Madam Speaker, as a proud Canadian and as a former proud northerner, I am pleased to speak to Motion No. 387 moved by the hon. member for Prince Edward—Hastings. I read with interest the speech that he gave to introduce the motion on October 5 as well as the speeches of other members in the House. I hope that I can add to the debate. I want to stress that I am not sure that there is all-party agreement for the motion at this time.
Let me state from the outset that the issue of Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, at least a portion of the Arctic region that is undeniably Canadian territory, is not in question in this debate. All parties in the House recognize Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic. However, what we do with this sovereignty and what that sovereignty means are not universal in the House. While we may all recognize Canada's sovereignty, we apparently do not all equally recognize the responsibility that comes with that sovereignty. That responsibility means taking seriously the concerns, aspirations, dignity and responsibilities of the people of the north.
The motion, even in its proposed amended version, does not fully do this. It does not fully take into consideration the outcry of the people closest to the various waterways known as the Northwest Passage. Many of them have been deeply offended not only by the proposed renaming of the passage, but by the government's lack of consultation with the Inuit people on this issue and others.
This lack of consultation, this cultural insensitivity boldly reminds us that the Conservative government's northern strategy is seriously flawed and is certainly not a northern vision. It is a strategy based on southern principles and southern methods with little regard to the reality of the Canadian north as we know it. We repeatedly hear that the government has placed the Arctic on its list of priorities, having developed a so-called strategy designed to protect the environment, to promote economic and social development, to exercise sovereignty and to improve and devolve governance.
These are noble goals and I would like to heartily applaud them, but the government's true understanding of the north is sadly revealed in the remarks of the member for Prince Edward—Hastings when he introduced the motion. While he waxed eloquent about sovereignty issues, and I will say it was an admirable speech worthy of a PMO speech writer, he mentioned the people of Canada's north but once.
One can read his remarks over and over again, but will find no mention of Inuit organizations, their cultural aspirations, or their right to self-determination. Not once is there mention of the duly elected government of Nunavut, or for that matter, the Northwest Territories or Yukon which also have an interest in this issue. Not once is there mention of the right and responsibility of the Inuit to chart their own course and map their own destiny, even literally, using the names that they have used from generation to generation.
Ten years ago we celebrated the establishment of Nunavut as the third Canadian northern territory. I was living in Yukon at the time. I was deeply touched by the wisdom and the hope that were equally bound up in the decision to create a territory in which the majority of Inuit people would become masters of their own destiny. It was a proud day for all Canadians when we turned to the Inuit people and all the residents of the eastern Arctic to take responsibility for the land we now know as Nunavut. In case some hon. members do not know, Nunavut means “the land”, but frankly, that also includes the waters and the waterways of the territory.
While I lived in Yukon for six years and have travelled many times to the western Arctic, my first visit to Nunavut was just a few weeks ago. Landing on Baffin Island was a never-to-be-forgotten moment for me. The quality of light and the quality and beauty of the land is surpassed only by the quality of the welcome I received and the beauty of the people, but we cannot romanticize that. The problems of Canada's newest territory are real and daunting. The recent report card on the territory highlighted a number of significant social problems, cultural challenges and serious environmental concerns. The first way to help Nunavut in its ambitious agenda is to respect its residents' ability to govern themselves and to be a full partner in Confederation.
If the goal of the government is to truly improve and devolve governance to the people of the north, then surely that means consulting with them and respecting them in the naming of their significant places, and not as a parenthesis, not as an add-on, but as an integral part of what we do.
The government is well aware of the people of the north when it wants to promote a sovereignty agenda abroad. It regularly publicizes a Canadian human presence in the north as a way to appear to be sovereign. The government has no difficulty whatsoever in using people for sovereignty. What it is failing to do is use sovereignty for people.
National Inuit leader Mary Simon recently commented, “Ultimately, sovereignty begins at home. Sovereignty is apparent and implemented with healthy communities, not just military hardware. It involves establishing constructive partnerships with Inuit. Canada's position cannot be detached from full appreciation and respect for the rights, interests, and priorities of Inuit”.
Sheila Watt-Cloutier makes the point that Inuit who are connected to the values, principles, traditions and wisdom of their traditional culture are best equipped to meet the challenges faced in and by the north and this important insight should be reflected in our public policies and programs toward the Arctic. That includes giving them the power and the respect to name places that are significant and important to them.
More consultation, more respect, more dignity needs to be afforded to the Inuit people before we hastily make decisions about naming important places in their past, in their present and in their future. It is not good enough to give them a second name. It is not good enough to consider them after the fact. It is not good enough to have ignored their desires, wisdom, hopes and aspirations.
Inuit are not a second thought in this chamber. Inuit are one of the first peoples of this country. Canada is bigger than that and Canada is better than that.