94
Arctic Yearbook 2013
Bounding Nature
it from Moscow, as I will later show. In the 1950s, during a time of acute governmental concern
over sovereignty in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, Ottawa forcibly relocated indigenous peoples
to permanent settlements along the NWP (Tester & Kulchyski, 1994). Though the government later
apologized for the resettlements (AANDC, 2010), it still uses indigenous presence and activity on
northern lands and waters to legitimize sovereignty claims, especially in national parks. One of the
objectives of the Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement for Auyuittuq, Quttinirpaaq and Sirmilik
National Parks is ―to recognize that Inuit are an integral part of the ecosystems of the Parks‖ (Parks
Canada and Qikiqtani Inuit Association, 1999). In Sirmilik National Park, a terrestrial park lying on
Lancaster Sound‘s southern shore, the Nunavut Land Claim Agreement grants indigenous peoples
access for traditional subsistence activities like camping, hunting, fishing, and trapping (Parks
Canada, 2012). Such ethnicity-based access undermines Canada‘s attempts to use national parks to
foster national identity. Prime Minister Stephen Harper averred, ―Canada's Arctic is central to
our
identity as a northern nation‖ (Prime Minister of Canada, 2007, emphasis added).
But whereas
national parks in the U.S. became an important tool in the formation of a national civic identity in
the twentieth century (Nye, 1996), especially since many citizens could access places like the Grand
Canyon on classic American road trips, national parks in Canada‘s Arctic are difficult to reach due to
the expense and difficulty of travel to such remote northern locations. Of course, national parks,
even if only rarely frequented by people, can still appeal to the national imagination. Conservation
areas like the Lancaster Sound NMCA can help foster a northern national identity, particularly
amongst southern Canadians who might otherwise have little or no connection to their country‘s
Arctic reaches. But ultimately, these conservation areas may serve an equally important role in
international positioning.
Due to the challenges in turning northern national parks into uncontroversial national symbols,
especially in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago where both indigenous peoples and extractive
industries have interests, it is often easier to convince international organizations such as UNESCO
of the value of conserving certain sites. The CNMCAA states that Parliament wishes for Canada to
contribute ―to international efforts for the establishment of a worldwide network of representative
marine protected areas‖ and ―provide opportunities for the people of Canada and of the world to
appreciate and enjoy Canada‘s natural and cultural marine heritage‖
(Bill S.C. 2002, c.18., 2002),
emphasizing the international dimension of national conservation efforts. Legal scholar and vocal
supporter of Canadian sovereignty, Michael Byers, recommends that the government link the
creation of the NMCA with an effort to win UNESCO designation, as it would tie the domestic to
the international ―in a mutually supportive way‖ (2010: 73). If Lancaster Sound were to be named a
World Heritage Site, it would likely be easier for Canada to regulate shipping in a passage recognized
as ecologically sensitive (Byers, 2010) and actually keep out parts of the world it deems undesirable,
like certain ships or military vessels. In sum – and no different from Russia – Canada is marshaling
international organizations and norms to cement national power. Yet even places that are listed on
UNESCO World Heritage lists are not everybody‘s to equally cherish and celebrate, as they can keep
out certain groups of people. Though UNESCO might one day decree Lancaster Sound to possess
―cultural and natural heritage of outstanding universal value‖ (UNESCO, 1972), the universality of