Pierre Poilievre’s announcement in Iqaluit that under a Conservative government Canada will build a permanent military base in the Arctic, and order two more heavy icebreakers, had very deliberate echoes with the defence policy of his predecessor as Conservative leader, Stephen Harper.
Nearly 20 years ago, Harper grafted onto an issue that was considered a curiosity by his opponents: militarizing the Canadian Arctic.
Canada had a choice when it came to defending its sovereignty in the North: “either we use it or lose it,” he said on one of his annual trips to the region in 2007.
His government intended to “use it” and indicated a “real, growing, long-term presence” in the Arctic by announcing plans to refurbish a deep-water port on a former mining site at Nanisivik in Nunavut in addition to ordering up to eight “ice-capable” Arctic patrol ships.
While five of the patrol ships have been delivered to the Royal Canadian Navy by Irving Shipyards in Halifax, not much remains of Harper’s legacy project. Nanisivik, which was meant to open in 2015, is a decade behind schedule, and the enthusiasm for “using” the North waned, as other priorities emerged.
But Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine shook the Trudeau government’s sense of complacency.
“What was a relatively benign threat suddenly became an existential threat,” said Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, a retired Royal Canadian Navy officer and ex-Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff.
As Poilievre put it, our safety and trade with the United States requires that Canada control its North.
Given the noises being made by President Donald Trump, who said on Sunday that Canada can no longer depend on the U.S. for military protection, Poilievre’s timing was impeccable.
The reality is that Ottawa has already awoken from a decade of slumber when it comes to the Arctic. The defence-policy update released last year — Our North, Strong and Free — redirected Canada’s focus from expeditionary ventures overseas to defending the homeland.
Now we find ourselves legitimately called out for our lack of commitment and action
Vice-Admiral Mark Norman
Norman said that represented a major cultural shift for the military, which had for decades concentrated almost exclusively on large expeditionary capabilities as part of NATO.
The Trudeau government had already reached agreement with the Biden administration to contribute $29 billion over 20 years to modernize the North American Aerospace Defence Command, paying for two of six Arctic radar installations and building infrastructure such as hangars and runways to allow the new F-35 fighter jet fleet to operate in the North.
Defence Minister Bill Blair has committed to up to 12 submarines to replace the four aging Victoria-class subs and has mused about the need to develop underwater surveillance capabilities in the Arctic (without attaching any funding to either project).
At last July’s NATO summit, Canada, the U.S. and Finland agreed to collaborate on the production of polar icebreakers. Canada already has orders in place for two icebreakers for the Coast Guard. Poilievre’s commitment would be in addition to those. He has promised to make the existing facility in Iqaluit into a permanent military base, allowing the new Poseidon -8 surveillance aircraft to operate from there. The Conservative leader further said he would double the number of Canadian Rangers who are active in the North.
The commitments would be paid for by making “drastic” cuts in foreign aid — a promise he should reconsider in light of the Trump administration’s funding freeze for USAID. Even maintaining aid budgets would purchase Canada a great deal of goodwill around the world in these ungenerous times.
The problem with many of Canada’s pledges of new equipment in the North is that the Russians and Chinese may have taken advantage of their absence by the time they are delivered.
Russia has established Arctic deep-water ports, complete with military icebreakers and airfields with SU-34 bombers. It has also submitted documentation with the UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf that essentially claims the entire Arctic Ocean.
China has three icebreakers already operating in the Arctic, in co-operation with the Russians, and the two countries have signed a joint communiqué to develop shipping routes and polar ship technology.
Canada’s hold on the Arctic is, in the words of former defence chief Wayne Eyre, “tenuous” — and it is likely to become more so with Trump in office.
In his first term in office, Trump proposed buying Greenland and dismissed as illegitimate Canada’s claim that the Northwest Passage is an internal waterway.
The language Trump is using has provoked a visceral reaction in Canada.
“Why are we protecting another country?” he asked on Fox News on Sunday.
But, as Norman points out, the president is calling for this country to do what it should have done a long time ago.
“When you take your foot off the gas, you run out of momentum. Now we find ourselves legitimately called out for our lack of commitment and action.”
He said the moves Poilievre announced are steps in the right direction.
Iqaluit is a pre-existing hub, even if it is a long way from the far North and has a shallow port. “It’s the best of a not-great set of options,” Norman said.
“(But) we have to act strategically, like a serious country.”
The consequences of not doing so would leave Canada exposed.
Norman said he is concerned that Trump might take a wrecking ball to NORAD, in the same manner he has disrupted so many other existing arrangements.
That would leave this country scrambling to create its own capabilities.
We are a long way from the days when Ronald Reagan visited Ottawa in 1987 and Brian Mulroney raised the issue of American encroachment in the Northwest Passage.
An accord was eventually reached under which the U.S. agreed to ask permission and Canada agreed to say yes.
Such co-operation seems almost quaint in today’s antagonistic environment.
But there are good reasons why the U.S. and Canada are natural allies in continental defence.
“The reality is, we’re the buffer between them and the Russians, and we’ve used that to our advantage,” Norman said. “This is not about American generosity, it’s about a legitimate sense of military practicality.”
If Canada’s claims in the region are backed with hard power, Trump should be as placated as he is ever going to be.
Get more deep-dive National Post political coverage and analysis in your inbox with the Political Hack newsletter, where Ottawa bureau chief Stuart Thomson and political analyst Tasha Kheiriddin get at what’s really going on behind the scenes on Parliament Hill every Wednesday and Friday, exclusively for subscribers. Sign up here.