I'd like to thank the committee members for the kind invitation to speak on the Arctic sovereignty issue, which is obviously a very important issue to Canada. I'd argue that, unlike in previous decades, it's unlikely to disappear off the national and international policy agenda.
Many of the points Professor Byers has raised pertained to specifics around defence, so I won't address those. I think those were covered extremely well.
What I'd like to do is draw a little bit on comparative lessons. My own work over the last 20 years has predominantly been research on northern development in Russia. I've been there about 24 times over the last 19 years or so in my capacity as dean of undergraduate studies for the University of the Arctic, which I guess has given me a comparative perspective from all eight Arctic states on the question of Arctic sovereignty.
If I were to make recommendations to the Canadian government regarding Arctic sovereignty and a strategy around strengthening Arctic sovereignty, I'd focus on three particular areas. One is defence. The second is region building. The final one is nation building.
In terms of defence, there will be better experts than I on what technical capabilities would be required in strengthening our defence capabilities, but we don't have a strong year-round defence capability in our own Arctic. This is in sharp contrast to other countries, such as the United States in Alaska, the Nordic countries, and of course Russia. In that, we're quite different from the other circumpolar countries.
Is the issue fundamentally about state threats? I would argue that at least for the imminent future that is fairly unlikely. But Professor Byers just pointed out some of the very important reasons why strengthening our defence capability is important. One is around search and rescue capabilities, of course: that we have timely and effective search and rescue capabilities. The other is human and environmental security. The question is not will there be increased tourism and shipping coming into our Arctic waters; it's already occurring, particularly on the tourist side of things. That is likely to increase, not decrease, over the coming decades.
But there is another dimension that is often overlooked. It's the socio-economic research and educational impact of investments around defence. If you look at the world-class research that goes on at a place like the University of Alaska Fairbanks in geomatics, geophysics, and so forth, a large part of that is because of the investment of the American military in the Arctic region. The same is true in the Nordic countries as well as Russia.
The other big advantage, of course, of greater defence investments is providing transportation and communication infrastructure and strengthening that, which helps on the research front as well as on economic development. When we are talking about defence investments in Canada in terms of strengthening our sovereignty, it's not just around the borders issue and surveillance. There is a tremendous amount of educational and socio-economic spinoffs.
Before I finish with that, the other area is our Canadian Rangers program. It's not only in the territorial north but across the provincial north and in the coastal areas. North of 60, as I'm sure the committee members are fully aware, there is great pride in this program, and it is one that needs to be supported and strengthened.
The second area in addition to defence in which Canada needs to do far better than we have historically as a country is the area of region building. In that area, frankly, the original leaders have been the indigenous organizations, particularly what was formerly the Inuit Circumpolar Conference. We're talking about the Arctic Athabaskan Council and the Gwich'in Council International in particular. They have been pioneers in circumpolar cooperation.
If we draw on comparative lessons and look at the Barents region in particular, the Nordic countries have very much taken a strategy of incorporating Russia. It's not just Canada. I know there's the play in the media about the threat from the United States to Canadian sovereignty, but in fact there's a lot of cooperation between the United States and Canada in the Arctic. But we aren't the only country that has to deal with living with a large neighbour. If you take a country such as Norway, which borders Russia, it does have to deal with the Russian bear.
The strategy, especially since Gorbachev, has been one of integration economically with indigenous organizations in the sphere of education, as well as with subnational governments at the county or provincial level and at the municipal level. If you've witnessed what has been going on in the Barents region, it has led to a tremendous transformation and cooperation in the economic, cultural, and educational spheres there.
As well, there's the growth of a new leadership in Russia, particularly in northwest Russia, which has greater appreciation, sensitivity, and values that we might proudly call western democratic values. But there's also an increasing respect and understanding on the Nordic side of Russian values, interests, and so on. That's helping to mitigate what could potentially be quite difficult issues around everything from fisheries to petroleum resource development in the Barents area.
The third and final area I want to address is nation building.
In Canada, as a country, we should be quite proud. In terms of the world, we've been a magnificent experiment of federalism. It has not been without challenges, but we have successfully built a country from sea to sea in many regards. If you think of John A. MacDonald and the massive investments his government undertook in building the transportation network from sea to sea and pulling the country together, again this was as much an issue around Canadian sovereignty vis-à-vis our neighbour to the south as it was economic interests. But we haven't done the same thing in the north: we have not built Canada from sea to sea to sea.
If you look at the types of investments in the social, economic, and educational infrastructure that come with complete nation building, Canada does lag behind other countries. I'll give one example. As I'm sure all committee members are fully aware, we are the only state of the eight Arctic states without a university in our own Arctic region. We like to think of Canada as the kinder, gentler nation on the North American continent, and in many regards we are, but in other ways we fundamentally are not. If you look at the University of Alaska's system, between 1997 and 2004 it produced 10,000 graduates. If you think about the capacity that affords in terms of environmental management, building successful businesses in the private sector, and involvement in governance, it has tremendous impact. We aren't in the game. Even Greenland has the University of Greenland. If you go to northern Norway, there are at least a half dozen post-secondary or degree-granting institutions. Canada needs to be engaged in fundamental ways in completing nation building. Norway has an equalization policy that makes it very attractive to live in northern Norway for professionals, with world-class health care facilities and so on. We haven't made similar investments as a country.
And part of that is we have to recognize the changing dynamics in Canada. I think if we have a very strong Canada, a very strong north, with very capable devolved authorities to territorial governments, staffing where the vast majority is.... For example, with the Government of Nunavut, if we achieve those objectives of Inuit government governed by Inuit—and we aren't there yet—then I think we'll have a much stronger presence and operation for Canada. By completing nation building, we will strengthen our Arctic sovereignty.
But I think two challenges have remained for Canada over the last two decades that I think a lot of Canadians and policy-makers may not fully appreciate. One is the disconnect. We talk a good talk, as Canadians, about the true north strong and free, but there has been an increasing disconnect with rural Canada, aboriginal Canada—first nations, Métis, and Inuit—and northern Canada. I would argue that has been the case for a couple of reasons, one being the intergenerational urban Canadians. Twenty years ago, many Canadians, even if they lived in cities, either came from a rural area or still had relatives working on farms or in the north in rural communities. That's increasingly less the case, and it's a reality, but it's a reality that policy-makers need to be aware of in terms of connecting to our north, so it's not simply out of sight and out of mind.
The other reason is new Canadians, who have profoundly enriched Canada. We need increased immigration in this country from all parts of the world. It's profoundly important for the success of Canada globally, and especially in a global economic system. But for new Canadians, there isn't a natural connection to rural Canada or to the north—and half of the people in the city of Toronto, for example, have not been born in Canada. I think as a strategy for the country, we have to connect both new Canadians and intergenerational urban Canadians, the vast majority of whom live below the 49th parallel in Canada, to our north. I think this is very important for the kinds of investments we will need in Canada in the area of nation building, in the area of region building, and in the area of defence to strengthen Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic.
Thank you.