1 Introduction
Climate change has opened the door for trans-Arctic shipping to become a viable transport option for commercial activities. The Arctic Ocean’s
Over the last four decades, Canada’s Arctic cruise tourism industry has developed at an inconsistent pace, marked by brief periods of dramatic growth amongst a general trend of stagnation. In 1984, the Swedish-owned Lindblad Explorer became the first passenger ship to traverse the Northwest Passage.4 The industry’s development looked promising at the turn of the twenty-first century, when tourist-carrying ships began to arrive in the region regularly and in greater numbers.5 Between 2005 and 2006, the average number of passenger vessel voyages in the Canadian Arctic doubled, from 11 to 22.6 However, despite an upward trend of passenger vessel traffic in recent years, the sector’s
This study contributes to the existing body of literature regarding the governance of Arctic cruise operations in the Canadian Arctic by demonstrating that Canada’s permitting process is not the root of the problem; rather, it is a symptom of irreconcilable fractures amongst the multijurisdictional administrative bodies responsible for the management of cruise vessel activity in the Canadian Arctic. This chapter expands on previous research findings through the inclusion of relevant macro-level considerations, such as the complexity and dynamism of the external regulatory environment, the rapid pace of technological change within the global shipping industry and the impetus for a re-allocation of responsibilities within Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance model.
While critics may argue that the current volume of Arctic vessel traffic does not warrant the costs of creating a new alternative service delivery (ASD) agency, this chapter recommends that an ‘Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity’ be established under Transport Canada’s portfolio.9 The proposed ASD agency would improve passenger vessel services by bringing together cross-sectoral and multijurisdictional organizations to provide more seamless service delivery through a horizontal integration of services between departments, and a vertical integration of services across governments. The addition of a new liaison agency within Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance structure would help to build the capacity of its stakeholders and foster more
To lay out this argument, the chapter is divided into five sections. The first section combines a literature review with relevant background information to describe what was previously known about the problematic permit system, and recent measures the federal government has undertaken to streamline requirements. The second section provides a brief overview of the jurisdictional division of responsibilities within Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance process and identifies several critical factors that increase its requirements for effective interagency coordination. Section three conducts an evaluation of the processes, service results and consequences of the permit system, which demonstrates that the existing governance model is devoid of rational mechanisms to coordinate its activities. The fourth section considers the options and constraints to address the described interagency coordination deficits and identifies the requirement for the establishment of a permanent multijurisdictional intra- and interagency coordination mechanism. The final section of the chapter recommends the establishment of an ‘Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity’ within Transport Canada’s portfolio and describes how this new ASD agency could modernize the governance of passenger vessels in the Canadian Arctic.
2 Literature Review and Background
There is a small body of academic literature pertaining to the governance of cruise tourism in the Canadian Arctic. Academics have broadly utilized a qualitative methodology to assess various stakeholders’ attitudes towards Arctic cruise tourism management. Multiple studies have documented the attitudes of local northern residents, polar cruise vessel firms and operators, and the various federal authorities responsible for passenger vessel operations.10 The early literature is instrumental to contextualize the issues identified in this chapter.
The federal government has made several unsuccessful attempts to clarify and streamline the permit process. In 2014, the former Environment Minister Leona Aglukkaq, the Member of Parliament for Nunavut, responded to her constituents’ longstanding frustrations with the inefficient permit system by initiating a multi-agency working group to streamline permit requirements.15 Nothing material came of this group because it was quietly shutdown following a change of government in the 2015 federal election.16 However, the fact that a Nunavut Minister attempted to overhaul a transport-related permit system—despite the system’s meagre relevance to Environment and Climate Change Canada—may give credence to residents’ arguments regarding the system’s absence of leadership.17
3 The Governance of Arctic Passenger Vessel Operations
Governance of Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel operations is complex. This chapter conceptualizes Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance as the overarching multijurisdictional framework of structures, systems and relationships—consisting of federal, territorial and local governments, co-managed regulatory boards, and Indigenous and community organizations—which contribute various functional capacities to directly influence or control polar cruise tourism operations.20 Over 55 federal, territorial, Indigenous and local governance bodies are responsible for managing various aspects of passenger vessel operations in the Canadian Arctic.21 These governance bodies interact within a complex domestic legislative regime, which includes 25 federal acts, 14 territorial acts and two comprehensive land claim agreements.22 The
Passenger vessel governance resides under federal authority. Broadly speaking, the federal government designs the national shipping and navigation policy framework, harmonizes national regulations in accordance with international safety and environmental standards, and provides services to promote an efficient domestic shipping sector, protect the marine environment and enhance maritime safety and security. The federal division of responsibilities over Arctic shipping is fractured across many departments and agencies (see Chircop, this volume, for a detailed overview of Canada’s intuitional framework for Arctic shipping). Transport Canada is for all intents and purposes the lead maritime administrator within the federal cadre; however, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO) and its special operating agency, the Canadian Coast Guard (CCG), play a significant role in marine policy development, regulatory enforcement and service delivery.23 A variety of other federal actors provide marine-related regulatory or service functions that directly interface with Arctic passenger vessels, including the Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA), Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC), the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC), Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada.24 Despite the centralization of maritime administrative functions under federal authority, Canada’s institutional compartmentalization of marine-related regulatory authorities and services signals a structural basis for piecemeal shipping services to polar passenger vessels.
The federal government further contributes to the tourism-related domains of passenger vessels. Several departments manage and maintain national tourist attractions, heritage and cultural resources. Parks Canada (PC) operates coastal national parks and national historic sites in the Canadian Arctic, which offer shore access, and serve as popular attractions for cruise-based passengers.25 The Canadian Wildlife Service (CWS), a branch of ECCC, manages
Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance is highly decentralized. Within their respective jurisdictions, the territorial governments are responsible for developing the regulatory framework for tourism and tourism-related service sectors, including business licensing (e.g., extraterritorial corporations and crew labour), environmental protection and wildlife management.29 The territories also manage and maintain territorial parks, heritage sites and cultural resources, with the view to ensuring that passenger vessel activity does not cause adverse socio-cultural impacts to northern residents.30 The waterways in the Northwest Passage are subject to two comprehensive land claims agreements, which have established formal co-managed regulatory boards and Regional Inuit Organizations (RIO).31 While the conditions of these agreements vary, the resultant governance bodies generally participate in the governance of passenger vessels through land use planning, environmental screening, water licensing and wildlife management.32 Northern communities contribute directly to the management of passenger vessel operations by authorizing
Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance structure possesses several unique characteristics that increase the requirement for effective interagency coordination. Namely, a significant quantity number of (co-)governance bodies, splintered across multiple levels of government, are responsible for managing complex, overlapping and interrelated regulatory regimes. Nonetheless, the permit system offers ample evidence that Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance is largely devoid of formal mechanisms to coordinate its activities.
4 The Passenger Vessel Permit System
Before analyzing the passenger vessel permit system, a general disclaimer that specifies the scope of this analysis is required. The ‘passenger vessel permit system’ refers to the variety of federal, territorial and local government, Indigenous and community organization, and regulatory body permits, certificates, licences approvals and permission requirements, processes or procedures that may be required to conduct a passenger vessel voyage in the Canadian Arctic. This section does not evaluate the necessity of Canada’s robust domestic regulatory regime that governs passenger vessel operations. Shipping operations in the Northwest Passage are as hazardous as the marine ecosystem is fragile, so the robust management of polar passenger vessels is accepted at face value as both reasonable and justified. Comprehensive land claim and self-government agreements in the Canadian Arctic add another layer of regulatory complexity, which rightfully increase the challenges of conducting commercial activities in the region. In sum, this section does not evaluate the merits of the passenger vessel permit system, but instead evaluates the implementation of the overarching permit requirements.
A condensed outline of Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel permitting process and authorities, as described in Transport Canada’s revised Guidelines, are detailed in Figure 14.1. The Guidelines include recommended timelines for
Condensed outline of passenger vessel permit process
FIGURE COMPILED BY THE AUTHOR WITH DATA PROVIDED BY CANADA’S GUIDELINES FOR PASSENGER VESSELS OPERATING IN THE CANADIAN ARCTIC, TRANSPORT CANADA, REPORT NO. 13670E (OTTAWA: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA, 2017): 1–67.
4.1 Evaluating the Process
The most glaring issue with the permitting process is the length of time required to obtain all required permits and authorizations. As detailed in Transport Canada’s Guidelines, it may take vessel operators two years to obtain all required permits and approvals to conduct a voyage in the Canadian Arctic. Operators are instructed to initiate consultations with representatives from each Nunavut hamlet they hope to visit a minimum of 18 to 24 months before their intended voyage departure, which may include additional written permissions from hunter and trapper organizations.38 This is a critical first step in the
The logistics of obtaining community permissions represents an immediate kink in the process chain. Transport Canada’s Guidelines recommend that operators call communities, rather than email, due to the “technological limitations” within the communities.40 However, the logistics of contacting the community via telephone can also prove problematic. As one operator lamented, “I called [a community] every day for a month and finally got through and then still got yelled at when we showed up.”41 This experience may reflect a common human resource capacity issue in many remote northern communities. Residents have suggested that there is a high rate of turnover in community tourism positions owing to the seasonal nature of the job, which can make it difficult for operators to form sustainable relations with the communities.42 Transport Canada recommends that operators physically visit the communities to overcome this hurdle.43 This suggestion also proves impractical owing to the absence of transportation infrastructure along Canada’s Arctic coastline, which makes visiting these communities prohibitively expensive and time consuming.44 If vessel operators manage to successfully acquire all local permissions, they must still jump through a myriad of regulatory hoops until the date of their departure.
Permit and vessel reporting requirements vary, so the next challenge an operator encounters is to identify which acts, regulations and permit requirements are applicable to their vessel and voyage itinerary. Most federal and territorial permits pertaining to safety, environmental protection and commercial activities (e.g., business licenses) are mandatory for all passenger vessel operations, regardless of the destination or activities conducted. However, many permits and/or permissions, particularly local requirements, are dependent on the intended vessel route or voyage length. Additionally, entrance requirements for national and territorial parks, national wildlife areas and migratory bird conservatories vary based on the location of tourist activities and/or the number of visitors in attendance.45 To successfully navigate the permit system, the vessel operator must possess an intimate understanding of a litany of
Vessel operators must also identify each responsible authority to identify and fulfil all applicable requirements, but this task may also prove challenging. Aside from several tourism-related permit applications offered on the territorial government websites, and regulatory board applications, few other permits or license applications are digitized or located online.46 Consequently, operators must initiate contact with each organization to acquire its respective documentation or permit applications. In a previous research study, operators have described the experience of spending hours making phone calls, often being re-directed from one department, agency, or individual to the next, owing to the system-wide confusion that permeates each organization’s siloed activities.47 Transport Canada endeavoured to solve this problem by attaching a three-page list of contact information as an appendix item within its Guidelines.48 The contact information for the various local representatives are notably absent from this list, however, suggesting that operators must still conduct detective work to identify all applicable authorities.
Variances between community and Indigenous organization requirements contribute to uncertainties in the passenger vessel permitting process. In Nunavut, RIO s utilize the standardized NPC application template, however the RIO’s respective Community Lands and Resources Committees have established different translation requirements for various sections of the application.49 Consequently, operators must translate different portions of the NPC application into Inuktitut to satisfy each RIO’s requirements.50 The RIO s application processing timelines and service delivery standards also vary considerably. For example, the Qikiqtani Inuit Association often processes an application within two to four weeks, while the Kivalliq Inuit Association’s processing time averages five to six months.51
Redundancies are interwoven throughout the permitting process and undue administrative burdens flourish in the absence of interagency coordination.
Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance is further afflicted by intra-agency coordination failures. Some federal departments do not share vessel or voyage information between their own branches. For example, rather than submit an itinerary to a single point of contact within the RCMP, the vessel operator must contact each territorial RCMP detachment to discuss their voyage. This suggests the department duplicates its own efforts by obliging vessel operators to answer to the same lines of inquiry over and over again.55
Unnecessary administrative burdens emerge between governments owing to an overlap of jurisdictional responsibilities. For example, DFO regulates Canada’s fish stocks through fishing regulations and licenses, while various territorial departments manage non-residential fishing activities via sport fishing and angling permits.56 Regulatory requirements for the export of game and wildlife also transcend jurisdictions, resulting in redundant requirements. A federal CITES permit is required for all parts of endangered or threated species taken out of Canada (e.g., polar bears and narwhale); however, additional territorial certification and Wildlife Export Permits, as well as federal Marine Mammal Transportation Licenses, may be required to remove wildlife products from territorial jurisdiction.57 Multijurisdictional firearms permit requirements are also repetitive. Vessel operators must register any firearms carried on board with the RCMP.58 However, operators must also obtain a National Park Firearm Permit from Parks Canada, as well as Park Firearms
4.2 Evaluating the Service Results
A jurisdictional scan was conducted to contextualize the administrative burden placed on Canadian polar cruise operators, relative to the more streamlined permitting of Russia and Svalbard (Norway). However, some caution is due before comparisons are made between cruise tourism permitting systems owing to fundamental differences between each nation’s systems of government and Indigenous-state relations. Norway is a unitary state. The Norwegian Archipelago of Svalbard has a uniquely centralized administrative system, and its single incorporated community, Longyearbyen, has limited local authority.60 Moreover, Svalbard is not home to any Indigenous communities.61 Alternatively, Russia is a constitutional federation of semi-autonomous republics, yet it broadly functions as a unitary state.62 Russia’s twenty-six northern Indigenous communities are largely excluded from economic development planning, and the Northern Sea Route Administration (NSRA) does not consider the cultural impacts of passenger vessel operations on Russia’s northern Indigenous populations.63 Bearing in mind that Canada’s power-sharing arrangements
A comparison of each jurisdiction’s stated permit process time benchmarks, service delivery interfaces, and application requirements can be found in Table 14.1. As previously indicated, Transport Canada advises vessel operators to initiate pre-authorization requirements 18 to 24 months (or 78 to 104 weeks) in advance of their planned departure. In comparison, Svalbard (Norway) completes the cruise operator permit process within eight weeks.64 Alternatively, Russia’s NSRA is mandated to issue a permit decision within 12 working days from the date an application is received, although an analysis of the NSRA’s performance for the 2019 shipping season suggests the Administration often processes permit applications far quicker than their mandated service delivery standard.65
Comparison of Canada, Russia and Svalbard passenger vessel permitting
| Canada | Russia | Svalbard (Norway) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Processing time | 78–104 weeks | < 2 weeks | 8 weeks |
| Quantity of interface(s) | 27 windows - minimuma | Single windowb | Single window |
| Category of interface(s) | Phone and/or email Operators are also encouraged to physically visit remote communities to initiate consultations | Online | Online |
| Operator requirements | Submit 3000+ emails, 603 supporting documents (single operator’s experience)c | Submit a 2-page application electronically; attach international safety certificates and, if applicable, a copy of the icebreaking service contract within the electronic application form | Submit a 2-page application and a tour operator notification form electronically; attach international safety certificates within the electronic application form |
Based on an analysis of the permit inventory included in Transport Canada’s revised Guidelines (Appendix II), a cruise operator must contact a minimum of 27 organizations to obtain all mandatory permits and approvals; this assumes that the voyage is based exclusively in Nunavut, only includes one community stop-over, and one National Park visit. Source: Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 40–50.
While an application to transit the Northern Sea Route is submitted electronically to a single authority (the NSRA), vessel operators must negotiate icebreaking and pilotage agreements with a third party (generally the State Corporation ‘Rosatom’). However, only select vessel classes are mandated to acquire icebreaking and pilotage services. Source: Russian Federation Decree No. 1487 Rules of Navigation in the Water Area of the Northern Sea Route (passed 18 September 2020), 2–4, 12–13, http://www.nsra.ru/files/fileslist/137-en5894-2020-11-19_rules.pdf.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 74.
FIGURES COMPILED BY THE AUTHOR WITH DATA EXTRAPOLATED FROM OFFICIAL GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS AND VESSEL APPLICATIONS OF TRANSPORT CANADA, NORTHERN SEA ROUTE ADMINISTRATION, AND GOVERNOR OF SVALBARD
From an international competitiveness perspective, Canada’s circumpolar cruise tourism requirements are costly and labour intensive. Canada’s permit requirements vary considerably depending on the vessel and voyage itinerary, so it is difficult to estimate the average administrative burden placed on polar cruise tourism operators. However, in a previous research study, one operator lamented the need to submit over 3,000 emails and 603 documents to obtain all required pre-authorizations and permits for the 2016 cruise season.66 Another operator reported the need to hire either a full-time employee for a six-month period or a part-time employee year-round to acquire all necessary permits within a given season.67 While anecdotal, this suggests that it costs
4.3 Evaluating the Consequences
Canada’s burdensome permit requirements likely curtail the potential economic, social and cultural benefits northern communities derive from cruise tourism. The literature suggests that the northern cruise tourism sector stagnated due (in part) to the significant transaction costs imposed by the permit system.70 Regulatory impediments to the sector’s development likely have broader economic development implications because tourism can act as an engine of economic development, contributing to most service-sector businesses, including food and beverage, hospitality, outdoor adventure, transportation services and retail. The revenues communities receive from cruise tourism also funds social development. For example, the Government of Nunavut estimated that operators spent a little over CDN$677,000 in direct fees to access community services during the 2019 cruise season; a figure which excludes passenger spending and underestimates other economic benefits, such as the salaries of Inuit culturalists employed by cruise tourism companies.71 Communities reinvest much of these revenues directly into their local economies, generating social benefits such as employment and skills development opportunities.72 Beyond providing economic and social development opportunities, tourism contributes to the region’s cultural economy by providing new markets for Indigenous performers, artists and guides to earn a livable wage from their traditional skill sets.73 Consequently, cruise tourism
Promoting increased vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic is not without risks. Northern residents have raised a variety of concerns related to the potential negative impact of cruise vessels on the environment due to vessel pollution and garbage/sewage dumping, disruptions to wildlife and traditional Inuit hunting activities, and risks to public health and safety via passenger-introduced drugs, alcohol and infectious disease.74 Nunavut residents have also voiced frustrations that cruise visits provide too few financial benefits to communities.75 To wit, it is conceivable that some northern residents may appreciate Canada’s existing permit system as an administrative barrier which limits the number of vessel operators and cruise-based tourists visiting their communities. However, this chapter posits that the complexity of the permit system may unintentionally increase the risks associated with passenger vessel operations.
Complex regulatory regimes increase the risk of regulatory non-compliance.76 The complexity of existing passenger vessel permitting requirements may increase the risk of non-compliance when operators unintentionally fail to complete requirements—due to lack of awareness or comprehension of the requirements—or they intentionally choose not to owing to the costs of compliance.77 The risk of non-compliance may be more acute in the Canadian Arctic owing to
5 Options and Constraints
While it is evident that a multijurisdictional, intra- and interagency coordination mechanism is required to harmonize requirements and streamline service delivery, the appropriate scope of the coordination mechanism is less obvious. Academics and politicians alike have suggested that the establishment of a temporary interagency working group is all that is needed to streamline the permitting process.79 This suggestion ignores several criteria which ought to be factored into this public management problem, which includes the dynamic and complex external environment, the impending requirement to integrate information and communications technology (ICT) into national maritime service delivery, and the impetus for a re-allocation of responsibilities within the existing governance network. While the establishment of a temporary interagency working group may improve the symptoms of the problem (e.g., administrative redundancies), any improvements born from the working group’s efforts would likely be short-lived, as a temporary coordination measure will neglect to address the underlying systemic issues.
Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel (co-)governance bodies require a permanent coordination mechanism because they operate within a complex external environment. The adoption of a broad variety of policy frameworks and initiatives that intersect with the cruise tourism sector have downstream governance implications. For example, recent additions to the national marine policy framework, through initiatives like the Oceans Protection Plan and the Northern Low-Impact Shipping Corridors Initiative, may have operational
Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel (co-)governance bodies operate in an external environment that is as dynamic as it is complex. The highly globalized nature of the shipping industry contributes to much of this dynamism. The previous decades have been characterized by growing international efforts to harmonize the governance of national shipping operations to improve the efficiency of global trade and transport activities.82 As a result, International Maritime Organization (IMO) conventions and continuous international shipping harmonization activities now drive many national marine regulatory regimes.83 A brief glance at the Canadian Gazette reveals there have been several maritime regulatory overhauls and legislative amendments influenced by international conventions in recent years, including the safety and pollution prevention regulatory amendments following the implementation of the Polar
The dynamic and complex external environment underpins the challenge Transport Canada has encountered in developing accurate guidelines to assist vessel operators navigate the passenger vessel permit system. Transport Canada’s revised Guidelines cautioned operators about the document’s accuracy, warning that permit and permission requirements “can change frequently.”85 In fact, the Guidelines were out-of-date almost as soon as they were published, owing to an array of shifting stakeholder requirements. When the Guidelines were published in 2017, the Nunavut Land Use Plan had not yet been established, nor had the Qikiqtani Inuit Association’s land use fee structure, nor had the Inuvialuit Regional Corporation’s multiyear cruise ship management plan and community consultation requirements been published.86 Presently, Parks Canada is overhauling the National Marine Conservation Areas (NMCA) policy framework.87 Based on the public consultation documents, the pending NMCA reforms will likely intersect with Arctic passenger vessel operations through the establishment of a new NMCA maritime zoning framework, which includes new entrance requirements and fees.88 In other words, a whole new slew of permits, fees, pre-authorizations and other requirements are already absent from Transport Canada’s recently revised Guidelines. Without addressing the institutional factors which have shaped the existing permit system, Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance system will be chronically plagued by redundancies and unharmonized requirements.
The body of scholarship pertaining to ‘best practices’ for interagency ICT implementation is unanimous; organizations require standardized technology infrastructure, data requirements, processes and information channels before they can effectively adopt ICT.91 However, Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance embodies several of the major organizational impediments to successful ICT adoption, including structural fragmentation, poor communication between functional departments and meagre relationships between key internal stakeholders.92 Consequently, if we accept the common wisdom that large organizational networks require a high degree of continuous coordination to competently respond within complex external environments, and that a high degree of interagency alignment must occur before Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance system is capable of integrating ICT into its service delivery, then the establishment of a permanent coordination mechanism becomes a necessary stepping stone before Canada can establish a single-window permit system for polar passenger vessel operations.
6 Recommendation
Following on the above discussion, it is recommended that a federal ‘Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity’ be established within the Department of Transport portfolio. The specific organizational form or structure for this proposed ASD agency is outside the scope of this research, and would require further study. However, its purpose would be to serve as a client-centric umbrella organization, which could better coordinate the delivery of Arctic passenger vessel services between departments and across governments. To be clear, it is not recommended that this entity replace the existing regulatory authorities within the existing governance structure. Rather, that it be responsible for supplementing the client service delivery functions that have been chronically neglected under the existing Arctic passenger vessel governance framework.
The mandate for the Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity would be to promote an efficient, sustainable and safe Arctic cruise vessel tourism sector in support of Indigenous culture and local economies. The institution’s responsibilities would include the integration and ongoing harmonization of policies, permit procedures and administrative requirements. Furthermore, this entity could be responsible for the development of accurate information instruments (i.e., vessel operator guidelines) by virtue of its service functions. The service functions would include acting as an internal information and communication channel, whereby all policy, regulatory and service delivery changes within the Arctic passenger vessel governance network would be funnelled. Other internal information channel functions could include coordinating with
Most importantly, this new entity could foster collaborative partnerships to build capacity across the spectrum of stakeholders—including federal, territorial and local government departments, Inuit and community organizations, regulatory boards and private operators—to strengthen the economic and cultural management dimensions of Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance system. For example, this entity could improve cultural management functions by partnering with local stakeholders and offering a platform for Inuit to host cultural awareness training seminars for vessel operators. These seminars could replace Transport Canada’s current cultural management practice, which is the distribution of a single-page document to inform vessel operators of respectful cultural behaviour when visiting Nunavut.95 By providing a tangible platform for stakeholder collaboration, this entity could help foster relationships between cruise operators and communities, which would create a more sustainable relation-building framework than the current ad hoc practice.96 In short, an Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity
A likely criticism against the establishment of a new coordination institution is that the current volume of passenger vessel traffic in the Canadian Arctic does not warrant the costs of creating a new agency. However, Canada has a long tradition of establishing transport ASD mechanisms as policy instruments for nation-building.97 The department’s portfolio includes several ASD organizations, including the Canadian Port Authorities and the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation.98 The prevailing theory behind the establishment of these ASD agencies was to create more flexible and responsive organizational models, outside the traditional department structure, which could better cater to the needs of cross-sectoral and multi-jurisdictional users—including shipping interests, marine agencies, and provincial and federal jurisdictions—to serve as enhanced instruments for economic and regional development.99 Furthermore, the exorbitant inefficiencies produced by the existing governance model are not without cost. Recall that one operator reportedly submitted over 3,000 emails and 603 documents to obtain all permit requirements in 2016, and that many of these information exchanges were redundant. Multiply the enormous bureaucratic effort on the receiving end of those submissions by roughly 21 annual voyages, and it raises serious doubts whether the substantial human and financial resources expended through the current governance system are more cost-effective than the establishment of a small coordination agency.
The final argument in favour of establishing a new ASD mechanism to address Canada’s Arctic cruise shipping governance problem, is that such an entity could
There is also a risk that internal stakeholders, including the northern land claim and Inuit (co-)governance bodies, would not be amenable to the establishment of a centralized federal entity that meddles with their affairs. However, the Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity (as envisioned in this chapter) would not replace the legitimate resource management and environmental stewardship mandates of the northern land claim administrations, corporations, RIO s, or regulatory boards. Instead, it would serve as a beneficial resource for these entities by sharing information to support their functional management capacities and promoting awareness amongst industry of regional/local requirements. Moreover, the Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity could be designed to facilitate reconciliation through the inclusion of legislative provisions that included Inuit representatives within its governance structure. Arguably, designing the Entity’s governance structure to include representatives from each jurisdiction may help to mitigate potential resistance from internal stakeholders and foster future cooperation between the various departments and authorities.
From the federal perspective, there may be an open policy window to support an enhanced role for Inuit over the management Arctic shipping operations. Per Article 10 of the Tallurutiup Imanga NMCA Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA), Transport Canada has a mandate to “develop a Joint Arctic Maritime Management initiative in partnership with Inuit and other partners across Inuit Nunangat, including relevant federal departments, territorial governments and Inuit organizations to explore management of marine navigation matters within the Arctic” and to enhance communication with northern communities on marine vessel movements and navigation more broadly.100 While Article 10 of the IIBA is only applicable within the Tallurutiup Imanga NMCA, it would be logically consistent for the federal government to
7 Conclusion
Climate change is placing growing demands on Arctic States to command effective governance over polar shipping operations. Despite this, Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance framework suffers from systemic coordination failures. An evaluation of the permit system reveals an unduly complex, inefficient and costly abomination of administrative burden. Failure to streamline permitting requirements and improve client service delivery functions will limit the economic viability of the Arctic cruise tourism industry, increase the risk of non-compliance with permitting requirements, and squander the nation’s opportunity to support northern communities in their economic, social and cultural development.
It is recommended that an Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity be established under Transport Canada’s portfolio. The establishment of a permanent intra- and interagency multi-jurisdictional coordination mechanism is a necessary instrument to address the unique features of the Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance system, including its monumental quantity of multijurisdictional co-governance bodies, diverse array of interrelated regulatory functions, dynamic and complex external operating environment, and an impending requirement to incorporate ICT into national maritime service delivery. The Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity would promote horizontal integration of services between departments and, by virtue of its policy and service functions, and foster a vertical integration of services across governments. As a client-centric umbrella agency, an Arctic Passenger Vessel Coordination Entity would build on the capacity of government, community and industry stakeholders, improve the coordinated management of cruise tourism in the Canadian Arctic, and promote the economic and social development of a region that is long overdue for nation-building.
Ge Peng et al., “What Do Global Climate Models Tell Us about Future Arctic Sea Ice Coverage Changes?,” Climate 8:1 (2020): 15, https://doi.org/10.3390/cli8010015.
Michael Meredith et al., “Polar Regions,” in IPCC Special Report on the Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate, eds., H.-O. Pörtner et al. (Cambridge, UK and New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 203–320, at 205–206, https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/sites/3/2019/11/07_SROCC_Ch03_FINAL.pdf.
Forecasts suggest that the Northwest Passage will be the last region in the circumpolar Arctic to contain multiyear ice. Hazardous ice conditions, along with the Passage’s variable depth restrictions, will pose significant navigational challenges for many years to come. See Willy Østreng et al., “The Northeast, Northwest and Transpolar Passages in Comparison,” in Shipping in Arctic Waters A Comparison of the Northeast, Northwest and Trans Polar Passages, eds., Willy Østreng et al. (Berlin: Springer, 2013), 299–353, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-16790-4.
“First Passenger Ship Navigates Northwest Passage,” United Press International Archives, 12 September 1984, https://www.upi.com/Archives/1984/09/12/First-passenger-ship-navigates-Northwest-Passage/8564463809600/.
Emma Stewart et al., “Sea Ice in Canada’s Arctic: Implications for Cruise Tourism,” Arctic 60:4 (2007): 370–380.
Emma Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Margaret Johnston, “Risks and Opportunities Associated with Change in the Cruise Tourism Sector: Community Perspectives from Arctic Canada,” Polar Journal 5:2 (2015): 409.
Frédéric Lasserre and Pierre-Louis Têtu, “The Cruise Tourism Industry in the Canadian Arctic: Analysis of Activities and Perceptions of Cruise Ship Operators,” Polar Record 51:1 (2015): 24–38, at 28, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0032247413000508.
An alternative service delivery (ASD) agency provides public services via an organizational arrangement outside the traditional departmental structure. See “Assessing Alternative Service Delivery Arrangements,” Office of the Auditor General of Canada, accessed 12 May 2022, https://www.oag-bvg.gc.ca/internet/English/meth_gde_e_10195.html.
Stewart, Dawson and Johnston (n 6), pp. 403–427; Emma Stewart, Jackie Dawson and Dianne Draper, “Cruise Tourism and Residents in Arctic Canada: Development of a Resident Attitude Typology,” Journal of Hospitality and Tourism Management 18:1 (2011): 95–106; Jackie Dawson, Margaret Johnston and Emma Stewart, “The Unintended Consequences of Regulatory Complexity: The Case of Cruise Tourism in Arctic Canada,” Marine Policy 76 (2017): 71–78; Lasserre and Têtu (n 8), pp. 24–38; Adrianne Johnston, Margaret Johnston, Jackie Dawson and Emma Stewart, “Challenges of Arctic Cruise Tourism Development in Canada: Perspectives of Federal Government Stakeholders,” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce 43:3 (2012): 335–347.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 75.
The Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators (AECO) is an international association for expedition cruise operators operating in the Arctic that provides its voluntary membership with guidelines to promote passenger safety, environmental protection, and positive relationships with Indigenous populations. See AECO website at https://www.aeco.no/.
Lasserre and Têtu (n 8), p. 69; Dawson et al. (n 10), pp. 71–78.
Stewart et al. (n 6), p. 421.
Dawson et al. (n 10), pp. 72–73.
Id., 73.
Per section 4(1) of the Department of the Environment Act (RSC 1985, c E-10), the mandate of Environment and Climate Change Canada includes “the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment, including water, air and soil quality; renewable resources, including migratory birds and other non-domestic flora and fauna; water; meteorology; the enforcement of any rules or regulations … and; the coordination of the policies and programs of the Government of Canada respecting the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment.”
The term ‘vessel operators’ is used figuratively in this chapter to capture both operators and designated vessel representatives. See Transport Canada, Guidelines for Passenger Vessels Operating in the Canadian Arctic, TP 13670E (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2017), https://tc.canada.ca/sites/default/files/migrated/tp13670e.pdf.
Transport Canada, Guidelines for Passenger Vessels Operating in the Canadian Arctic, TP 13670 (Ottawa: Government of Canada, 2005).
Governance is not the exclusive purview of governments; industry associations like AECO certainly share a role in influencing their member’s behaviour. However, this chapter excludes industry stakeholders from its conceptualization of governance owing to its focus on a government/community-enabled permit regime.
This number is based on a count of organizations’ contact information attached as an appendix to Transport Canada’s revised Guidelines. However, the number of authorities involved in Arctic passenger vessel approvals exceeds 55 because the contact information for the numerous hamlets and hunter and trapper organizations are not included in the source material. Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 40–42.
Id., 38–39.
See “Institutional Framework” in chapter by Chircop in this volume.
Passenger vessels engage with each of these actors throughout pre-voyage planning activities. Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. III, 40.
Emma Stewart et al., “Cruise Tourism in a Warming Arctic: Implications for Northern National Parks,” Paper presented at Canadian Parks for Tomorrow: 40th Anniversary Conference, Calgary, AB, 8–11 May 2008.
Id., 4, 33–36, 43.
Environment and Climate Change Canada, “Trade in Protected Species: Roles and Responsibilities in Canada,” Government of Canada, last modified 4 July 2017, https://www.canada.ca/en/environment-climate-change/services/convention-international-trade-endangered-species/roles-responsibilities.html.
Department of Environment, “Wildlife Export,” Government of Nunavut, accessed 2 May 2022, https://gov.nu.ca/sites/default/files/export_brochure_4_eng.pdf; Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 35–36.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 38.
Id., 5.
Id., 56.
Id., 11.
Nunavut, Department of Economic Development and Transportation, Annual Tourism Report 2018–2019, Report no. 209-5(2) (Government of Nunavut, October 2019), 4, https://assembly.nu.ca/sites/default/files/TD-209-5(2)-EN-2018-2019-Annual-Report-Tourism.pdf.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 7.
Considering that multijurisdictional permit requirements must be pursued concurrently, permit interdependencies are relevant to note because they represent risk to the vessel operator. For example, if the operator is delayed in acquiring one interdependent requirement, such as written approval from applicable hunter and trapper organizations, then it may risk delaying territorial permits further down the permitting process chain. Furthermore, acquired federal and/or territorial permits are considered invalid until the cruise proposal is approved by the Nunavut Planning Commission and Nunavut Impact Review Board. Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 12, 48.
For example, the Guidelines recommend that vessel operators contact Parks Canada 6–8 months prior to intended departure to complete applicable permit and entry requirements. Id., 4.
The Government of Yukon did not participate in the Guideline’s revision, and in the absence of publicly available information for vessel operators, Yukon’s requirements are missing from Figure 14.1. Additionally, the Guidelines do not include recommended timelines to contact each authority. For example, vessel operators are instructed to provide the Canadian Forces with an itinerary, but the timeline to do so is not provided. Organizations with unspecified requirements are omitted from Figure 14.1. Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. iii, 30.
Id., 5–7, 11–14, 16, 48.
Id., 6, 16.
Id., 5.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 75.
Stewart, Dawson and Johnston (n 10), p. 418.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 9.
No communities in Nunavut are connected via an all-weather road. Consequently, flights into remote airstrips are often the only viable option to travel to a community.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 8.
Environment Yukon, “Welcome to Environmental eLicensing,” Government of Yukon, accessed 1 December 2021, https://env.eservices.gov.yk.ca/pub/Signin.aspx; Department of Economic Development and Transportation, “Documents – Tourism,” Government of Nunavut, accessed 27 December 2021, https://gov.nu.ca/edt/documents-tourism; “Nunavut Planning Commission,” accessed 1 September 2022, https://www.nunavut.ca/.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 75.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 40–42.
Id., 7.
Id.
Id.
Id., 1.
Id., 1–6, 35, 44.
Id., 6, 16, 30, 42, 45, 47.
Id., 3, 33.
Id., 36, 49–50.
Id., 49; “Wildlife Export” (n 28), pp. 1–2.
Arctic tour guides and vessel operators frequently carry firearms for protection in the event of a polar bear encounter. See “Polar Bear,” Guidelines, Association of Arctic Expedition Cruise Operators, accessed 26 December 2021, https://www.aeco.no/guidelines/polarbear/.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), pp. 43–45.
Svalbard’s administrative system is in accordance with the Svalbard Treaty. Treaty between Norway, The United States of America, Denmark, France, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Ireland and the British overseas Dominions and Sweden concerning the Archipelago of Spitsbergen (Svalbard Treaty), 9 February 1920, in force 14 August 1925, 2 LNTS 8–19.
Kathrine Nitter, “Svalbard’s Arctic Heritage is Threatened by Climate Change,” Norwegian University of Science and Technology, 3 February 2022, https://phys.org/news/2022-02-svalbard-arctic-heritage-threatened-climate.html.
Martin Russel, Russia’s Constitutional Structure: Federal in Form, Unitary in Function, European Parliamentary Research Service, Report no. 569035 (Brussels: EPRS, 20 October 2015), https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1335821/russias-constitutional-structure/1942565/.
In 2013, Russia established the Northern Sea Route Administration (NSRA) as a federal institution to organize navigation in the water area of the Northern Sea Route. Since its establishment, the NSRA has been tasked with improving national service delivery (including streamlining permit requirements) and ensuring Russia’s maritime governance is harmonized with international law. See Albert Buixadé Farré et al., “Commercial Arctic Shipping through the Northeast Passage: Routes, Resources, Governance, Technology, and Infrastructure,” Polar Geography 37:4 (2014): 308; Østreng et al. (n 3), p. 21.
“Notification of Travel Plans for Tour Operators in Svalbard,” Sysselmesteren på Svalbard, accessed 13 November 2021, https://skjema.no/sysselmesteren/Turoperator.
Analysis of the 2019 shipping season data reveals that NSRA’s average permit processing time, measured from the date the application was accepted for consideration to the date a permit decision was issued, was 0.6 days. See Russian Federation’s Decree No. 1487 Rules of Navigation in the Water Area of the Northern Sea Route (passed 18 September 2020), http://www.nsra.ru/files/fileslist/137-en5894-2020-11-19_rules.pdf; ‘Permissions for Navigation in the Water Area of the Northern Sea Route’, Northern Sea Route Administration, accessed 20 December 2021, http://www.nsra.ru/en/rassmotrenie_zayavleniy/razresheniya.html?year=2019.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 74.
Id., 75.
“Application for Admission and Enclosure to Application to Navigate in the Northern Sea Route Area,” Northern Sea Route Administration, accessed 15 November 2021, http://www.nsra.ru/en/rassmotrenie_zayavleniy/zayavlenie/f83.html.
“Vessel Questionnaire,” Notification, Insurance and Reporting Obligations, Governor of Svalbard, accessed 26 December 2021, https://www.sysselmesteren.no/en/forms/vessel-questionnaire; “Notification of Travel Plans” (n 64).
Lasserre and Têtu (n 8), p. 69; Dawson et al. (n 10), pp. 71–78.
Nunavut (n 33), p. 29.
“Communities Aim to Make Most of Cruise Ship Visits,” Nunavut News, 15 July 2019, https://www.nunavutnews.com/nunavut-news/communities-aim-to-make-most-of-cruise-ship-visits/.
While estimates vary, according to a 2017 report commissioned by Indigenous and Northern Affairs Canada, 26 percent of the Inuit population aged 15 years and older are engaged in the production of visual arts and crafts, and a further 8 percent report deriving a part-time income from their art. Despite the high concentration of artists in remote northern communities, local artists often live below the poverty line, owing to the lack of opportunities to get their product to market. See Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs Canada, “Impact of the Inuit Arts Economy,” Government of Canada, last modified 12 July 2017, https://www.rcaanc-cirnac.gc.ca/eng/1499360279403/1534786167549; Lee Huskey, Ilmo Mäenpää, and Alexander Pelyasov, “Economic Systems,” in Arctic Human Development Report: Regional Processes and Global Linkages, eds., Joan Nymand Larsen and Gail Fondahl (Copenhagen: Nordisk Ministerråd, 2014), 151–183, at 168, https://doi.org/10.6027/TN2014-567.
Emma Stewart et al. (n 10), pp. 95–106.
Jane George, “Canada’s Arctic Communities Unprepared for Cruise Ship Visits: Researchers,” Nunatsiaq News, 1 September 2011, https://nunatsiaq.com/stories/article/65674canadas_arctic_communities_unprepared_for_cruise_ship_visits/.
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), Reducing the Risk of Policy Failure: Challenges for Regulatory Compliance (Paris: OECD, 2000), 11–17, https://www.oecd.org/gov/regulatory-policy/1910833.pdf.
Id., 12; Gary Becker, “Crime and Punishment: An Economic Approach,” Economic Analysis of the Law: Selected Readings, ed., Donald A. Wittman (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 2008); Jon G Sutinen and K Kuperan, “A Socio-Economic Theory of Regulatory Compliance,” International Journal of Social Economics 26:1/2/3 (1999): 174–193.
OECD (n 76), pp. 11–17.
Dawson et al. (n 10), p. 78.
The Oceans Protection Plan initiative endeavours to conserve 30 percent of Canada’s marine and coastal areas by 2030. Department of Fisheries and Oceans, “Canada’s Oceans: Protecting and Conserving Marine and Coastal Areas,” Government of Canada, accessed 18 November 2021, https://www.dfo-mpo.gc.ca/oceans/conservation/plan/MCT-OCM-eng.html.
Crown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs, “Canada, Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. Reach a Significant Milestone towards Devolution in Nunavut with Signing of an Agreement-in-Principle,” News Release, 15 August 2019, https://www.canada.ca/en/crown-indigenous-relations-northern-affairs/news/2019/08/canada-nunavut-and-nunavut-tunngavik-inc-reach-a-significant-milestone-towards-devolution-in-nunavut-with-signing-of-an-agreement-in-principle.html; Manitoba Indigenous Reconciliation and Northern Affairs, “Inuit South of 60° Settlement Efforts,” presentation to Hudson’s Bay Regional Roundtable, 30 March 2017, accessed 16 May 2022, https://estatedocbox.com/Buying_and_Selling_Homes/103680137-Inuit-south-of-60-settlement-efforts.html.
Michael Roe, “Shipping, Policy and Multi-Level Governance,” Maritime Economics & Logistics 9:1 (2007): 84–87.
Michael Roe, “Multi-Level and Polycentric Governance: Effective Policymaking for Shipping,” Maritime Policy and Management 36:1 (2009): 39–41.
Transport Canada, “Canadian Marine Advisory Council (CMAC) Engagement Opportunity: Marine Safety and Security Regulations,” Government of Canada, last modified 25 October 2021, https://tc.canada.ca/en/marine/canadian-marine-advisory-council-cmac-engagement-opportunity-marine-safety-security-regulations.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 5.
Id., 6; Eilís Quinn, “Inuit Association in Canada’s Eastern Arctic to Levy Fees on Tourism Operators,” Eye on the Arctic, 15 October 2019, https://www.rcinet.ca/eye-on-the-arctic/2019/10/15/inuit-association-canada-arctic-to-levy-fees-on-tourism-operators-nunavut-cruises/; Inuvialuit Regional Corporation (IRC), Inuvialuit Settlement Region Cruise Ship Management Plan 2022–2025 (IRC, 2022), https://irc.inuvialuit.com/sites/default/files/ISR_Cruise_Ship_Management_Plan.pdf.
Parks Canada, “Protecting Canada’s Marine Heritage: Proposed Policy and Regulations for Canada’s National Marine Conservation Areas – Discussion Paper, May 2019,” Government of Canada, last modified 25 August 2020, https://www.pc.gc.ca/amnc-nmca/~/~/link.aspx?_id=3A4F49BAFA6B4D8B90CEFABDE86AB48C&_z=z.
Id.
Mikael Lind, “Do Maritime Authorities Have a Role in Digitalization of Shipping?,” Trans.Info, 14 April 2021, https://trans.info/de/do-maritime-authorities-have-a-role-in-digitalization-of-shipping-231825.
Id.
United Nations, Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (ESCAP), Guidelines on Establishing and Strengthening National Coordination Mechanisms for Trade and Transport Facilitation in the ESCAP Region (Bangkok: UN ESCAP, 2012), 24–25, https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/files/0%20-%20Full%20Report_12.pdf; Leslie Alexander Pal, Beyond Policy Analysis: Public Issue Management in Turbulent Times (Toronto: Nelson Education, 2014), 165, 251; S. Sharma and J. Gupta, “Transforming to E-Government: A Framework,” paper presented at 2nd European Conference on e-Government, Public Sector Times (2002), 383–390.
G. Aichholzer and R. Schmutzer, “Organizational Challenges to the Development of Electronic Government,” Proceedings 11th International Workshop on Database and Expert Systems Applications (London: IEEE Computer Society, 2000), 379–383.
UN ESCAP (n 91), pp. 20–22.
Cruise tourism data in the Canadian Arctic is collected independently by Parks Canada (park entrance counts), the Canadian Coast Guard (NORDREG traffic monitoring), and the territorial governments. No organization amalgamates or distributes this information into a useful public data set that would benefit all stakeholders. Instead, data remains within organizational silos. See “Revised Passenger Numbers for the Canadian Arctic,” Of Penguins and Polar Bears, last modified 29 May 2020, https://ofpenguinsandpolarbears.ca/revised-passenger-numbers-canadian-arctic/.
Transport Canada 2017 (n 18), p. 15.
Some passenger vessel (co-)governance bodies are attempting to bridge the coordination gap between government, industry and communities. In 2019, the Government of Nunavut signed two memorandums of understanding with AECO and the Indigenous Tourism Association of Canada (ITAC) to enhance public-private sector cooperation to grow cruise ship tourism in the territory. While such cross-sectoral coordination efforts are encouraging, the strategic development capacity of territorial, Indigenous and community governments are often limited by significant human and financial resource constraints. For example, Nunavut’s Economic Development Minister, David Akeeagok, was unable to respond to inquiries at Nunavut’s legislature on how his department was preparing for the return of the 2021/2022 cruise season, because the division responsible for cruise ships was not “fully staffed.” This circumstance is not an outlier; Nunavut’s annual Public Service Report (2021/22) reported a 30 percent vacancy rate across Nunavut’s public service. To wit, it appears unlikely that Canada’s Arctic passenger vessel governance coordination gaps can be adequately addressed without the participation and resource capacity of the federal government. See Courtney Edgar, “Nunavut Government Strikes New Tourism Partnerships,” Arctic Today, 22 April 2019, https://www.arctictoday.com/nunavut-government-strikes-new-tourism-partnerships/; Jane George, “Pond Inlet MLA Asks How Community Can Seek Benefits From Cruise Ship Traffic,” CBC, 14 June 2022, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/cruis-ship-traffic-pond-inlet-nunavut-tourism-1.6487168; Government of Nunavut, Public Service Annual Report 2021–2021 (Department of Human Resources, 2021), 10–11, https://www.gov.nu.ca/human-resources/documents/2020-21-public-service-annual-report.
Eric Mintz, Livianna Tossutti and Christopher Dunn, Canada’s Politics: Democracy, Diversity and Good Governance (Toronto: Pearson, 2014), 486–490.
Transport Canada, “The Transport Canada Portfolio,” Government of Canada, last modified 21 June 2019, https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/transport-canada-portfolio; Gregory J. Inwood, Understanding Canadian Public Administration: An Introduction to Theory and Practice (Toronto: Pearson, 2012), 140–141.
Transport Canada, “Canadian Port Authorities,” Government of Canada, last modified 7 October 2020, https://tc.canada.ca/en/corporate-services/policies/canadian-port-authorities; “SLSMC Management,” St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation, accessed 21 April 2022, https://greatlakes-seaway.com/en/about-us/slsmc-management/.
In 2017, the Governments of Canada and Nunavut and the Qikiqtani Inuit Association (QIA) entered negotiations for an Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement (IIBA) to support the establishment of the new Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area (NMCA) as is required by the Nunavut Land Claims Agreement. The IIBA was signed by all parties in August 2019. Article 10 of the IIBA deals with marine navigation. See Parks Canada, “Tallurutiup Imanga National Marine Conservation Area Inuit Impact and Benefit Agreement, Article 10: Marine Navigation,” Government of Canada, last modified 10 January 2020, https://www.pc.gc.ca/en/amnc-nmca/cnamnc-cnnmca/tallurutiup-imanga/entente-agreement#article-10.