A new Shared Arctic Leadership Model

Our strengths

My discussions confirmed to me a perspective that I have understood implicitly as an Arctic leader: there exists in varying degrees the experience, knowledge and capacity in Arctic governments and Indigenous organizations to pursue a common vision for the Arctic.

Many Arctic leaders have worked through a range of nation-building exercises from negotiating constitutional rights and land claims, to dividing existing and establishing new governments, to setting up and operating management boards, agencies and institutions of public government. The results speak for themselves.

Education and language

In my experience, achieving consensus on topics of generational importance is never easy. My recent travels across the Arctic confirmed that there might be one exception. Leaders and youth were passionate about the urgent need to protect Indigenous languages while graduating more students with standards at par with the rest of Canada. I heard over and over again that education systems must produce knowledgeable graduates who are confident in their skills and their culture.

This is not a new topic. For years, I have heard Arctic leaders, researchers and advocates sound the alarm over the ‘disastrous outcomes' that will follow from large numbers of poorly educated, unemployed youth. There is now urgency in the voices of Arctic leaders about ensuring that we don't leave a generation of youth behind with poor educational outcomes, struggling with identity and diminished self-worth.

There is a great paradox at work in a number of Arctic regions, and it is found in the job market. We have witnessed across Canada generally the phenomena of fewer and fewer job opportunities for students after graduation from high school, and, increasingly, from university, as well. This is not the case in the Arctic. There are jobs available. What is not available is a steady supply of educated or qualified people in the Arctic to fill them. When I heard from individuals that Inuit and First Nations people hold mostly low-paying service jobs in communities, my thought was immediately "we need to aim higher." There are many professional positions across the Arctic that require a post-secondary education or skills training. Large numbers of these higher-level jobs are occupied by non-Indigenous people, who for the most part do not stay in the Arctic longer than a few years. A recent report by the Office of the Auditor General regarding the Department of Health in Nunavut illustrated this point: in 2015-16 there were more than 500 indefinite positions (or 46.6% of the department's permanent workforce) vacant. Mining industry representatives told me that, in other countries, senior positions were often held by educated, local people. This should be the case in the Canadian Arctic. Only better educational outcomes can substantially improve the ratio of professional positions held by Indigenous peoples in the Arctic. This will take directed effort and it will take leadership and collaboration at all levels of government.

Over the past 40 years, I have witnessed governments and school boards in the Arctic working hard to transform their education systems. There has been progress toward creating made-in-the-Arctic curriculum, north-south partnerships with universities that have graduated teachers, relevant learning resources in Indigenous languages, and creating the enabling legislation to foster culturally-appropriate education systems. However, it has been barely a generation since residential school survivors took the brave and bold step of talking openly about the residential school era, dog slaughters, forced relocations and the subsequent abuse, all of which were disastrous for Indigenous languages and cultures. Education policy in the Arctic struggles with the reality of this residential school legacy and its inter-generational trauma. The consequence of this history is that improving educational outcomes faces a complex web of challenges.

Education policy in the Arctic must strive to be culturally relevant, adaptive, and flexible. The Arctic will need like-minded supporters, informed policy specialists, proactive educators and committed leaders, and significant investment to make this happen.

Improving educational outcomes in the Arctic and supporting Indigenous languages to survive and thrive after years of destructive education policy is, at its core, the highest test of nation building.

The road to healthy, empowered citizens in the Arctic begins and ends with education. Federal policy can support this vision in several key areas:

1. enhance support to the pathways into, and out of, the K-12 system
2. demonstrate the value to all Canadians of preserving, maintaining and developing our Indigenous languages by providing support and protection
3. adapt and enhance skills training policies and programs to the Arctic
4. enable Arctic students to participate in the ‘globally-connected world' through online learning, by strengthening broadband

For the pathway into the K-12 system, the role of quality, culturally-appropriate Early Childhood Education (ECE) is fundamental to success. This is an area where Government of Canada could make a significant difference in improving educational outcomes because of the pivotal role ECE serves in grounding children in their indigenous languages and opening the door to engage parents in education. However, I was told that ECE funding levels have remained stagnant for a decade. For Indigenous people, the matter of parental involvement in education is complex. The legacy of residential schools lingers in some families who have not yet developed a confidence in the education system or the skills to support their children's academic learning. Children must come to school rested, well fed, with their homework done and ready to learn. These conditions can be fostered by quality, affordable, culturally-appropriate ECE. Strengthening ECE programming through enhanced and sustained funding agreements is the first bridge toward success in school.

At the other end of the education continuum, Canada continues to be the only circumpolar nation without a university in the Arctic. The interest in establishing a university in the Arctic dates back several decades. There are two circumpolar universities for Canada to learn from - Ilisimatusarfik - the University of Greenland and Sami University College in Lapland. Both institutions are rooted in the idea that universities are transformative places that strengthen the concept of self-determination. They each started small and, with the support of national leadership, they grew.

Colleges across the Arctic have been at the forefront of post-secondary education including introducing adult learning and university programming in a variety of professional disciplines. In the Northwest Territories, the Dechinta Centre for Research and Learning has partnered with the University of Alberta, McGill University and the University of British Columbia to create an innovative program that combines on the land learning, promotion of Indigenous languages, and accredits Elders as professors. Satellite programs are currently being developed in other Arctic regions. The innovative thinking and insight of the post-secondary community impressed me, and confirmed to me that the time is now to establish a University of the Canadian Arctic.

One important role the Government of Canada has played for 25 years at the post-secondary level is in supporting Nunavut Sivuniksavut, an Ottawa-based program with proven results. In partnership with Algonquin College in Ottawa, Nunavut Sivuniksavut brings students from Nunavut communities together to study Inuit history, land claims, governance and current issues in a safe and nurturing environment. The program is now being replicated for students from Nunavik. This is a good example of where the Government of Canada has been successful in supporting pathways out of the K-12 system.

For all my working life, I have advocated for the importance of preserving, developing and promoting Indigenous languages. Our Indigenous languages are part of the cultural fabric of our country. In my discussions across the Arctic, it was heart-breaking to hear example after example of our Indigenous languages in Canada at risk of extinction. Even languages formerly considered relatively robust, such as my own language of Inuktitut, are in decline. Indigenous peoples do not want to lose their languages.

The absence of Indigenous languages in schools for many years, and today in many grade levels, combined with the trend towards using English in the home, has had a destructive impact. The pervasive lack of Indigenous languages in government and business has also contributed to this decline. Our languages are being forced into extinction. Justice Thomas Berger, in his 2006 The Nunavut Project provided this frank assessment:

Canada has been a leader in promoting and protecting bilingualism. The principles behind this leadership now need to be applied to Indigenous languages, in a new Arctic Policy Framework.

One of the other observations I made from my discussions across the Arctic is the persistence of lost training opportunities when large infrastructure projects fail to set or meet skills training targets. Impact benefit agreements between Indigenous rights holders and promoters are one approach, though success has been limited. Recruitment, retention and advancement remain challenging. Certification and union regulations are often barriers for engaging local labor. This results in a lost opportunity for building a local workforce and significant amounts of money not ‘staying in the Arctic.' Government investments in infrastructure and housing, for example, need to be pro-active in requiring demonstrations of local skills training.

Research and Indigenous knowledge

For many years integrating Indigenous knowledge and western science has been the practice of numerous management boards in the Arctic, and is a requirement of most research projects in the Arctic. The next step in the evolution of scientific practice in the Arctic is linking community-driven Arctic research priorities with national policy development to ensure scientific investments benefit communities and answer key questions facing the Arctic. I firmly believe that the foundation of effective decision-making is good information. In the Arctic, that means being committed to placing equal value on Indigenous knowledge and western science. The new Arctic Policy Framework presents an opportunity to take this to its next level.

Canada's commitment to building the new Canadian High Arctic Research Station (CHARS) in Cambridge Bay is a global achievement. CHARS is an unprecedented opportunity to work directly with Arctic governments and Indigenous organizations to pursue, at a minimum, three unique goals:

1. showcase to the world the best practices and benefit of integrating Indigenous knowledge and western science
2. link new investments in research to improving community wellness in the Arctic
3. position Canada as a world leader in Arctic climate research

It was disappointing to learn that the 2016-2019 research plan developed by Polar Knowledge Canada had dropped the theme of healthy communities proposed by the Northern Advisory Panel. As I noted earlier, a significant number of conversations I had with leaders and other stakeholders circled back to a central premise: healthy, educated people are fundamental to a vision for sustainable development so it is paramount that the CHARS plan reflect this priority.

The credibility of the CHARS initiative to Arctic peoples rests in part on the work CHARS can do to highlight the importance of working with Indigenous peoples and organizations. Specifically, this means applying Indigenous and local knowledge in research, including curating and archiving existing Indigenous knowledge, traditional knowledge mapping, and linking these national archives with regional traditional knowledge repositories.

CHARS research capacity should also be connected to the large-scale public investments in research that precede decisions on marine and land use, notably hydrographic mapping and geoscience. I was told about major road and marine projects that lack basic data and information to advance to an environmental assessment process. I also learned about the importance and challenge of environmental monitoring after roads are constructed. CHARS research capacity should directly link to existing Arctic learning institutions, including Aurora College, Yukon College, Nunavut College, and Dechinta: post-secondary learning institutions that are well positioned to offer skills training and professional development for specific research initiatives.

Closing the infrastructure gap

No matter who I talked with, the topic of closing infrastructure gaps was often at, or close to, the top of the list to improve socio-economic conditions. The Arctic is unlike any other region of Canada in its infrastructure needs because of its geography and sheer expanse. With 68% of Canada's coastline and roughly 40% of this country's landmass, the infrastructure needed to access resources lags far behind other regions of Canada and other circumpolar nations. In the Yukon, all but one community is accessible by road. In the NWT, more than half of the communities can only be reached by air, or seasonally by water or ice-roads, while in Nunavut, communities are accessible only by air or annual open-water sealift operations. The rich natural resource potential of the Arctic requires a significant infrastructure investment simply to access the resources. The priorities vary across the Arctic, but they share three common concerns related to national infrastructure programs:

1. federal infrastructure programs fail to recognize the unique challenges of building infrastructure in the Arctic, the need for the Arctic to ‘catch-up' to other regions of Canada, and the punitive nature of per capita funding formulas without base funding allocations. (There is irony in the fact that Canada has built institutions of public government in the Arctic but has yet to finish building the basic infrastructure to the standard of a first world country.)
2. some ‘national' infrastructure programs have virtually no application to the Arctic (e.g. mass transit), and there is no equivalent program geared to address the specific needs of Arctic communities
3. climate change is accelerating threats to existing infrastructure: melting permafrost is directly impacting the integrity of building foundations, roads, runways, pipelines and coastal infrastructure. Infrastructure programs need to provide for mitigation and adaptation construction research in response to these rapidly changing conditions

There are three areas of ‘infrastructure spending' that people I spoke with felt the Government of Canada had a singularly important role to play, in both closing gaps and setting the stage for the next era of Arctic development.

Broadband

Although it was clear in my discussions with Arctic leaders that they each have a long list of infrastructure needs, it was discussions about a leap forward in broadband that presented the most intriguing transformational ideas. To be realized, that transformative potential in Canada's Arctic requires significant federal leadership in the coming years.

Innovation, Science and Economic Development (ISED) defines broadband as an "Internet service that is always on (as opposed to dial-up, where a connection must be made each time) and offers higher speeds than dial-up service." (Telecommunications Infrastructure Working Group, Arctic Economic Council, Arctic Broadband: Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic [Arctic Economic Council, Winter 2016], p. 6).

Fortunately, there is a comprehensive assessment on what it will take to address the connectivity gaps in the Arctic. I was directed to the 2011 Arctic Communications Infrastructure Assessment Report that includes detailed maps listing the varying communications services available in the Yukon, NWT and Nunavut. The report contains recommendations for addressing the gap between what is needed and what is affordable beginning with a national commitment to service parity among Arctic communities. More recently in 2016, the Arctic Economic Council (AEC) published "Arctic Broadband: Recommendations for an Interconnected Arctic." The Arctic Economic Council's report provides an excellent comparative analysis of where the Canadian Arctic stands with broadband relative to other circumpolar nations, and provides a breakdown of available technologies and financing possibilities. In terms of where the Canadian Arctic is today relative to the rest of Canada the report says the following:

Northern governments have been calling for investments in broadband as a critical element to the future of accessing and providing government services and promoting economic development. Significant advances have already been made in telehealth in all territories, with the Northwest Territories leading the way. However, financing broadband expansion in the Arctic remains a huge stumbling block. The Connecting Canadians Program, even with an increase of $500 million in Budget 2016 is insufficient to address the sheer scale of closing the broadband gap in the Arctic. Currently the Arctic is limited to accessing funding for broadband through the provincial-territorial infrastructure component of the Building Canada Fund, or through public-private partnerships. Inuit organizations in Nunavut and Nunavik have recently proposed that broadband be considered a component of ‘national infrastructure' under the Building Canada Fund, referring to the transformative importance of broadband to Canada's Arctic as equivalent to a ‘ national railway.'

Other circumpolar nations have seized on the economic potential driven by global digitization and have made quick strides (relative to Canada) to close the broadband gap. The Arctic climate is well-suited for digital data centres because the cold climate requires less energy to cool down servers.^{Footnote 2}

There has been a great deal of collaborative work put into assessing Canadian Arctic broadband needs relative to other Canadian jurisdictions and the broader circumpolar context. I would also like to highlight the example of Cisco's Connected North, which clearly demonstrates how increased broadband access improves learning opportunities and mental health services. This, taken together with the upside of the possibilities unlocked by more robust broadband, the evident interest of Arctic governments and Indigenous economic development corporations in investing in broadband, demonstrates why a broadband strategy must form a core pillar of the Arctic Policy Framework. Broadband is also an excellent example of why the Arctic Policy Framework must be a collaborative effort not just with Arctic leadership, but across federal government departments.

Housing

Though the extent of the housing deficit in the Arctic varies from region to region, there is a general consensus that the housing shortage represents a public health emergency. The lack of affordable housing undermines efforts in improving physical and mental health, education outcomes, and in addressing issues of domestic violence and poverty. The housing deficit increases as you travel west to east, with the most pronounced problems in Nunavut and Nunavik, where costs are significantly higher due to the lack of roads and ports. However, the urgent need to close the housing gap is heard throughout the Arctic.

While I was travelling for this assignment, the Standing Senate Committee on Aboriginal Peoples released a well laid-out report based on 2016 hearings on the extent of the housing crisis in Inuit Nunangat.

The report paints a stark picture of the issues leaders in the Arctic are dealing with, that, if not addressed, stand to doom housing in a perpetual crisis. With the Government of Canada's current commitment to affordable housing, this is the time to further close the gap on access to affordable housing in the Arctic. With the Arctic Policy Framework, there is also an opportunity to address the structural policy issues that are fomenting future crises in housing, as laid out in the Senate report. I realize that housing in the Arctic falls to a number of agencies including the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) and provincial and territorial governments. In my view, this is a social issue of such magnitude that it demands leadership and collaboration at all levels and across federal departments.

To say that things aren't being done to close the gap would be wrong. The Government of Canada has made significant investments in Arctic housing in recent years, though serious gaps remain. There have been innovative approaches to address the limitations of the tendering process, which have often resulted in imported construction crews hired to build housing. I was impressed with the results of Makivik Corporation's 15-year housing project negotiated with Canada and the Government of Québec that established a not-for-profit construction division, thereby ensuring that local hiring and contracts stayed within Nunavik. The results have been positive. Building on the elements of success for this model by creating a sustainable infrastructure for Indigenous communities program is the right thing to do. This is an area where there is a great deal of existing expertise in the Arctic. Governments have plans and innovative models for closing gaps; the shortfall exists in budgets for affordable housing, and, as noted by the Senate Committee, in addressing the declining maintenance budgets provided through CMHC.

The Finance Minister's address introducing the new 2017 federal budget contained the following statement:

I am compelled to reiterate that nowhere in the country is the need greater than for Indigenous peoples, including those in the Arctic.

The budget does make important commitments for housing to the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut governments over the next 11 years, however it is unclear to what degree these commitments are directed to housing for Indigenous peoples. Territorial leaders and Indigenous organizations have acknowledged the importance of this investment, though they have expressed concerns that investments are insufficient to meet the need. Finally, I did not see specific references to investments that would apply either to Nunavik or Nunatsiavut.

Reducing fossil fuel dependency

There is a striking irony in the Arctic when discussing climate change. The impact of a warming climate is evident in community infrastructure and threatening the hunting and fishing livelihoods of individuals and commercial fisheries. Throughout my travels, I heard concerns about food security in part because a warming Arctic is threatening the abundance and distribution of wildlife and safe access to many traditional inland and marine harvesting areas.

The irony is that Arctic communities are highly dependent on fossil fuels. In most communities, off-grid diesel-fired thermal power plants produce the only source of power for oil-burning furnaces and water heaters. The consequence of this dependency is a sometimes erratic supply of electricity in the communities, no options for residents and businesses to lower energy costs, higher and more complicated rates for electricity and, ultimately, conditions that stall economic development. Hydro-carbon spills during annual sea-based deliveries or from storage tanks are far too common. In a 2014 appearance before the Standing Senate Committee on Energy, the Environment and Natural Resources, Indigenous and Northern Affairs stated, "In 2011 it was estimated that Northern communities consumed 76 million litres of diesel fuel for power generation and 219 million litres of fossil fuel, diesel or propane for heating production, resulting in a total of over 800,000 tons of greenhouse gas emissions annually."^{Footnote 3}

Solutions are varied, depending on the region. Nunavik and Nunatsiavut, for example, are surrounded by massive hydroelectric development projects that generate power in the Arctic and send it south. NWT's rivers and lakes contain an estimated 11,000 megawatts of potential hydroelectric power. Similarly, Yukon is looking to expanding hydroelectric power. Yukon College's Yukon Research Centre has recently been awarded Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada funding for an Industrial Research Chair on Northern Energy Innovation to oversee research on renewable energy strategies and options across the Arctic. Connection to existing power grids may be a partial solution in some regions; development of new local power networks with policies to feed into the grid are another. Community-based clean energy generating projects such as run-of-the-river hydro generation are also being studied. Wind power and biomass projects are showing some success. Glencore installed a wind turbine at its Raglan Mine in Nunavik, which is now generating 8,8500MWh of electricity annually. While representing a minor reduction in total diesel consumption, the pilot project has demonstrated that installing and operating wind generators is feasible in Arctic conditions.

Innovation and transition will require major investments. These will likely come from a combination of government and private sector sources. However, these transitions will deliver long-term economic return. They can also have important shorter-term economic benefits for regions and communities. Planning and implementation of solutions should be linked to job creation and economic development for Arctic residents and businesses. Project development and ownership can be established in partnership with organizations and businesses. Energy development must be employed as a lever to create wealth and social development in the regions and communities. All regions have existing Indigenous business groups capable of partnering in the important and necessary shift away from fossil fuels.

In its own planning cycle, the Government of Canada has noted in several policy documents the relationship between a renewed relationship with Indigenous peoples, developing a Canadian Energy Strategy and supporting innovations and clean technologies and investments that lead to healthier, cleaner communities. This culminated on December 20, 2016, as part of the United States-Canada Joint Arctic Leaders' Statement, with the announcement that the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada would lead the development of a plan and timeline for deploying innovative renewable energy and efficiency alternatives to diesel in the Arctic in collaboration with key partners. A 2016-2017 budget set aside of $10.7 million was made to implement renewable energy projects in off-grid Indigenous and northern communities that rely on diesel and other fossil fuels to generate heat and power.

In my view, the Government of Canada can continue to contribute positively to finding solutions for fossil fuel replacement and energy efficiencies in the Arctic by:

1. establishing a policy platform with clear objectives, based on partnership with territorial governments and Indigenous organizations
2. assigning funds and departmental responsibilities
3. supporting opportunities for local businesses

Continuing the conservation discussion

As directed in my mandate letter, I would like to offer my final, updated recommendations pertaining to achieving a new, ambitious Arctic conservation goal. In my numerous discussions about protected areas in the north there were four central themes:

1. the biological abundance of the Arctic must be protected for future generations to benefit from
2. there is an expectation that Arctic conservation is tied to building and maintaining strong and healthy communities
3. the pace of land conservation has far outpaced ocean protections
4. land claims agreements and Indigenous organizations alongside federal, provincial, territorial governments have already identified significant percentages of lands and marine areas with the spirit of conservation in mind.

I would also like to point to the findings of the recently released report by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Taking Action Today: Estabishing Protected Areas For Canada's Future, which discussed the premise that perhaps 50% of Canada's land and marine areas may need to be conserved.

The first step toward any new goal is to adequately take stock of what already exists. For example, the north is covered in land, marine, and species specific planning processes. A set of maps was generated based on existing information on planning areas to ensure my findings utilized and built upon existing conservation efforts (see Appendices 2 and 3). From this exercise, it is evident that land-based conservation initiatives in the Arctic such as the establishment of parks, biodiversity reserves and sanctuaries, and land use planning, have resulted in significant land conservation outcomes. Future initiatives should look for ways to work in partnership with Indigenous regions to better fund, implement and recognize areas already identified in land use plans. They should also emphasize species such as caribou, and habitats and cultural areas of vital importance to Indigenous communities. Caribou are currently experiencing unprecedented population declines across the Arctic. One area that stands out in this regard is Thaidene Nene, on Great Slave Lake. It is a sacred region of the Lutsel K'e Dene.

Marine conservation initiatives in the Arctic have not kept pace with land conservation with less than 1% of the waters of Inuit Nunangat under any form of recognized protection (see appendix 4). In spite of having the world's longest Arctic coastline, Canada's Arctic has only two existing marine protected areas, Tarium Niryutait and Anguniaqvia Niqiqyuam. These areas represent less than half a percent of Canadian Arctic waters. Yet, nearly all Inuit communities are situated on the Arctic coastline adjacent to marine areas of ecological and biological importance. Inuit have classified through local planning processes approximately 21% of Arctic waters as requiring distinct environmental management. The federal government, through a mix of planning processes, has identified 55% Arctic waters as ecologically and biologically significant. Maintaining healthy coastal and marine habitats is critical for food security, cultural continuity and increased economic opportunities from fisheries and tourism.

Principles of partnership

1. Understanding and honouring the intent of Section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982: All partners should understand and honour Canada's commitment to upholding Section 35 of the Constitution and strive to achieve forward momentum in defining how Section 35 can be applied to evolving policy and program initiatives.
2. Reconciliation: Reconciliation in partnerships and policy-making involves, at a minimum, a commitment to restoring relationships, seeing things differently than before, and making changes in power relationships.
3. Equality, trust, and mutual respect: A true partnership has to be built on equality, trust, transparency and respectful disagreement.
4. Flexible and adaptive policy: Nation-building in the Arctic will not be found in one-size-fits-all policy solutions. Policies need to adjust and adapt to circumstances.
5. Arctic leaders know their needs: Recognize that Arctic leaders know their priorities and what is required to achieve success.
6. Community-based solutions: Local leadership must be recognized and enabled to ensure community-based and community-driven solutions.
7. Confidence in capacity: An effective partnership has confidence in, and builds on, the capacities that are brought into the partnership, but also recognizes when capacity gaps need addressing.
8. Understanding and honouring agreements: The signing of an agreement is only the beginning of a partnership. Signatories need to routinely inform themselves of agreements, act on the spirit and intent, recognize capacity needs, respect their obligations, ensure substantive progress is made on implementation, expedite the resolution of disputes, and involve partners in any discussions that would lead to changes in agreements.
9. Respecting Indigenous knowledge: Indigenous and local knowledge must be valued and promoted equally to western science, in research, planning and decision-making.

Developing a new Arctic Policy Framework starts with an inclusive, mutually respectful and trustful process that establishes (and keeps to) principles of partnership. The principles listed above reflect the body of conversations I had with leaders across the Arctic, and should serve as a starting point for discussions related to a new Arctic Policy Framework.

The Inuit-Crown Partnership signed on February 9th by Prime Minister Trudeau and Natan Obed, President of the Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, in my view, is an example of how transformative policy begins with doing things differently. The success of this new Inuit-Crown Partnership will be measured by the actions that impact the day-to-day lives of Inuit. I congratulate the Government of Canada for committing to this mechanism for taking action on Inuit issues with a new, high-level process.

As I noted earlier in my report, the mix of jurisdictional responsibilities, legal mandates derived from land claims and self-government agreements, as well as devolution in the Arctic, has created a splintered approach to Arctic policy, yet all jurisdictions share common challenges unique to the Arctic. The Arctic Policy Framework process should be tasked with finding a mechanism, perhaps under legislation, or through processes such as a domestic Arctic Forum, where common policy issues can be tackled. This mechanism would not replace any existing legal and political relationships with Canada, but present a better managed and comprehensive process to examine and promote policy responses to Arctic issues. It could also be a forum to discuss horizontal policy responses across a number of federal government departments, or to discuss national policy criteria that are limiting Arctic participation (e.g. Connecting Canadians Program) and precluding the ability of the Arctic to catch-up with other regions of Canada.

There were a number of policy issues raised with me as I travelled the Arctic that spoke directly to the central premise that community wellness drives a vision for sustainable development. It is clear that many threads gather around community wellness. It would be my hope that these issues, including the rising rates of incarceration, the alarming trend in child welfare in which children are being fostered to homes out of the community, and the growing need to adequately address community elder care, are reflected in policy discussions at an Arctic Forum level, and in the collective responses of governments at all levels.

The road to reconciliation will take many paths, but one aspect that seems to be consistent in discussions is there needs to be changes in power relationships to see and do things differently.

A new Arctic Policy Framework must address, not only principles of partnership and key policy focus areas, but also fundamental process questions as to ‘how' the Arctic participates in priority-setting and decision-making in ways that differ from the past.

Appendix 1: List of recommendations

Appendix 2: Map of land and marine planning conservation areas in northern Canada

Text description of the map of land and marine planning conservation areas in northern Canada

Map shows existing marine protections highlighted:

• along the shorelines west and south of Alert
• west of Tuktoyaktuk
• west and northwest of Ikaahuk
• in a region located north of Paulatuk
• northeast of Umingmaktuk
• southeast of Ausuittuq
• areas south and northwest of Qausuittuq
• a region southeast of Ausuittuq
• around the island north of Mittimatalik
• around the east shore of the island located east of Attawapiskat
• southeast of Kanggiqtugaapik
• east of Qikiqtarjuaq
• a region along the shoreline north of Kinngait
• an area south of Naujaat, an area south of Arviat, and areas west and south of Salliq

In-process marine protection and conservation areas are highlighted:

• a large region between the communities of Qausuittuq, Ausuittuq, Mittimatalik, and Ikpiarjuk

Indigenous land use planning areas are highlighted:

• in large sections located near the communities of Eureka, Uluhaktok, Ikaahuk, north and south of Kanggiqtugaapik
• in large sections in central Northwest Territories and Nunavut

Existing federal and regional protected land areas are marked:

• in large areas southwest of Alert
• northwest of Qausuittuq
• north and east of Ikaahuk
• west and southeast of Paulatuk
• north and south of Old Crow and in the Dawson region
• in a section between Ikpiarjuk and Mittimatalik
• west of  Qikiqtarjuaq and north of Kimmirut
• large regions southwest of Haines Junction and Keno Hill
• west of Carcross and southeast of Tagish
• west of Fort Simpson and southeast of Enterprise
• a series of smaller sections near Norman Wells, Tulita and Gameti
• in significant areas east of Umingmaktuk, south of Kingauk, and southwest of Naujaat
• in regions southwest and east of Salliq
• in several areas near the communities of Ivujivik, Salluit, Kangirsujuaq, Akulivik, Tasiujaq, Kangiqsualujjuaq and east of Umiujaq

Appendix 3: Map of overlap of Inuit and federal northern marine conservation planning areas

Text description of the map of overlap of Inuit and federal northern marine conservation planning areas

Inuit marine planning areas are highlighted along the entire northern shoreline of Hudson Bay, up to the northern shores of the Northwest Territories and northern and eastern shores of Nunavut, stretching as far north as Eureka.

Ecologically and biologically significant areas (2013 – 2016) are marked in vast regions located west and north of Alert, south toward the northern shores of Northwest Territories and the northern and eastern shores of Nunavut, and south along the shores of Hudson Bay.

Appendix 4: Map of existing and planned Arctic marine protected areas

Text description of the map of existing and planned Arctic marine protected areas

Existing marine protections are highlighted:

• off the north shores of Tuktoyaktuk and Paulatuk
• south of Ikaliuktutiak
• west and northwest of Ikaahuk
• south of Ausuittuq and Qausuittuq
• north of Mittimatalik along the shoreline between Kanggiqtugaapik and Qikiqtarjuaq
• north of Kinngait and near Naujaat, Arviat, Salliq and along the east shore of the island east of Attawapiskat
• south and west of Alert

In-process marine protection and conservation areas are outlined in a large region between Qausuittuq, Ausuittuq, Ikpiarjuk and Mittimatalik.