Thank you very much. It's an honour to be able to speak to you today.
I heard only the final comments of Dr. Lackenbauer, so I apologize if there's perhaps repetition in our comments.
I want to start with an anecdote of a public meeting that I attended last night about the Arctic—from this, I think it's symptomatic of two criticisms of Canada's current foreign policy that I would like to raise—and end off with a possible solution.
Last night here in Winnipeg, there was a big public event to discuss Canada's Arctic. In the title it had the words “true north” and “final frontier”. There were approximately 200 members of the public. It was extremely predictable in its message, both for what it did raise and for what it didn't raise. Four academics were asked to speak about the Arctic. There were themes that they did raise: there are opportunities in the north, but we must be very concerned about who has those opportunities; the U.S. is our greatest challenge; and our sovereignty is under threat. There were lots of maps of the Durham map, which shows the potential conflict as a result of the continental shelf.
What was not raised was Canada's actual northern strategy. There was no mention of the living conditions in the north. There was absolutely no mention of the Arctic Council or the fact that Canada will chair it. I might add that there was no mention of the Canadian chapter chairing the ICC from 2014 to 2018.
I think this is symptomatic of the two main criticisms about our current foreign policy, which I want to raise. The first is a follow-up from the discussion you had on Tuesday with the DFAIT representatives. That's in reference to Canada's current northern strategy, and specifically its four pillars. For me, three of the four pillars are not actually foreign policy issues; they're in fact domestic issues.
The one foreign policy issue, which is the sovereignty card, I think is outdated and very jingoistic. Our sovereignty is not questioned, nor is it under threat. True sovereignty is vibrant, healthy, sustainable communities, and we don't have that right now.
I might add that the map we have in Canada's current northern strategy evokes the sector principle, and that, I had thought, was outdated and long since abandoned. I'm surprised it's still there.
What this criticism is about, in short, is that I think there's a chasm between the rhetoric and what Canada actually wants to and is trying to achieve when it comes to the Arctic, and especially on the world stage.
My second criticism, which is very much related, is that I think Canada suffers from what I call “ADD”, the Arctic distraction disorder. We tend to be very concerned, and panic, when there's any hint of a possible—quote, unquote—threat to the north, but at the same time we forget about our Arctic on a regular basis. I would point to our 1981 dollar coin, which is missing most of the north for aesthetic reasons.
This brings me to our potential solution. I think maybe we need a reset. The fact that Canada is about to chair the Arctic Council is a propitious time to do so.
With regard to our current northern strategy, I think we need to put it away. I think if we're talking about foreign policy, we need to separate out those issues that are in fact within the foreign policy purview and separate them from the domestic.
I have four areas that perhaps our foreign policy could take on. I might add that I think this is actually what Canada is trying to do, but it's perhaps language that's more reflective of that fact.
I've chosen four words that begin with “c”, for one thing because it reminds us about Canada, but also because I think they're truly in the foreign policy realm.
The first would be cooperation, and I think Canada is cooperating with the Arctic states, with the permanent participants. It's in our best interests.
The next is commerce. There are opportunities in the north, and they will be on an international level.
Next is the culture. Culture is extremely important for Canada, especially our northern culture and our indigenous and aboriginal peoples.
Finally, we need to talk about climate change. The whole point in being members of international fora like the Arctic Council is to try to work on common problems, and climate change is a problem that no one state can solve. We need everybody's assistance.
I think the Arctic Council does a lot of good, and Canada has a great opportunity in being the chair of the second round of state chairs. There are going to be challenges, no doubt. For example, what do we do with observer applications, such as Greenpeace?
But there are also observer issues to do with who is consistently missing from the table and who perhaps should be there—for instance, the International Maritime Organization.
That's where I'd like to leave you—with those two criticisms, really observations, about the chasm between perception and reality, and about the Arctic distraction disorder that Canada suffers from, and I'd suggest that now is the time for a reset.
Thank you.