiit. The elders say that from a distance you can easily see this.
Selecting a traditional place name for the Northwest Passage would be the best way to signal to the world that the area is very much Canadian. I understand that motion 387 is to come to a vote in November. NTI would like to work with all political parties, the Government of Nunavut, and Inuit Heritage Trust before the date of this vote. We agree that the spirit behind this motion would be to secure agreement on an Inuktitut name for the Northwest Passage.
Inuit hold the key to Canada’s ability to successfully assert Arctic sovereignty. The northern strategy released last summer by the Government of Canada says: “Canada's Arctic sovereignty is longstanding, well established and based on historic title, founded in part on the presence of Inuit and other Aboriginal peoples since time immemorial.”
Canada’s ability to declare the passage “internal waters”, just like Hudson Bay and Foxe Basin, is based on historic title. This is what Great Britain said in 1930 when it represented Canada in negotiations with Norway on ownership of the Sverdrup Islands.
In 1986 the Minister of External Affairs, the Honourable Joe Clark, drew baselines around the Arctic Archipelago and declared all waters within to be internal to Canada. Mr. Clark relied, in part, on Inuit use and occupancy in Barrow Strait and Lancaster Sound, which is the Northwest Passage.
The key to effectively asserting Arctic sovereignty lies in a partnership between the Inuit and the Government of Canada. We have a partnership with Canada, negotiated over many years. It was ratified by the Inuit in 1992 and approved by Parliament in 1993. It is called the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. It is a modern treaty and is constitutionally protected. It acknowledges in its preamble, in article 15, on marine areas, the Inuit contribution to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. Article 15.1.1 (c) says: "Canada's sovereignty over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago is supported by Inuit use and occupancy”.
We see the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as the means for us to become partners in this federation. Through the agreement we strengthened Canada’s ability to assert sovereignty on the basis of historic title. We received, in return, the rights and benefits provided for in the agreement.
Regrettably, we have had difficulty convincing the Government of Canada to live up to its responsibilities and to meet all its obligations in our agreement. The extent of the problem is shown by the lawsuit we felt obligated to file in 2006 because our agreement had been breached in a number of important areas. Unfortunately, our tale is not unique. All modern treaty organizations--first nations and Inuit--have experienced treaty implementation problems. It is because of this that we formed the Land Claims Agreement Coalition in 2003 to press the Government of Canada to fully implement its modern treaties. The coalition urges the federal government to adopt a policy to ensure full implementation of modern treaties.
Professor Michael Byers of the University of British Columbia appeared before this committee on June 2. In his recent book, Who Owns the Arctic?, he concludes that failure to implement the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement weakens Canada’s Arctic sovereignty case. As an example, the environmental monitoring provisions of the agreement have not yet been implemented. Surely we have to know what’s going on in our territory if others are to acknowledge our sovereignty.
As a further example, the Nunavut Marine Council, provided for in article 15 of our agreement, has not been established. Yet the Nunavut Marine Council could be a key institution in bringing together governments and Inuit to deal with offshore issues, which definitely involve sovereignty questions.
The Nunavut Planning Commission, established under article 11 of our agreement, intends to complete a Nunavut-wide land use plan by 2011. This is to guide and direct development in the Nunavut settlement area, including marine areas. This is a practical example of the exercise of sovereignty through our land claims agreement.
Therefore, our first recommendation to you is that the Government of Canada should work hand in hand with Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated to fully implement the 1993 Nunavut Land Claims Agreement as a key component of a strategy to assert, affirm, and express Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
I have stressed the importance of Inuit land use and occupancy and historic title to Canada’s Arctic sovereignty basis. Professor Lalonde, who I quoted earlier, suggests that devolving rights over the seabed within the Arctic Archipelago would build on Inuit use and occupancy and would carry weight in international law. Let me quote her:
Devolution of legislated jurisdiction over the land resources and marine bed resources in the Territory of Nunavut to its Government could be a further and important exercise of Canada’s exclusive authority over the waters of the Arctic Archipelago. . . it would undoubtedly strengthen Canada’s claim under the historic waters doctrine.
This leads to my second recommendation, recommendation two. The Government of Canada should work with the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. to finalize a timetable and plan to devolve responsibility for marine and marine bed resources within the Arctic Archipelago to the Government of Nunavut as one component of a strategy to assert, affirm, and express Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
I need more than a minute, because I don't see you every day and I would like to do my full presentation.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
In this context, I would like to acknowledge the Land and Resources Devolution Negotiation Protocol that I signed with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Premier of Nunavut on September 5, 2008. The protocol states:
The parties acknowledge that it is the position of the Government of Nunavut and NTI that the ultimate objective of devolution is the transfer of administration and control in respect of Crown lands and resources in all areas, both onshore and in the seabed. The parties further acknowledge that it is the position of the Government of Nunavut and NTI that a devolution agreement should make no distinction between resource management regimes onshore and in the seabed in and adjacent to Marine Areas.
The protocol notes that this is the Government of Nunavut and NTI's position. It is not yet the Government of Canada's position. We still await a mandate for the Government of Canada to begin formal negotiations.
At NTI we have very practical reasons to support Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. If our waters are an international strait, foreign shipping has guaranteed navigation rights, and even submerged submarines may freely come and go.
We want shipping in the Arctic regulated and managed using the very highest environmental standards and the most advanced technology. An Exxon Valdez type of accident in Lancaster Sound would be disastrous to our homeland. The Government of Canada needs to have the legal and practical ability to stop ships entering Nunavut’s waters if they fail to meet the very highest environmental standards. This is what sovereignty means—the ability to set the rules and to exercise control.
Lancaster Sound is the eastern entrance to the Northwest Passage. This is an area where environmental conservation and sovereignty assertion go hand in hand. Lancaster Sound is both beautiful and very important ecologically. I am pleased to tell you that the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the governments of Nunavut and Canada are very close to signing a memorandum of understanding to look at the feasibility of a marine conservation area in the sound. I urge the committee to listen closely—I know you are listening closely—to the views of the Qikiqtani Inuit Association, when they appear before you.
This brings me to my last recommendation. The Government of Canada should work closely with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Government of Nunavut to plan the establishment of a national marine conservation area in eastern Lancaster Sound as one important component of a strategy to assert, affirm, and express Canada’s Arctic sovereignty.
Further, and again working with the Qikiqtani Inuit Association and the Government of Nunavut, the Government of Canada should consider seeking world heritage site designation for the area. A world heritage site status would facilitate efforts to regulate shipping and strengthen Canada’s position that the Northwest Passage constitutes internal waters and is subject to Canadian regulation and control.
I hope you will endorse these three recommendations in addition to those you have already received from ITK.
We will do our best to handle questions you may have. Many thanks for your time and attention and thank you again for allowing me the time to finish my presentation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
9:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Maxime Bernier
Thank you, Mr. Kaludjak. Thank you very much.
Now I will give the floor to Mr. Wilfert.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll split my seven minutes with Ms. Neville.
Thank you for coming.
There's an implicit recognition here that you are saying the devolution equates in terms of being able to protect or enforce sovereignty. You make three specific recommendations. Obviously the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement Act of 1993 has still not been fully implemented.
In terms of the framework, the process, and the timetable, can you give us a sense of what it is you are looking for in order to move this along? I think we do have complementary interests here in terms of achieving the same goal, which is obviously not only the enforcement but the recognition of sovereignty in the north.
Thank you.
9:30 a.m.
President, Nunavut Tunngavik Inc.
Thank you, sir.
Yes, as we stated, we want the highest levels of environmental protection anywhere in Nunavut, not only in the passage itself, but throughout Nunavut. We demand the best tool possible to protect the environment in Nunavut because of its fragile climate and very harsh conditions. It's hard to get there. It's not like here in Ottawa. You have roads going every way and access is easy. It's not the same in Nunavut. It demands special protection because of the terrain and the conditions up there.
In terms of devolution, the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement was produced so we can have some control over land that we didn't before, and we expect and demand that the Government of Canada do the same thing to have true control over the passage. In doing that, as I said before, we signed a memorandum of understanding in September reflecting the need for devolution because we felt it would help us assert sovereignty, no matter where you are. It doesn't mean only the Northwest Passage; it could mean wherever you are in Nunavut. It would help us assert a little more control over the resources we have and acknowledge the need for us to take a full role with development, whatever happens in Nunavut, with the Nunavut government as well as the federal government.
Thank you, sir.
9:30 a.m.
Liberal
Bryon Wilfert Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
If I could ask the witness, in terms of areas of process, timetable, the framework, etc., if any additional information could be submitted to this committee to the clerk in writing to move this along, it would be appreciated.
Just a comment on a world heritage site. I think 2012 is the next time there can be a nomination process for something of that nature.
I turn it over, Mr. Chairman, to my colleague, Ms. Neville.
9:35 a.m.
Liberal
Anita Neville Liberal Winnipeg South Centre, MB
Thank you.
I'm going to ask you two questions, and I don't think I have a lot of time left, do I?