Latest news with #ArcticSovereignty
Yahoo
21-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Western premiers meet in Yellowknife to talk trade, energy and Arctic security
YELLOWKNIFE — Premiers from Western Canada are to meet Wednesday to kick off a two-day conference in Yellowknife. Set to attend are Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, British Columbia's David Eby, Saskatchewan's Scott Moe, Manitoba's Wab Kinew, Nunavut's P.J. Akeeagok, Yukon's outgoing Premier Ranj Pillai and Northwest Territories Premier R.J. Simpson. This annual conference comes two weeks before all Canada's premiers are to meet with Prime Minister Mark Carney in Saskatoon. A statement from Simpson's office last week said the western leaders are set to discuss a range of issues, including Arctic sovereignty, energy security, international trade and emergency preparedness. Housing, economic corridors and tariffs are also on the agenda. Smith said the meeting is taking place at a "critical moment" for Alberta, in the wake of last month's federal election. She said she plans to advocate for new pipelines. "We cannot afford federal overreach into provincial jurisdiction to continue or damaging federal policies to impact the upward trajectory of our economies," Smith said Tuesday in a statement. "I will be at the table to advocate for Alberta's interests, particularly the importance of new pipelines, in an effort to put the power of our economy back in the hands of western Canadians.' Eby said Tuesday that Western Canada is "leading the country, being the engine of the economy for Canada," but he lamented talk of western separatism in the lead-up to the meeting. 'I think it's really unfortunate that at this moment, when Western Canada is stepping into the spotlight, that there's any discussion at all about leaving Canada,' Eby told an unrelated news conference. 'I mean, to advance that at the moment, it's strange.' Akeeagok said in an email he's looking to push the conversation forward on Arctic security and infrastructure projects needed to strengthen it. The long-discussed Grays Bay Road and Port proposal, which would connect Yellowknife to the eastern Arctic coast by road, would help unlock the North's vast economic potential, he said. "The Arctic holds incredible promise and, through strategic investments in critical infrastructure, we can responsibly access key resources, including critical minerals," he said. A spokesperson for Moe said the premier plans to discuss items he recently urged Carney to act on, including strengthening the Criminal Code, giving provinces full responsibility for the industrial carbon levy, repealing clean electricity regulations and expanding pipelines. Moe has said he also wants Carney to immediately begin negotiations with China to remove Beijing's tariffs on Canadian agricultural goods. This report by The Canadian Press was first published May 21, 2025. — By Jack Farrell in Edmonton, with files from Jeremy Simes in Regina The Canadian Press Sign in to access your portfolio
CBC
15-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Canada's military plans to be in the Arctic 'on a near permanent basis,' says commander
Social Sharing Canada intends to expand its military training regime in the Arctic, deploying a variety of forces in the region for up to 10 months a year, starting this year, the military's operations commander says. Lt.-Gen. Steve Boivin says the military's signature Far North exercise — Operation Nanook — will see additional elements created, resulting in a greater, consistent presence in a region that is increasingly the focus of geopolitical rivalry. The plan, says one defence expert, is an unprecedented opportunity for the Liberal government to not only demonstrate Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, but to rally NATO allies behind the country. Michael Byers, an expert in the Arctic and geopolitics at the University of British Columbia, says major allied nations should be invited in greater numbers than they have in the past as a signal of solidarity at a time when the Trump administration has said it wants to use economic force to annex Canada — and possibly military force to swallow Greenland. Boivin says inviting allies is part of the plan "when it makes sense" to have them join, but the intention is a national objective to get more Canadian boots on the ground, warships in the water and planes flying over the vast expanse of territory. "We want to be in the Arctic on a near permanent basis," Boivin told CBC News in a recent interview. "The current approach to Operation Nanook puts us in the Arctic for five to six months a year. We're looking at being there 10 plus months per year." WATCH | Plan for Arctic military increase part of sovereignty push: Canada plans Arctic military expansion as part of sovereignty push 6 hours ago Duration 2:02 Federal government increases emphasis on Arctic The Liberal government has put an increased emphasis on the Arctic, appointing a specific minister in this week's cabinet appointments and dropping an extra $420 million into the Department of National Defence budget to create a greater sustained military presence in the Far North. Boivin said the order to expand Operation Nanook predates the Liberal government's funding announcement. Military staff was told last September to draw up a revised, expanded schedule that will see seven training regimes (instead of the usual four) conducted under the annual exercise. The first exercise under the expanded training plan — Operation Nanook-Nunalivut — took place in February in the vicinity of Inuvik and Mackenzie River Delta, Northwest Territories. It involved 450 Canadian troops as well as approximately 110 armed forces members from the United States, Belgium, United Kingdom, Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark. Byers says the token presence of allies is important, but in the current geopolitical climate it could be leveraged to Canada's advantage even further. "One could think imaginatively about how our allies could support Canadian sovereignty," said Byers, who added he could see Canada extending an invitation to host a larger contingent of Danish troops for an exercise that would encompass not only the Canadian Arctic, but also Greenland. "If there's political will, there's a lot we can do in the short term that doesn't involve spending billions and billions of dollars on new equipment." Inviting larger numbers of European allies to conduct cold-weather exercises on Canadian soil would be a subtle, but unmistakable signal to the Trump administration that Canada has allies at its back. Don't shut U.S. out: Defence expert But Byers says that doesn't mean the United States should be shut out of the Canadian Arctic. Rather, he believes regularly extending invitations to the U.S. military and coast guard — and having Washington accept them — would be a shrewd way of pushing back against U.S. President Donald Trump's arguments that question Canada's nationhood. "By participating, they would be recognizing Canadian leadership, Canadian sovereignty," said Byers. Like it or not, he says, geography is still an important factor in Canada's relationship with its southern neighbour. "The interesting thing here is that if we invite them, we're giving consent, and by accepting an invitation they're recognizing that consent and thereby our sovereignty." Every year, Norway hosts a major multinational military on its soil and waters, known as Exercise Nordic Response, which can involve as many as 30,000 NATO troops and personnel. Canada has long resisted holding a NATO level exercise in the country's Far North, but the notion was floated a few years ago in defence circles following former NATO secretary general Jens Stoltenberg's visit to the Canadian Arctic. Ed Arnold, a senior research fellow at the U.K.-based Royal United Services Institute (RUSI), says that beyond nuanced legal arguments about sovereignty, a greater show of allied participation in Canada's North would be a shot in the arm for Canadian and European NATO morale. WATCH | Looking at what's needed to increase Canada's Arctic security: What Arctic (in)security looks like in Canada's North 1 month ago Duration 7:20 As the leaders of the major parties make election promises about Arctic security, CBC chief correspondent Adrienne Arsenault goes North, where a history of unfulfilled government promises has left strong opinions about what needs to happen next. Silence from allies a concern Arnold says it's likely not gone unnoticed that many of Canada's allies have kept their heads down and said little publicly about Trump's annexation threats and 51st State blustering. "I think from the Canadian point of view, and also the Danish point of view, they'd probably be pretty annoyed about that and pretty let down," said Arnold who pointed to the deafening silence from the U.K. government. "I think the worry is that allies notice this type of behaviour and in the current security environment and, you know, maintaining that unity, it is critical that the sort of more powerful nations in Europe stand up for the smaller nations." He did acknowledge, however, the importance of King Charles opening the latest session of the Canadian Parliament with the Speech from the Throne later this month.
CBC
09-05-2025
- Politics
- CBC
Is the promise of military icebreakers political theatre or sensible policy?
A former top naval commander and several defence experts have been left scratching their heads following the governing Liberals and Opposition Conservatives' recent embrace of the notion of giving the Royal Canadian Navy heavy, armed icebreakers to defend the Arctic. They question the military sensibility of building — possibly at a cost of billions of dollars — one, two or even three 10,000-tonne or more polar-class icebreakers with guns and missiles, vessels with possibly limited usefulness that would be vulnerable to both air and submarine attack. "I'm puzzled, because I don't know what it is we're trying to achieve other than the political objective of demonstrating a commitment to Arctic sovereignty. Check. I get it. However, it needs to be sensible, and more importantly, it needs to be practical," said retired vice-admiral Mark Norman in a recent interview. Canada's defence in the Far North was a topic brought up when Prime Minister Mark Carney met with U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office on Tuesday. A senior Canadian government official said the two leaders spent a lot of time talking about the Arctic. During the recently concluded federal election campaign, the Liberals promised to "expand the capabilities of the navy with new submarines and additional heavy icebreakers," while the Conservatives were more explicit, saying they would build two additional polar icebreakers for the military. If the promise of heavy militarized icebreakers sounds familiar, it's because it was made before. Back in 2006, the former Conservative government of prime minister Stephen Harper rode to power on a pledge to build heavy military icebreakers for the navy. Ultimately, the high construction cost and the fact the vessels would have utility only four months of the year led to the design and creation of Arctic and offshore patrol ships (AOPS), light icebreakers which can operate and patrol off all three of Canada's coastlines. The navy plans on deploying six AOPS and the coast guard is expected to receive two. For Norman, there is a sense of déjà vu about the renewed debate. "We went through this very issue in 2007-08 up to the 2010-12 timeframe, where we had a government of the day that was quite explicit about what they wanted, but couldn't explain why they wanted it," said Norman. "I get it, the government gets to decide. But at the end of the day, it doesn't make a lot of sense." The coast guard is usually the home of Canada's unarmed icebreaking fleet. The Liberals, however, have promised to rewrite the service's mandate to conduct maritime surveillance and integrate them into Canada's NATO defence capabilities. Whether that means arming them is unclear. Norman said there needs to be a clear division of responsibilities between the navy and the coast guard. "We need to decide what we're trying to achieve. If it's surveillance, there's lots of other ways to achieve surveillance," said Norman. "I'm concerned because as soon as we list things that we want to buy, we lose track of what it is we're trying to achieve. And then the entire machinery [of government] becomes focused on buying something which may or may not make sense." Canada, with 18 registered ice-capable boats, has the second-largest number of icebreakers in the world after Russia, which reportedly has 57. And only one of those Russian ships, the Ivan Papanin, is specifically built for combat and has just recently entered service. China has a handful of medium icebreakers in its navy. Overall, though, big icebreakers — with reinforced hulls and special bows — are good for opening up Far North channels. They are slow and noisy, not exactly qualities you want in a combat vessel. 'Offerings into the void' If the objective is surveillance and deterrence in the Far North, defence expert Rob Huebert said, Canada would be better served with investing in under-ice capable submarines. "If you are actually in a shooting conflict, you're going to find out where the icebreaker is right away," said Huebert. "If you're going to be putting money into something, put it into a submarine and give it some form of perhaps anti-missile capability." Wesley Wark, one of the country's leading experts on intelligence and surveillance, said Canada's approach to the Arctic has to be rooted in what makes sense for the defence of the country, not what looks good to the Americans — especially the current administration which seems to have no overarching plan of its own. "I think it dangerous for Canadian officials, for the current government, to imagine that there is a master plan and try to figure out ways in which they can respond to that master plan," said Wark. "Because I think that ends up being what I would call offerings into the void." He pointed to the decision by the Trudeau government to lease old Black Hawk helicopters for border surveillance in the aftermath of the Trump administration's imposition of tariffs — a decision Wark described as political theatre. There are, however, those who say the presence of Canadian ships in the North is essential. The more Canada shows the flag, the better, said Dave Perry, president of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute. "I think there is a need to have a more significant, more permanent presence across our entire Arctic archipelago," Perry said in a recent interview. "That could come in a ship that's painted navy grey or a ship painted coast guard red and white, so long as it actually has the ability to meaningfully increase our presence year round throughout our entire territory and help us understand what's happening there."
Yahoo
06-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Arctic sovereignty? Inuit would like a word
This story was originally published on The Narwhal on April 22, a publication about the natural world in Canada. Dustin Patar The Narwhal Iqaluit has long been a stop on federal election campaigns. But over the last few months, as Liberal Leader Mark Carney, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh each visited the Nunavut capital, something was different. While the stops still offered snowy photo opportunities, they seemed like more than a ticked box for an election campaign. In 2025, Nunavut, and the Arctic more broadly, is a serious talking point. Front-runners Carney and Poilievre have made splashy promises about Arctic sovereignty, which for them means increased military might and resource development, both requiring new infrastructure they promise will be a boon to local communities. But this isn't the first time residents of Inuit Nunangat — the Inuit homelands in Canada — have been under a spotlight wielded by politicians and industry leaders. Like other Arctic states, Canada's interest in its northern territories ebbs and flows, driven by geopolitics and trade. While increased attention can be a boon, it can also cause significant harm. Since 1977, the Inuit Circumpolar Council has provided Inuit across Canada, Alaska, Chukotka (Russia) and Kalaallit Nunaat (Greenland) — the circumpolar North, or Inuit Nunaat — with a unified voice on the global stage. Today, it represents approximately 180,000 Inuit and is chaired by Sara Olsvig of Kalaallit Nunaat. Sara Olsvig of the Inuit Circumpolar Council, left, with Inger Andersen, executive director of the United Nations Environment Programme, in 2024. (William Alan Swanson / UN Environment Programme) Olsvig spoke with The Narwhal last week about this current geopolitical moment, what those on the ground think about all the Arctic talk right now and how sovereignty for Inuit means self-determination is non-negotiable. 'We are here as Inuit and we will be here in the future. We've been here for time immemorial,' Olsvig said. 'We are working every day, step by step, to develop our societies in the way that we want to see them develop. Home rule and self-government arrangements — those are things that we are not backing down from.' This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The Inuit Circumpolar Council was founded during the Cold War to provide Inuit across the circumpolar North with a platform to present a unified voice on issues ranging from the climate to global affairs. Yet here we are nearly 50 years later and Arctic Sovereignty is back in the spotlight in a big way. How is what is happening now different? Or is it? It is different. When the Inuit Circumpolar Council was founded in 1977, we were able to meet as Inuit from Kalaallit Nunaat, Canada and Alaska. And one of the first things that Inuit did was to call on the then-Soviet Union to allow Inuit from Chukotka to become members of our organization. What Inuit were able to do was to work through diplomacy, sometimes quiet diplomacy, to create those connections. Our shared organization, the Inuit Circumpolar Council, has been an extremely good diplomat, so to speak. We have conducted Indigenous diplomacy to re-establish those connections people-to-people, human connections between Inuit across four very, very different nation states, with four or more very, very different self-government arrangements. 'Self-government of Inuit was never something that dropped down from heaven to us. It was not something that was granted us. These are achievements that we built ourselves through our own diplomatic efforts,' Sara Olsvig of the Inuit Circumpolar Council said. (Dustin Patar, The Narwhal) That's the big difference today, I would say. We have a Kalaallit Nunaat which has its own parliament and government, strives to become an independent state, is asserting its rights as a nation. We have other arrangements across Inuit Nunaat in Canada, different arrangements in Alaska and a whole other arrangement in Chukotka. And I think it's really important to say that all of these arrangements and self-government of Inuit was never something that dropped down from heaven to us. It was not something that was granted us. These are achievements that we built ourselves through our own diplomatic efforts. Today we also have an international recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples and our right of self-determination affirmed in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. We live under very different international institutional and legal frameworks than we did 50 years ago. Talk around Arctic sovereignty can come from a country wanting to assert its dominance over its Arctic territories, or from Inuit sovereignty and self-determination. Which Arctic sovereignty are we hearing about right now? There's always been some level of pressure from the nation-states that do approach the Arctic as some kind of new frontier, more as a source of resource and expansion than an inhabited region where peoples have lived for for time immemorial. When we talk about sovereignty seen from an Inuit perspective, it's always important for us to reconfirm and assert the fact that we were here for time immemorial. We have been here before state borders were drawn on maps, before different waves of settlers came in and out of the Arctic. Inuit have thrived and survived and lived here, regardless of whatever kinds of acts of securitization or acts of sovereignty in a state-centered way have happened. I always get quite proud to know that Inuit leaders for many, many decades have had the skills to navigate those different spheres of how you view the world, how you can act side-by-side with states who pursue a certain kind of sovereignty at the same time as not losing our inherent Indigeneity and Inuit way of living, an Inuit way of conceiving and thinking of sovereignty. Those things can coexist. We have bandwidth in our heads and as Inuit to navigate those things. States and others think that Indigenous Peoples don't think about hard security issues or Westphalian state sovereignty and so on. But that's not true. That's exactly what we have been navigating in our assertion of our rights. Much of the driving force behind the Arctic sovereignty and security conversations comes from southerners, extraction and shipping industry leaders and politicians who live outside of the Arctic. No one community across the Arctic is the same, but when you speak with Inuit around the circumpolar North, do your conversations sound remotely similar to what we're seeing in headlines? It's exactly correct what you're saying, that no Inuit community is the same. We have very different relationships with the states within which we live, very different relationships with the military organizations of those states. Some Inuit organizations and rights holder organizations and so forth work in close partnerships with the defense of the state they live in, making a lot of their income from servicing the defense and military presence in those regions. In Kalaallit Nunaat, Greenland, the agreements about U.S. military presence here were done before we had any say in international relations. Nevertheless, the government of Kalaallit Nunaat has paved its way into making this not a bilateral U.S.-Denmark relation, but a trilateral relation between Kalaallit Nunaat, Denmark and the U.S. A snowmobile with qamutiik in tow passes by the St. George's Society Cliffs outside of Arctic Bay, Nvt. 'Inuit have thrived and survived and lived here, regardless of whatever kinds of acts of securitization or acts of sovereignty in a state-centered way have happened,' Sara Olsvig of the Inuit Circumpolar Council said. (Dustin Patar, The Narwhal) Across Inuit Nunaat broadly from Chukotka, Alaska, Canada, we have quite different views on nationhood. When I speak to Canadian or Alaskan Inuit, they might have a different view on their sense of nationality [or the] presence of military in our homelands. What is cross-cutting for all Inuit is our right of self-determination. That we ourselves are those to decide what relationship we want with the military presence. We do not want to see repetition of historical events, such as forceful displacement of people of Inuit in relation to creating new military installations. We do not want to see a militarization where we are not included in decision-making. The bottom line is that there is no such thing as saying, 'You have a self-determination, but only to this line'. We also have self-determination on those areas that states would consider hard security or sovereignty, and therefore we still have some way to go in terms of working with our states to fully implement our rights of self-determination. Countries are driving a global Arctic security conversation, but what is being discussed on the local level? Are there different priorities, such as health, housing, and food security? That's a question that speaks to the importance of remembering that we have the bandwidth to encompass both. We do conceive of other forms of security in our societies as being related to our human security — access to health services, access to infrastructure and so forth. All of those things are deeply related to our human security, as are the more hard security issues. One thing does not exclude the other. And if we as Inuit do not continue to have our focus on both, we know that, especially on the hard security issues, these decisions will continue to be taken without us. In 1977, when the council was founded, one of our first resolutions, 7711, talked about how we as Inuit want our region to be peaceful, to be used for peaceful purposes only. We reaffirmed that resolution in 2022. And I think if we as Arctic Indigenous peoples didn't say so, who would? But we do say it with open eyes and open ears, knowing what's going on around us. These past months here in Kalaallit Nunaat, I can say that hard security issues are also something that people talk about on the streets and over coffee. Discussions about access to 'critical minerals' and Arctic shipping routes — like the Northwest Passage, which itself is a 175-year-old conversation — are not new. How much of today's dialogue about these topics are driven by the clear effects of climate change in the Arctic? I often see the narrative that, you know, ice is melting and the resources are suddenly available. That's not how it is here in Kalaallit Nunaat. There's been mapping of the resources of Kalaallit Nunaat for centuries. We have a high degree of knowledge about what resources are here. I think the big difference across Inuit Nunaat is, again, the level of how concretely we can exercise our right of self-determination into terms of deciding to utilize those resources, extract those resources or not. We here in Kalaallit Nunaat have full self-determination on whether to mine or not. The whole resource extraction question became a cornerstone in the economic relationship between Kalaallit Nunaat and Denmark with the self-government agreement from 2009. That's not the case for all Inuit. The basic principle of the questions of resource extraction is that no projects go ahead without free, prior, informed consent obtained before starting. I would say the same about shipping. Inuit are ship owners. Inuit are big fish company owners. We are dependent on being able to navigate the seas we have, which we have done for millennia and we have transitioned into huge, successful businesses. That's also why Inuit Circumpolar Council worked so hard to become part of the Central Arctic Ocean Fisheries Agreement, to sit with states and make sure that no decisions are taken without us. So when we talk about shipping lanes, I think that on one hand, in some mainstream media it's a bit exaggerated and on the other hand, it sounds as if it's another one of those, Arctic frontiers where people will go because nobody's ever been there. But that's not true. What we need to do is to make sure that everybody who goes to the waters across Inuit Nunaat do so in a way that least harms the environment, biodiversity, our flora and fauna. We are working to influence that through the International Maritime Organization, demanding that ships make less noise, because underwater radiated noise will affect our marine mammals and then that will then affect our access to hunting. This is about us asserting our seat at the table to inform the regulations on how shipping is conducted. Part of the global push for critical minerals is an economic response to climate change. Government and industry says mining is essential to extract minerals such as high-quality ore that requires less energy to turn into steel, or the components needed for electric vehicles. On one hand, this resource extraction could potentially help efforts to curb climate change globally, while providing jobs and increasing infrastructure locally. On the other hand, such projects have significantly harmed culture and the environment in the past and pose similar risks now. How can situations like this be navigated in a meaningful and respectful way? I was honored last year to take part in the United Nations Secretary General's panel on critical energy transition minerals, as one of two Indigenous persons on the panel, together with the former chair of the United Nations Permanent Forum, Mejia Montalvo. It was a tough job, but we got the outcome document of this panel's work to include full recognition of the rights of Indigenous Peoples— the right of self-determination, regardless of the world's pressure. Even calls from other places in the world saying 'you have better regulation, so we will do less human rights violations if we mine in your region than in this region'. In spite of all this pressure, and maybe even exactly because of all this pressure, what we must remember is that we have a right to say no. If we don't want a uranium mine, we'll say no, like we did in Kalaallit Nunaat, or the people in south Greenland did. If we see that there's a need for a specific mineral, let's talk about it. In the end, if the Indigenous Peoples in mind are saying, 'That's not the road we want to take,' that needs to be respected. At the Conference of Parties last year, in Baku, there was a fellow Indigenous woman from Belize, who represents a people that want to transition over to solar panels. And she raised a really interesting question — how can she make sure that the minerals that were used to produce the solar panels have not been extracted by violating other Indigenous People's rights? And that question, to me, pinpointed the issue: we have to work with an industry which has a terrible track record. So we need to change the industry, make the industry accountable. And how do we do that? Well we make sure that we can trace where the minerals come from, that those who are involved in producing and exporting and so on are made accountable in terms of human rights. That's going to be a huge task, but that was the recommendation coming out of the panel. And of course, to ramp up circularity. Remove some of the pressure by ensuring that we have reuse of minerals. The point of departure in this panel's work was that 55 per cent, at least, of the known deposits are on or near Indigenous Peoples' land, so we have no option but to address it. We all know as Inuit that our lands are rich. So this is something that we will have in front of us to discuss and decide upon in many years to come. What I hope for everyone is that we find ways of doing this that doesn't divide us. We've been through tough times here in Kalaallit Nunaat discussing that possible uranium mine. I belong to those who do not want to do uranium mining, but I've met with fellow Inuit and citizens who did want to do uranium mining, who were in trouble in terms of employment and income. So these paradoxes and dilemmas we will meet time and time again, and we need to approach them in a good way where we can reach a common understanding of what our different positions are and find the best way ahead. Over the last few months, the world has become a little more volatile. The Inuit Circumpolar Council operates in four countries, with some projects, like protecting the waters of Pikialasorsuaq, or the North Water Polynya, literally spanning borders. How impacted has the council been by this shift? It's different from case to case, so particularly on the Pikialasorsuaq initiative between Kalaallit Nunaat and Canada, it seems that our governments are pursuing a positive development. We are supporting that. It might be different in other areas of Inuit Nunaat — we have yet to see exactly what's going to be the situation. As you know, elections have taken place, are taking place and new administrations or old administrations are getting in place. I do want to point to Inuit Circumpolar Council Alaska, which recently convened an Alaskan Inuit leadership summit with very, very strong and clear statements coming out of it. It's important to say that there is no such thing as a better colonizer. Each of us have very complex relationships with the states around us and you cannot compare and say that it's better to be Inuk here or there. This is the time where we stand side by side, shoulder by shoulder, and do not allow ourselves to be pitted against each other. Was there anything else you'd like to add? These are the times where we should all consider increasing our international engagement. This is the time where we go to the international venues and make our voices heard, assert our seat at the table. That's something that I hope to see more of in the future, more Inuit youth, more Inuit leadership, more Inuit knowledge-holders to go out there and speak on behalf of our interests so that we can implement what we have been saying for so many years — nothing about us without us.
