92
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Bounding Nature
as a national historic site despite Parks Canada‘s failure to locate them (Craciun, 2012), a near
caricature of affirming presence in the Arctic. Harper‘s administration, unable to deliver on many of
its promises for new infrastructure in the Arctic, is instead putting up plaques and national park
signs, least of all in Lancaster Sound.
While the park‘s specific boundaries have not yet been determined, the NMCA would sit within
Lancaster Sound, at the eastern end of the NWP. The 2002 Canada National Marine Conservation
Areas Act (CNMCAA) established the concept of NMCAs. They can be located within Canada‘s
internal waters, territorial seas, or EEZs and are meant for protecting marine areas while,
importantly, still allowing sustainable development but prohibiting oil and gas exploration and
undersea mining (Bill S.C. 2002, c.18, 2002). Lancaster Sound is home to a wealth of Arctic
biodiversity, and three Nunavut communities rely on the area for sustenance (Pew Charitable Trust,
2013). The Inuit and Parks Canada are working together to outline the NMCA‘s boundaries decades
after Indian and Northern Affairs Canada first recognized the biological importance of the area and
proposed protecting some 48,000 square kilometers. As I will show is also the case in Russia,
science, the military, and conservation all contribute to muscular displays of northern sovereignty in
Lancaster Sound. During a 2009 meeting of the Canadian Parliament‘s Standing Committee on
National Defense to discuss Arctic sovereignty, Paul Kaludjak, president of Nunavut Tunngavik
Incorporated, openly asserted that Lancaster Sound is ―an area where environmental conservation
and sovereignty assertion go hand in hand‖ (2009). Similarly, the 2009 memorandum of
understanding signed by Parks Canada, the Government of Nunavut, and the Qikiqtani Inuit
Association regarding the undertaking of a feasibility study to create a NMCA in Lancaster Sound
states, ―[t]he establishment of a NMCA in the Lancaster Sound Marine Region would contribute
significantly to protecting Canada‘s Arctic environmental heritage, strengthen Canada‘s sovereignty,
promote economic and social development and improve Northern governance as envisioned in
Canada‘s Northern Strategy‖ (Parks Canada et al.,
2009). Canada is effectively attempting to anchor
permanent boundaries to a fluid waterway. Yet the Northern Strategy, a document that is designed
for both domestic and, importantly, foreign audiences, only mentions Lancaster Sound as an
―important marine protection initiative‖ (Indian and Northern Affairs, 2009) and avoids calling
attention to its economic and strategic value to Canada.
When push comes to shove, however, Canadian politicians have vocally defended their country‘s
northern sovereignty. Statements and activities in the present must back up historic maps and
claims. In 2007, in reaction to the Russian planting of a flag on the seabed under the North Pole,
former Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs Peter MacKay emphasized the linkage between waters
and national ownership. He declared, ―There is no question over Canadian sovereignty in the
Arctic… We‘ve established a long time ago that these are Canadian waters and this is Canadian
property‖ (Smith & Giles, 2007). But sovereignty lacks inertia in the porous and permeable sea,
where it must be continually produced and reproduced regardless of the depth of history behind any
claims. While countries might be readily able to demonstrate presence in offshore areas designated
for oil and gas exploration with fixed infrastructure such as oil platforms and pipelines, displaying
sovereignty is more difficult in the fluid chokepoints of shipping routes. Consequently, to
complement plans for new icebreakers and submarines, Russia and Canada have resorted to the