• The historic two solitudes of the Arctic - Aboriginal and settler - are giving way to new relationships, in part because of the strengthening of the Aboriginal community through modern treaties. As these treaties bring a new look to governance in the Arctic, the institutions and organizations of the Euro-Canadian culture are adapting. This is especially so in the Canadian North where comprehensive land claim agreements - modern treaties - are breaking new ground almost daily and lead the world in resolving inter-societal conflicts. The Canadian experience demonstrates the emergence of a "new consciousness" amongst all Northerners, and indeed many other Canadians, as the process of building responsive and effective Aboriginal organizations and institutions, and with them strong linkages to all sectors of northern society, moves forward. The Canadian approach is inspiring other circumpolar societies where Aboriginal people seek greater measures of self-determination and self-reliance. The example of the role that the vision of Nunavut played for the Canadian Inuit is helping Aboriginal people elsewhere to find their own visions for overcoming the despair and apathy that often threaten their communities. Modern treaty making moves us beyond merely the affirmation of rights and frameworks for assimilation. It provides for the design and construction of increasingly self-reliant and self-determining societies which lend a vibrancy to the whole society - Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.

• Treaty-making is having a profound impact on all aspects of governance. It promotes a level of competence at the community and regional level that is giving rise, as we noted previously, to imaginative sustainable development initiatives, partly because the treaties themselves contain many of the elements of sustainability. Canadian treaty-making is the engine of "upward guidance"; innovations in governance are leading to better solutions to many issues. In recognition of this the CWG believes that a framework for Canadian foreign policy for the circumpolar Arctic should reflect the regional and sub-regional realities and the visions they bring for the future. This means among other things, less "top down" governance.

• While the CWG finds much to commend in modern Canadian treaty--making arrangements, it is quick to point out that the very newness of it all carries with it a kind of fragility. Expectations are high, capacities are limited and evaluations of efforts to date are needed. What would be timely now is an examination of the Canadian treaty-making experience in re-structuring governance and promoting sustainability, and all of this considered further in terms of its applicability to the broader circumpolar arena.

• In Canada, territorial and federal governments are negotiating the devolution of powers in several policy sectors. Some funds from the European Union are, in some cases, being routed directly to Northern Scandinavian regional governments, by-passing entirely the national governments.

• The emergence of the Northern Forum as a player on the circumpolar scene is further evidence of the rise of regional and sub-regional interests, connecting east to west, to promote shared interests. Other contributions being made by sub-national organizations are seen in sustainable development agendas for the North. To date no national level government has put forward such an agenda, but a number of northern organizations have, including Inuit Circumpolar Conference, the Saami Council, the Northern Forum, and the State of Alaska. One of the key challenges here is to design and implement rules, practices and technologies that promote, protect, and enhance sustainable development. In education, initiatives such as the Arctic Council's feasibility study into the University of The Arctic, a virtual institute of higher learning, which is being coordinated by Outi Snellman of the University of Lapland and the circumpolar Universities Association, could become a powerful tool in teaching the processes of sustainability.

• The impacts of human activities, particularly industrial development, around the globe continue to affect daily life in the Arctic. The efforts of anti-harvesting and animal rights groups still threaten livelihoods and cultures throughout the Arctic. Industrial contaminants continue to find their way into Arctic ecosystems and constitute serious public health and environmental issues. Yet all to often, regional and sub-regional institutions, a number of which are Aboriginal, do not have a voice in international forums. For example, ICC has only observer status at the LRTAP negotiations on a POPs protocol. Exceptions to this include the re-negotiation of the Migratory Birds Convention (MBC) between Canada and the United States and the Rio Conference on the global environment. In the case of the bilateral negotiations on the MBC, Canada included three Aboriginal people as members of the negotiating team, which reflected both their constitutionally guaranteed rights and the knowledge they brought to the discussions. In the case of Rio, indigenous peoples from around the world including the circumpolar Arctic were a part of the multilateral discussions and negotiations. Aboriginal and northern governments were not party to the negotiations on GATT, NAFTA, or WTO. Yet it is the effects of these latter arrangements that impact on life in the Arctic. The CWG urges Canada to support the United Nations Working Group on Indigenous peoples in their efforts to enhance indigenous cultures and economies.

• The CWG supports Recommendations 8, 9, and 31 in the Standing Committee report inasmuch as they provide for significant roles for Aboriginal, regional and sub-regional organizations in the affairs of the Arctic Council and national policy making processes.