Prime Minister Stephen Harper was in Nanisivik yesterday, to announce that Nanisivik has been chosen to be the new deep water port to service the new Arctic patrol fleet. The choice of Nanisivik as the port is the only logical one for the government to make. For one thing, it already exists. Nanisivik has been a deep water port, with fifty feet of water port side, since 1975. To construct a new port in Iqaluit or Resolute or elsewhere would be much more expensive and needless.
It also is situate on the Northwest Passage, the only existing port on the Northwest Passage (there was a second on Little Cornwallis Island that was decommissioned when the Polaris mine was shut down. There will be people in Iqaluit jumping up and down saying a port should have been built there (give me a break, Iqaluit is about 600 nautical miles south of the Passage, and the costs of construction would be enormous), and apparently Churchill Manitoba (alright it has a port, serviced by a railroad to the south, but it is so far away you might as well use Newfoundland).
There is also additional infrastructure at Nanisivik that makes it a logical choice (although not as much as there used to be). Fuel tank facilities, proximity of a 6,400′ runway, and a utilidor for fresh water all still exist in Nanisivik. No, Nanisivik is the smart choice if you’re needing a base for Arctic Patrol vessels.
The only problem is the new scheme for Arctic Patrol vessels is the wrong approach to sovereignty. The Prime Minister is right when he says that when defending sovereignty you must "use it or lose it". As far as the waterways of the Northwest Passage go, Canada already uses them, and have for years. A fleet of Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers spend all summer in the Arctic waters. And more importantly, Canadian Inuit make use of the frozen and unfrozen waters, to travel, and hunt, and live. The Inuit have been living lives up here for thousands of years, long before there was a Canada, and now they are Canadians and their lives, and those of other Nunavumiut are the strongest possible arguement for Canada’s sovereignty in the Arctic that there is.
It has been long understood that it is people’s lives that enforce sovereignty, it is the reason that the RCMP had detachments on Devon Island (the largest uninhabited island in the world) and on Ellesmere Island, policing no one but the people they brought with them. It is the reason for the poorly conceived and executed movement of people from Northern Quebec to Grise Fiord and Resolute Bay. It is the reason that the government should be doing as much as they can to make the Arctic a better place to live for the people who are here, and to attract other Canadians here.
What can the Government do? First starters they need to have a long look at the price the airline(s) charge for airfares in the north. Flights from Arctic Bay (Nanisivik actually, as that is where our airport currently is) to Iqaluit, 900 kms south and our only direct destination apart from Resolute, cost $2,500. Flights from Nanisivik to Ottawa range from $3,700 to almost $5000. In less than six months, when Hilary no longer flies for free, the cost for our family of four to fly to see my family in Manitoba would cost at least $15,000, but likely closer to $20,000.
And it not just that I want a vacation. The airfares impact on absolutely every aspect of our lives up here. If one of the stores needs to bring someone up to fix the coolers in the store (which I really wish they would do) that $2500 to $5000 gets added into my grocery costs. The cost of every teacher from the south includes the airfare from bringing them up, taking funds away from education programs, and the same thing happens on every in-service training that they have to attend outside the communities. Every time someone from the government flies into a community that takes away from money for their programs. I stagger to think about how much medical travel costs the Nunavut government each year, but you wouldn’t be able to find a flight here that didn’t have someone travelling to Iqaluit or Ottawa on medical. Think about your school sports teams and the opportunities that they have to play other schools. Now think about how often that would happen if you had to spend $2000 per athlete and the coach/chaparones. The costs of housing and other capital projects (such as the new airport) also includes the costs of flying in skilled people.
There are so few business opportunities up here, and one that is trumpeted all the time is tourism. Think of the challenges in attracting people to a community like Arctic Bay, when it costs someone $3700 just to get here from the south. I could fly to Australia from southern Canada three times for that price. In fact I just looked, booking a flight from Toronto to Sydney return in mid-October cost $1424 with Air Canada, in fact I can get a flight and a weeks accommodation for $2500 from Vancouver.
Imagine how much lives could be improved up here, with cheaper food, more money for medical and government programs if even an average saving of $1000 per flight were realized. There are four flights up to Nanisivik each week. When I flew last month there was 24 passengers on the flight. A young girl from Arctic Bay I met at the airport had been trying for three weeks to fly up on standby, so you can see the flight is usually full. So, some quick math would show that there are 96 passengers a week to Arctic Bay, or 4992 a year. The vast majority of those are travelling on government, medical, or business. A $1000 reduction in fares would mean almost $5 million more for programs or reduced food or other costs to this community alone. Oh, and just in case you don’t think that $30,000 is enough revenue (24 pax times $1250 one way costs) to bring a Hawker the 900 kms from Iqaluit to Nanisivik (plus the $30,000 for the return flight), half the plane is carrying air freight, also generating revenue (and you don’t want to get me started on the costs of air freight up here).
So if the Government really wants to defend our sovereignty in the Arctic, save the 8 billion dollars on the redundant Arctic Patrol vessels, and make it worth Canadian’s while to live up here. Oh and at the same time free up the Coast Guard to do community projects, such as mapping the family grave sites (and marking graves) that are scattered all over up here from when people lived on the land, making sites like the RCMP detachments at Dundas Harbour and Alexandra Fiord National Historic sites. Take some of that 8 billion dollars and create more housing and better infrastructure in the Arctic Communities. Our sovereignty depends on peoples lives lived up here.
Comments
14 responses
Well said, Clare. I’d never thought of it in those terms… In fact until I read this, I thought Harper’s plan was the best one I’d heard in a long time…
Thanks Moira. The plan is an attention grabber no doubt. The ships are just a little redundant.
I was actually wondering what you might have to say on this topic, and came here to find you’d already posted something. I was thinking much the same. Why do we need ships when there are citizens already living there? I’m finding this whole debate seeming rather bizarre – a sort of militaristic push to man the borders (or something). And yes about the cost of airfare as a form of isolation of the north. I would love to travel up sometime, but the cost is just so high. It must definitely put a crimp on tourism opportunities. When I was at university, some of the other students had worked up north for awhile and mentioned the cost of freight (and food). Being a vegetarian, I don’t quite know if I could afford to live up there as I expect produce of any kind is expensive. And yet, I’ve thought it would be interesting to teach or do some other kind of work in a northern community.
Anyhow, I’m kind of freaked out that so many countries seem to be behaving like a pack of starved dogs salivating to rip into the Arctic for its natural resources. I’d much rather see everyone working towards a goal of developing alternative energy. That seems like a more peaceful and ecologically sound solution.
Hmmm, looks like I’ll be putting off that trip to The House for a while longer…
Your comments about soverienty is really and that is exactly what NTI has been try to say. After the negotiations broke down to negotiate for new money, the three parties hired Thomas Beger and he produce a report,e xactly identifying the cost to the government and how it would save…..see Berger’s report at the NTI’s website. have you enrolled your kids….?
Thanks Bev,
I do believe that protecting our Sovereignty in the Arctic is extremely important, as we rush towards an ice free NW Passage. When I think of the environmental dangers alone to an un-restricted passage through these waters I shudder. I just don’t see the new Patrol vessels as another tool, when we have the Coast Guard fulfilling that role. And of course the greatest role in protecting these waters comes from the people living here.
And flying up here on points is a great value, as it is no more points than flying anywhere long haul in Canada. You just have to book your flights well in advance.
Don’t put off that trip yet Mike, you need to come while there are still Ivory Gulls around. Reward travel is just as cheap as for elsewhere in Canada.
Hey Joanasie, I really meant to mention the Beneficiary Organizations and the cost of travel to them, and ultimately to programs they can provide to beneficiaries, so I’m glad that you have. Travis is enrolled, Hilary not yet.
Hi Clare,
What you say is so true and has been for years. I’d dearly love to re-visit old friends in the north again and paddle my kayak there. Alas, I haven’t yet won the lotto, the only hope I have to visit. Thank heavens I paddled there 10 years ago before airfare costs went through the roof. My son flies home from Singapore in a few days. Cost, round trip is $1250! I can’t get to Kuujjuaq for that!
Hi Clare,
I can’t afford to visit the arctic, and that’s why I enjoy your blog. I can read about the day to day things, the special trips, of what it’s like to live there. And see your fabulous pictures.
I’m reading a book called The Long Exile, by Melanie McGrath that sort of relates to your post. It’s about how the Canadian government forcibly relocated Inuits from Hudson Bay to Ellesmere Island in the ’50s, and most of them died. It is heartbreaking. Just to claim some land. And now the Russians have planted a flag on the ocean floor. I have a feeling the Arctic is going to get hot.
Keep in mind that if and when large numbers of merchant vessels begin to use the Passage as a highway some years down the line, an armed naval presence will be necessary to enforce the use of the waterway. Without a constabulary capability there will no means of stopping ships that flaunt our rules and regulations. Panama collects billions yearly in canal-use revenue. Our unarmed Coast Guard cannot manage the role, and even if our proposed vessels have limited ice breaking capability, they will be able to control the Passage’s entrance/exits. Basic analysis of the situation will explain the “militaristic push”. Some very good input and points made in this blog BTW.
Hi Michael,
Thanks. It is criminal when you can fly to Singapore for half of what it would cost me to fly to Iqaluit. We’d love to have you come up for a visit and some qayaqing. Book a trip up on points for next August.
Thanks for stopping by Sheila. Perhaps a better word than “forced” for the Inuit relocation would be “tricked”. It wasn’t very well conceived or executed. Another book you may wish to read is “Tammarniit (Mistakes) – Inuit Relocation in the Eastern Arctic 1939-63” by Frank Tester and Peter Kulchyski ISBN 0-7748-0452-1
Thanks for your perspective Robin. The problem lies not so much from an enforcement point of view, but from a recognition point of view. We do have military vessels ready to defend our sovereignty in the south, but it is rarely required because our economic zone in the south is generally recognized. It is not significantly recognized by the world in the Northwest Passage. The International Law governing our sovereignty in the waterways of the NWP may not be supportive of Canada’s position depending on how it is applied. Having a naval presence to police our sovereignty in the NWP is all fine, but will the will be there when one of our friends, say the US or England or France, sends one of their naval vessels to escort a merchant ship through what they believe is international waters? It is, in my opinion, something that needs to be addressed by the world bodies, prior to the opening up of the passage, or Canada will no doubt find itself in an untenable position.
Panama, by the way, has only controlled the Canal since 1999 when the US turned it over to them. The income from the Canal in 2006 was 1.4 Billion.
Hello Clare,
Well, I think it is you who should be the future Prime Minister, hahahaha…
Points you have made in this blog are pretty much right on…
Er thanks Niore. If elected I will not serve.
and here in northern ontario we get a grant if we have to drive 2 hours for a medical visit not available in our city! i’ve often wondered what would happen if you had to get treatment for a life threatening disease! is there help for you if you have to come out for medical reasons or is it the same as if you wanted to come for a visit! hope you are making some progress with subsidizing air fare from the north
love your blog by the way!
Thank you magee. Although I don’t think that subsidies, per se, are the way to help with airfares. Subsidies would just further reduce the money that government has to deliver programs. I believe that the government (and as it is their area of responsibility, the Federal Government) needs to either regulate airfares up here, or get in the airline business themselves.