Bernauer Warren M 2018 Phd.Pdf (1.493Mb)
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
EXTRACTIVE HEGEMONY IN THE ARCTIC: ENERGY RESOURCES AND POLITICAL CONFLICT IN NUNAVUT, 1970-2017 WARREN BERNAUER A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY GRADUATE PROGRAM IN GEOGRAPHY YORK UNIVERSITY TORONTO, ONTARIO October 2018 © Warren Bernauer, 2018 Abstract This dissertation explains how Nunavut’s government and Inuit organizations have come to support an economy based on extraction and consent to especially controversial forms of energy extraction. To this end, it examines conflicts over energy resource extraction – specifically uranium mining in the Kivalliq region and oil and gas extraction in the Qikiqtani region – from 1970 until the present. It uses the concept of hegemony as a framework to analyze these conflicts and their implications for the relationship between Inuit and the mining industry. The cases I examined show that the Canadian state responded to Inuit resistance to uranium and hydrocarbon extraction with a series of processes and mechanisms – including environmental assessment, land use planning, land claims, and the legal discourse of Aboriginal rights – which were structured to persuade Inuit to consent to an economy based on extraction. These mechanisms and processes all imposed economic compromises between Inuit and extractive capital. These compromises involved material sacrifices on the part of capital and served as enticements for Inuit to consent to extraction. Environmental assessment, planning, land claims, and Aboriginal rights also performed the ideological function of depoliticizing extraction. By providing depoliticized forums for discussing proposed extraction, they further facilitated the development of alliances between extractive capital and various institutions and social groups in Nunavut. These findings have important implications for scholarly debates about Canadian colonialism, environmental assessment, land claim agreements, and the duty to consult. ii Acknowledgements I would not have been able to complete this dissertation without the assistance and support of many people. My supervisor, Robin Roth, provided ongoing encouragement, support, critical feedback, and patience throughout my time in the doctoral program. My supervisory committee, Anna Zalik and Gabrielle Slowey, likewise provided encouragement and critical feedback on draft versions of this document. The members of my examination committee, Frances Abele, Stefan Kipfer, and Elizabeth Lunstrum, provided thoughtful comments and feedback that have improved the quality of this work significantly. Several other scholars also discussed and commented on draft versions of this document, including Peter Kulchyski, Chris Trott, and Lori Hanson. I owe an especially large thank you to Jack Hicks for mentoring me in environmental assessment interventions, helping me identify and access key documents, and commenting on draft versions of my dissertation. My work has also benefitted from conversations with other faculty and graduate students at York University, including Raju Das, Valerie Preston, Alex Levant, Tyler Shipley, Peter Braun, Laura Lepper, Nathan Prier, David Hugill, William Payne, Megan Youdelis, Katie MacDonald, Ava Lightbody, and Brandon Laforest. I have also benefitted from conversations with scholars from other universities, including Emilie Cameron, Frank Tester, Shari Fox, and Lawrence Deane. Several employees of government departments, co-management boards, and non-governmental organizations also took the time to discuss my research with me, including Mitch Campbell, Leslie Wakelyn, Monte Hummel, Chris Debicki, Jessica Wilson, Alex Speers-Roesch, and Farrah Khan. I owe a very large debt of gratitude to the many Nunavut Inuit who assisted me with my preliminary research. Many people fed me, housed me, took me on the land, and discussed my research with me, including Hilu Tagoona, Atuat Tagoona, Jalen Tagoona, Hugh Ikoe, Susan Toolooktook, Richard Aksawnee, Paula Hughson, Hugh Kalluk, Timothy Tunguaq, Sandra Inutiq, Clayton Tartak, Moses Aupaluktuk, David Ford, Cheryl Cook, Angela Cook, David Toolooktook, Ivan Quinangnaq, and Leah Muckpah. I owe a very special thank you to two Nunavummiut. Joan Scottie has spent a considerable amount of time teaching me about the history of her community’s resistance to uranium mining and mentoring me to work with Inuit hunters and Elders. Jerry Natanine likewise spent a great deal of time explaining his community’s perspectives on oil and gas extraction. ma’na/qujannamiik/thank you iii Table of Contents Abstract ii Acknowledgements iii Table of Contents iv List of Figures vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1 1.1 Nunavut Inuit 5 1.2 Extractive Hegemony 9 1.3 Methods 15 1.4 Literature Review 19 1.5 Chapter Overview 23 Chapter 2: Colonialism and Extraction in Nunavut 28 2.1 Qallunaat and Colonization 28 2.1.1 Initial Incursions 32 2.1.2 The Canadian State 33 2.1.3 Intensive State Interventions 35 2.1.4 Centralization, Colonial Power, and Primitive Accumulation 38 2.1.5 The New Extractive Economy: Mineral and Energy Resources 40 2.1.6 Resistance 42 2.2 Forging a New Relationship? 44 2.2.1 The Legal Doctrine of Aboriginal Rights 44 2.2.2 Modern Treaties and the Nunavut Agreement 46 2.3 The Extractive Economy Today: Colonial Continuities 51 2.3.1 Colonialism: Outdated Metaphor or Contemporary Reality? 53 2.3.2 External Control 55 2.3.3 Extraction and the Subsistence Economy 57 2.3.4 Geographic Distribution of Wealth 60 2.4 Limits to Extraction: Capitalism, Crises, and Uneven Development 66 2.4.1 Extractive Economies and Economic Crises 66 2.4.2 Capital Mobility and Investment Strikes 68 2.4.3 Nunavut and the Race to the Bottom 72 2.5 Conclusions 74 iv Chapter 3: Hegemony, The State, and Depoliticizing Ideologies 76 3.1 Hegemony 76 3.2 Hegemony and The State 81 3.3 Hegemony and Depoliticization 85 3.3.1 Speech and Voice 85 3.3.2 Instrumental Reason: Means and Ends 86 3.3.3 Anti-Politics and Rendering Technical 88 3.3.4 Post Politics and The Post Political 91 3.4 Summary 94 Chapter 4: Establishing Hegemony I – Uranium in the Kivalliq (1970-1993) 96 4.1 Baker Lake Confronts Uranium Exploration 96 4.1.1 Petitions and the Baker Lake Study 98 4.1.2 Hamlet of Baker Lake v Minister of Indian Affairs 102 4.1.3 Caribou Protection Measures 104 4.2 Urangeselleschaft’s Proposed Kiggavik Mine 106 4.3 Conclusions 112 Chapter 5: Establishing Hegemony II – Hydrocarbons in the Qikiqtani (1970-1993) 115 5.1 Qikiqtani Inuit Protest Oil and Gas Exploration 115 5.1.1 Exploratory Drilling in Davis Strait: 119 5.1.2 Exploratory Drilling in Lancaster Sound 121 5.2 Qikiqtani Inuit Confront Hydrocarbon Extraction 128 5.2.1 The Polar Gas Pipeline 129 5.2.2 The Arctic Pilot Project 132 5.2.3 The Beaufort Sea Environmental Assessment 136 5.2.4 The Bent Horn Oil Project 138 5.3 Conclusions 143 Chapter 6: Entrenching Hegemony – The Nunavut Agreement and the Politics of Extraction 145 5.1 Land Ownership and Hegemony 145 5.2 Co-Management and Hegemony 151 5.3 Conclusions 155 v Chapter 7: Reproducing Hegemony I – Uranium in the Kivalliq (1993-2017) 156 7.1 Uranium Policy in Nunavut 156 7.1.1 Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated Supports Uranium Mining 158 7.1.2 Government of Nunavut Supports Uranium Mining 161 7.1.3 Nunavummiut Makitagunarningit 162 7.1.4 Government of Nunavut Public Forums on Uranium Mining 164 7.2 AREVA’s Proposed Kiggavik Uranium Mine 168 7.2.1 Land Use Plan Conformity 168 7.2.2 Screening 170 7.2.3 Scoping 171 7.2.4 Environmental Impact Statement 172 7.2.5 Public Hearings 174 7.2.6 Final Report 177 7.2.7 Federal Government Decision 179 7.3 Conclusions 180 Chapter 8: Reproducing Hegemony II – Hydrocarbons in the Qikiqtani (1993-2017) 183 7.1 Oil and Gas Policy in Nunavut 183 7.2 Seismic Surveys in Lancaster Sound 186 7.2.1 Nunavut Impact Review Board Screening 187 7.2.2 Government of Nunavut Decision 189 7.2.3 Qikiqtani Inuit Association v Canada 191 7.3 Seismic Surveys in Baffin Bay and Davis Strait 193 7.3.1 National Energy Board Assessment 194 7.3.2 Hamlet of Clyde River v TGS-NOPEC Geophysical Company (Federal Court of Appeal) 298 7.3.3 Clyde River (Hamlet) v Petroleum Geoservices Inc. (Supreme Court of Canada) 202 7.4 Conclusions 205 Chapter 9: Conclusions 207 9.1 Assessment and Planning as Hegemonic Strategy 207 9.2 Hegemony and Regulatory Capture 211 9.3 Land Claims as Hegemonic Strategy 215 9.4 Aboriginal Rights and Hegemony 217 9.5 The Geography of Hegemony 219 9.6 Conclusions 222 References 224 Appendix: List of Acronyms and Abbreviations 255 vi List of Figures 1.1 Map of Inuit Nunangat 6 1.2 Communities and Administrative Regions of Nunavut 8 2.1 Proportion of Inuit Employees in Mining and Exploration (2016) 61 2.2 Skill Level of Positions Held by Inuit at Meadowbank Mind (2015/2016) 61 2.3 Proportion of Permanent and Temporary Workers at Meadowbank Mine (2016) 62 2.4 Anticipated Distribution of Rent for Meadowbank Expansion 63 4.1 The Kiggavik Project 106 5.1 Locations of Significant Exploration in the Qikiqtani Region in the 1970s 117 vii Chapter One Introduction In the 1970s and 1980s, Nunavut’s1 Inuit organizations were very critical of the federal government’s plans to develop the North with extractive industries. Groups like the Baffin Island Regional Inuit Association (BRIA), the Keewatin Inuit Association (KIA), the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada (ITC), and the Inuit Circumpolar Conference (ICC) were especially concerned with the prospects of the extraction of uranium, oil, and natural gas. These organizations consistently opposed proposals to explore for and extract energy resources in Nunavut. During this period, the Inuit political leadership clearly saw the oil, gas, and uranium industries as political opponents, or adversaries.