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.