Use It, or Lose It in 2010

Posted by John Streicker on 8 January 2010 | 0 Comments

For a while now, the Prime Minister has been saying “use it, or lose it” about the North. Late last month a Senate report came out saying the same thing.

Everyone is up in arms about Arctic sovereignty. As summer sea ice melts out faster than we thought possible there is a new international rush for territory across the Arctic.

Russia is leading the way with dozens of ice breakers in service and more in production. In 2007 Russia put a flag at the north pole 4 km down on the seabed. It was a provocative move.

What is Canada doing? So far, Prime Minster Harper’s way of addressing sovereignty is to call for annual military exercises.

Military exercises in the North are fine, especially if they increase our capacity for search and rescue. But the exercises that we have been seeing lately seem to be mostly for show. The equivalent of marking our territory. But for who?

As northerners, we already live and work across the territories. We are active here. The North is and has been through time the traditional territory of First Nations and Inuit.

I think this sufficiently qualifies as “use it”. Are we at risk of “losing it” though? The whole issue of sovereignty is complex.

First of all, none of Canada’s land is in dispute. Well none, except for one half of a 1.2 square km rocky island between Ellesmere and Greenland in the high Arctic. Most people don’t know that we have a land border with Denmark.

Even as sea ice melts and the Arctic begins to open up, there is no risk of invasion or of someone trying to claim land from the Canadian Arctic.

Arctic sovereignty is really about ocean territory: passage through waterways; who has the rights to the resources in the ocean and especially the mineral rights under the seabed. This is why the rush is on.

So this makes Arctic sovereignty indirectly about several other important things: oil & gas, fishing, safety & security (from maritime disasters not from invasion), future transportation routes, indigenous rights and even our identity as Canadians. True North strong and free.

As the summer Arctic sea ice melts out, there are further complications to health, habitat for many species and also about the critical service that the Arctic provides in regulating the planet’s temperature.

In fact, Arctic sovereignty is now a serious issue for more than the eight northern countries. The shortest route from New York to Tokyo is via the Arctic. The European Union has requested observer status on the Arctic Council. China is now building an ice breaker.

All this complexity and politics makes the “use it, or lose it” phrase seem like a bit of a simplification.

There are many thorny issues that are a long way from resolution: the north pole, the Northwest Passage, the Yukon - Alaska offshore border dispute...

Deep in the St. Elias range, the Yukon - Alaska border follows along the line of 141°  west longitude. For more than 1200 km it goes straight north until it hits the Arctic Ocean.

At that point, where it goes depends on whether you are Canadian or American. We Yukoners would like to see the border simply extend out in a straight line. Americans argue that the border should be determined by which shoreline is closest.

The disputed territory then is a wedge of ocean and subsea rights with the point along the coast. Given that the wedge extends north into the Beaufort Sea, it contains oil and a lot of gas.

Even though the territory is disputed, this past December the U.S. once again put oil & gas leases up for for sale in the region. As before, no companies purchased the leases.

With oil & gas prices rising again, companies are interested in developing the Beaufort, but not yet in disputed territory. It is an uncertainty that no company likes to risk.

Even though the Yukon sees the territory as ours, offshore is a federal jurisdiction. Our federal government has never chosen to develop the Beaufort off the coast of the Yukon (disputed or otherwise).

And if we were to resolve this boundary dispute in Canada’s favour, this could make our other offshore claims weaker. For example, most of our Arctic claim being prepared for the UN will be based on the closest shoreline argument.

We also recognize that development of the American offshore is the most likely driver for the proposed Alaska Highway Gas Pipeline, which would significantly alter the Yukon’s economy and environment.

Complicating matters further, recent improvements to technology in gas recovery have revitalized old gas finds while reducing interest in the more remote northern gas.

And there are still lots of unknowns. For example, last year the Arctic Council released a major study on the safety of marine oil and gas development, and we are a long ways off from the recommended infrastructure to allow us to reduce risks to an acceptable level.

All this to say that the sovereignty debate is complex.

What is frustrating to me is that we don’t even have an open dialogue going. It is a challenging issue, but I hope that it is not one of those issues that Ottawa will try to solve without discussing it with us.

It is not that we only want to protect our individual northern interests. Together, we have a vision of the future of the North and we have a valuable voice to help shape it.

Most of the really good solutions will take northern know-how and cooperation across jurisdictions. Most of the best solutions will engage our territorial and Indigenous leaders and include all of the Arctic countries. 

Now that government is prorogued, maybe they will have time to begin a conversation with Northerners about our future. Much is at stake. Use it, or lose it.