Good morning, honourable members.
Thank you for the opportunity to share with you the work of the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program, which I believe you will find helpful as this committee contemplates the future of Canada's Arctic foreign policy, and particularly its two-year chairmanship of the Arctic Council.
Today I will be making my opening remarks in English only. Please accept my apologies.
A partnership between the Canada Centre for Global Security Studies at the Munk School of Global Affairs, the University of Toronto and the Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation, the Arctic Security Program undertakes original research and hosts interactive gatherings to achieve its vision of peacefully resolved disputes in the Arctic, global environmental security that supports a healthy Arctic environment, and an Arctic foreign policy that centres on the needs of those who live there.
With the upcoming chairmanship of the Arctic Council, Canada has a real opportunity to demonstrate its ability to be a leader in the Arctic region. This is not an unfamiliar role. The genesis of the Arctic Council is largely found here in Canada. It was Canadians who built upon the Finnish initiative of the Arctic environmental protection strategy to push for a more permanent intergovernmental forum to facilitate cooperation among the eight Arctic states previously separated by the cold war boundaries.
Indeed, the council can be viewed as an accomplishment of multi-party cooperation, as the idea was generated under the Mulroney government. The Ottawa declaration, which brought the council to life in 1996, concluded under the Chrétien administration.
The Walter and Duncan Gordon Foundation is proud of the role it played in supporting civil society to think and dream about a council that facilitates circumpolar cooperation where indigenous peoples' voices are heard directly in the deliberations.
To mark the first full rotation of chairs and to help prepare for the upcoming chairmanship, the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program partnered with Finland's University of Lapland to convene a process to look back at what the Arctic Council has accomplished to date and where it should be heading in the future, as well as what Canada should prioritize during its upcoming chairmanship.
In January 2012 we hosted a conference titled, “The Arctic Council: Its Place in the Future of Arctic Governance”, where these issues were discussed. “Canada as an Arctic Power: Preparing for the Canadian Chairmanship of the Arctic Council” flowed from the proceedings of that conference. There was great optimism among participants that the chairmanship presented an opportunity for Canada to demonstrate its Arctic prowess and solidify its role as an Arctic leader, which was so ably shown during the creation of the council.
“Canada as an Arctic Power”, and I have copies if members are interested, serves to highlight major debates about the Arctic Council's future, but also offers 19 recommendations for consideration as priorities. Members will notice that these recommendations take into consideration three things: what the Arctic Council, as an organization, needs to do to prepare for the future; specific initiatives that can be championed during the two-year chairmanship; and actions that Canada should be taking domestically to support the work of the council.
While all 19 recommendations are worthy of the members' careful consideration, I would like to draw particular attention to three recommendations.
One refers to the permanent participants. As members are aware, the Arctic Council is unique among international bodies as it creates a permanent role for indigenous peoples to be represented in its proceedings. The idea that this body incorporates permanent participants again finds its origins here in Canada. This accomplishment should be celebrated.
However, the effectiveness of these organizations to contribute to the Council and to amplify the voices of those who live in the north is often challenged by a lack of resources. Permanent participants often have only one full-time staff member who is responsible for all of the organization's activities, including participating in meetings, reviewing reports, consulting with their communities, accounting, fundraising, and even travel logistics. As a result, they are not, in many cases, able to participate as fully as they would like in the council's proceedings.
While the Arctic Council is innovative in recognizing a seat at the table for these organizations, it is important that permanent participants have the resources to fully engage. Therefore, I would like to draw members' attention to the first recommendation, that Canada propose a new funding mechanism to enable permanent participants to fully participate in all the working groups of the Arctic Council. Since “Canada as an Arctic Power” was released, the need to support permanent participants has only become more pressing.
As members are likely aware, the Russian Association of Indigenous Peoples of the North, known as RAIPON, which is the permanent participant organization representing the 250,000 indigenous persons of the Russian north, Siberia, and the Far East, has been suspended from further activities by the Russian Federation's ministry of justice. Canada and the governments of all Arctic states, and surprisingly the Russian senior Arctic official, His Excellency Anton Vasiliev, have declared concern over this suspension. It is important that Canada continue to raise its concern with its Russian counterparts.
Second is communications and outreach. The second recommendation I would like to emphasize is the need to raise awareness about the Arctic Council's goals and programs, both to audiences in the Arctic region and to the wider world. In January 2011, the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program released “Rethinking the Top of the World”, a public opinion survey that sought to better understand public opinion of Arctic issues. When we asked respondents if they had ever heard of the council, only one-third of northern Canadians, those residing in the three territories, and 15% of southern Canadians, those residing in the provinces, could respond clearly that they had. While these numbers seem stark, they are somewhat more favourable than those of our Arctic neighbours, where only 2% of American respondents indicated they had clearly heard of the Arctic Council. What is positive is that when respondents were given a brief description about the council, they were favourable towards its stated goals.
While the permanent secretariat established in Tromsø and the Swedish chairmanship have made great strides in improving communications and outreach, our public opinion data indicates that more can be done. Plain language summaries of the findings of the council's impressive studies are essential to ensure that they are accessible to all those who are interested. A particular emphasis needs to be placed on two-way communication with northerners about the council's undertaking.
The Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program will do its part to raise Canadians' awareness about the council by publishing a book on the history of the Arctic Council, written by notable historian, John English. It's set to be released in the spring of 2013.
The third recommendation to which I would like to draw your attention centres on proactive cooperation and the exploration of joint initiatives with our American neighbours, who will take the chair in 2015, following Canada. Two years is a short time in international relations. The positive benefits of collaboration among chairs has been demonstrated by the troika approach of the last three chairs, Norway, Denmark, and Sweden. There is much agreement in non-governmental circles on what Canada and the U.S. can do together to advance the goals of the Arctic Council. Worth particular note is that the Institute of the North, based in Alaska, agrees with our recommendations that Canada and the United States should cooperate on the effective implementation of the agreement on aeronautical and maritime search and rescue, the search and rescue agreement, the first binding agreement negotiated under the auspices of the Arctic Council.
To further public debate about Arctic issues, the Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program will be hosting its third annual conference, entitled “Arctic Peoples and Security”, to explore different ways of conceptualizing and understanding security in the Arctic in order to develop and implement sounder, more productive, and more inclusive public policies in the north. We hope you'll join us for this event in Toronto to learn more.
With less than six months to go until Sweden hands over the chair to Canada, it is timely that this committee is exploring this issue today. The Munk-Gordon Arctic Security Program believes that this chairmanship is a real opportunity for Canada to show its Arctic leadership. I would encourage members to support the permanent participants, improve public awareness about the Arctic Council, and work collaboratively with our American partners. By considering these priorities, Canada has the opportunity to make a profound impact on the international stage and position itself as an Arctic power.
I look forward to the discussion to follow.