Relationship to the Land [Use Planning Provisions] (Live Exhibit)

Amagoalik, and other Inuit leaders, were frustrated with the extractive lens that colonization had imposed upon their lands and sought to negotiate an agreement that would be more than a real-estate transaction, the latter of which which could not preserve culture or guarantee self-determination (ibid: 8). These leaders had a strong position, as Inuit have never been conquered by war or signed treaties with Canada (ibid: 7) and the final 1993 Land Claims Agreement extends many rights to the Inuit of Nunavut beyond land use considerations including: harvesting rights, water rights, employment opportunities within government, impact and benefit agreements, and full control over Inuit enrollment (Government of Canada, 1993). The Canadian Government’s settler colonial approach to land, and the entrenched interest in resource exploitation remained central to the agreement, however.

The dramatic increase in demand for northern natural resources over the past twenty years has only intensified with the prospect of climate change making these resources more accessible (Southcott, 2012). According to Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC), the Arctic contains about 25 per cent of Canada’s remaining discovered recoverable crude oil and natural gas, and about 40 per cent of Canada’s projected future discoveries (Government of Canada, 2010). This means more people and equipment moving temporarily from south to north, and much more drilling and extraction – inevitably leading to more waste. The Land Claims Agreement established provisions for Inuit Owned Lands, and states: “The primary purpose of Inuit Owned Lands shall be to provide Inuit with rights in land that promote economic self-sufficiency of Inuit through time, in a manner consistent with Inuit social and cultural needs and aspirations” (Government of Canada, 1993: 139). Part of the argument for self-sufficiency is through resource development, and mineral rights were central to land selection throughout the negotiations. The Nunavut Land Claims Agreement made the Inuit of Nunavut the largest freehold owners of mineral rights in Canada (McPherson: 2003: xxiv) with subsurface development rights to 37,882 square kilometers, or 1.9% of the territory (ibid: xvii). The Inuit of Nunavut control more mineral rights than any other group in Canada, but over 98% of the land in question was ceded to the ‘Crown’. Waste from resource extraction already threatens the environment and human and inhuman health with toxins such as PCBs abandoned, which bioaccumulate and biomagnify in the tissues of wildlife (Braune, et al., 1999; Giesy and Kannan, 1998) and can leach distances of up to 25 kilometres (Pier, et al., 2003). Already, many country foods have become sources of contaminant exposure (Van Oostdam, et al., 2005), and increased extraction bring increased toxic exposure.

I wanted this piece to speak to the tension Amagoalik faced in negotiations, between ‘property’ and ‘home’. During my research, I was lucky enough to speak to Dr. Robin Wall Kimmerer at an event where she answered the questions of grad students. I asked her how I might approach place-based research when travel was no longer possible. She suggested exploring story, learning about the non-human residents of the land, and to trust my imagination. These prompts have been interesting guides, particularly the question of imagination. I actually think there is a huge risk to relying on my imagination when conceptualizing the Arctic; settler Canadians have a legacy of imaginative projection in the North. I am reminded of a quote by Stephen Leacock that Emilie Cameron discusses in Far off Metal River: