Documents on Canadian External Relations: The Arctic,1874–1949 by Janice Cavell

Reviewed by: Shelagh D. Grant (sdawng@bell.net), MA, DLitt, Adjunct Faculty, Canadian Studies Department, Trent University

The Documents on Canadian External Relations (DCER) series, which begins with the establishment of Canada’s Department of External Affairs in 1909, has proved to be an invaluable resource for serious scholars. With a volume or two assigned to each year, they not only place a subject in the context of other events preoccupying the government’s attention, but provide key names and locations for further research.

The newest addition, The Arctic, 1874–1949, follows a similar format but with notable differences. Instead of being organized by subject, the documents are listed chronologically in six sections. The editor states that this “volume attempts to cover all significant episodes in the development of Arctic policy up to 1949” (xii), yet most, if not all, documents relate to only one aspect of policy: that of acquiring, securing, and maintaining Canada’s title to the Arctic mainland and archipelago. “Arctic Sovereignty” might have been a more appropriate title.

As noted in the introduction (x), this volume also differs from others in the series in that the documents were obtained from a wide variety of archival sources. As a result, the selection of appropriate material must have required a herculean effort. Dr. Cavell and her staff should be congratulated.

Unfortunately, however, this volume is not the “stand-alone” authority that it might have been on Arctic policy—or even Arctic sovereignty—partly because of the paucity of documents from 1940 to 1949, especially the post-war years. The editor notes this discrepancy and explains that although the subject was fully covered in volumes seven to fifteen in the regular DCER series, “reprinting from the earlier DCERs is not feasible owing to the very large number [of] important documents in the existing volumes” (xi). Instead, these documents are simply listed in an appendix to part six. This decision seems illogical, and does a disservice to young scholars, especially when this volume contains less than two-thirds as many documents as volume thirteen in the regular series. As many historians have discovered, ³ the extensive US military activities in the Canadian Arctic during World War II and the post-war years created a number of challenges to the government’s ability to retain full control of Canada’s sovereign authority. The fact that senior politicians and bureaucrats succeeded should be celebrated, not ignored or minimized.

There are other omissions of key documents. At the time of Confederation, Canada had no lands in the Arctic or Sub-Arctic, yet the book begins in 1874, with no attempt to explain the circumstances and concerns leading to Canada’s annexation in 1870 of Rupert’s Land and the North-Western Territory, except for a footnote (xiii, n.4). These lands included a large portion of Canada's Arctic mainland.

More curious is the absence of the W.F. King reports (1904–1905), even though a letter to King from Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior, appears as doc. 128, requesting an “exhaustive report” on the title to the Arctic islands. At the time, King was considered a legal expert on boundaries, having served as Canadian head of several boundary commissions, and a member of the Joint High Commission in 1898–1899. Not only did he assist Sifton in preparing the Canadian legal case for the Alaskan Boundary Tribunal, but the two men had discussed concerns about the Arctic islands on board ship to London. ⁴ Although King’s report was presented initially as a draft in January 1904, followed by a final version in May, and published in 1905, it does not appear here in any form, despite the many references to it in subsequent documents. Whether accurate or not, the report not only influenced Arctic policy, but provided the impetus for the Laurier government to authorize four expeditions to the Arctic islands from 1904–1911 to officially lay Canada’s claim to the remote archipelago.

A more serious omission is the lack of documents on the origins and early years of the Advisory Committee on Northern Development (ACND, 1947–1949) which reported directly to cabinet. The minutes of the first five meetings in particular reflect the degree to which Arctic sovereignty concerns directed the discussion. Without the minutes and related correspondence, we have no idea of the key issues, the role played by Hugh L. Keenleyside who chaired the committee, or the opinions of officials in the Privy Council Office, External Affairs, Transport, Health and Welfare, the Chiefs of Staff, and the Canadian chair of the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. Although these documents are available in another collection, ⁵ this only emphasizes why they should be included here.

Of particular importance were the minutes of the second meeting of the ACND held on 1 June 1948, which reported discussion on the need for an authoritative report on Canada’s Arctic sovereignty. The committee agreed that External Affairs and Mines and Resources would each prepare background material, and with approval of cabinet, Keenleyside as chair of the ACND would approach an appropriate outsider with recognized authority to compile the material into an official report. ⁶ The outcome was the report on “Canadian Sovereignty in the Arctic” by Vincent C. MacDonald, dean of the Law School at Dalhousie University, Halifax (doc. 572). Had Keenleyside’s covering letter to those who received the report been included, we would learn that the ACND “had to classify it as ‘secret’ because of certain references in it.” ⁷ While the report affirmed that the title was secure at that time, it also pointed to potential problems.

Lack of attention to detail suggests this publication might have been hurried into production. Some maps were missing dates (1, 2, 3); the photograph of A.C. Burgess is smeared; and photos of individuals include their name and that of the photographer, but no description of their position or importance, as is included in other DCER books, such as volume thirteen.

These comments do not dispute the importance of this book, only to demonstrate that it could have been so much better.