Let's Talk about Part II of the Conservative Arctic Strategy

The Conservative Party has released Part II of their Arctic Security Strategy, something they promised a few weeks ago but many seemed to have forgotten. The Conservatives had made it clear there was more coming, and I was worried they had changed their mind.

I waited till the debates were over as well to do this, mainly in case anything cool came from it. Of course the total defence talk was about two minutes tonight, unsurprising.

The fact is that, while many have a renewed interest on our defence and sovereignty is seen as a concern, the topic remains taboo, and to those up top remains a minor discrepancy among ahist of other issues everyone would rather speak about.

We did get one thing though, confirmstion on the Conservative timelien for 2%, and oh boy, its something.

Anyways, there isnt much to unpack here overall, Conservative announcements tend to be smaller overall than Liberal ones. This is primarily more of the same, if you can believe that, but Let's look into it first. What do the Tories promise:

• Pierre confirmed at tonight's debate that the Tories would reach 2% spending in 2030, however, if Trump signs a new FTA with Canada, that money will be used to help speed up that timeline.

• Upgrade the Forward Operating Location in Inuvik to full base status (CFB Inuvik) to host fighter jets and Husky tankers.

• Procure a fleet of Airborne Early Warning and Control (AWACS) aircraft to increase radar surveillance and command capabilities in Arctic skies.

• Build the Arctic Security Corridor, a 600 km all-season road from Yellowknife to Grays Bay, also including funding and upgrades to the Port of Grays Bay.

• Establish a new Canadian Army reserve unit in Whitehorse and restore Operation NANOOK to its full strength, as under the previous Conservative government.

• Construct a new Arctic Naval Base in Churchill, Manitoba, to support Canada’s growing fleet of polar icebreakers

Of course keen observers will note that quite a few of these are very familiar. AWACS aircraft and a Reserve unit in Whitehorse are not new. Both were promised by the previous Liberal government last.

Of course we’ve been using AEW for our terminology, but they remain the same. There is no difference of that two. I am happy to see them commit, dont get me wrong, I for one support the AEW project to my fullest.

The rest of the main announcement is all infrastructure based, announcing another new base in Inuvik, a naval base in Churchill, and support for an expanded Grays Bay initiative.

Inuvik would be the second such base promised, along with Iqaluit. There were, of course, no real details given, but thats expected, nor was it given the same two-year timelinenthat Iqaluit was hyped up with.

Funny enough, the presser mentioned that Inuvik would protect the EASTERN entrance to the NWP, which is weird to put there given, you know, the placement, but I assume it is a typo.

Anyways, let's get one thing out of the way. I love the Arctic Security Corridor, and I am very happy to see someone jump on something like this. It will be costly, and extremely difficult, but these kinds of major connections are needed, especially as the ice road network the territories have come to rely on become more and more constrained.

Its best to remember that, while climate change might not make shipping in the NWP easier, it does make the daily lives of many communities far more difficult. This being a chief example.

Arounf 10,000km of ice roads connect indigenous and remote communities in the north, and already dozens are facing insecurity and emergencies as the warmer weather shortens the operational season, or in some cases, destroys their viability entirely.

By 2050, a vast amount of these ice roads could be either constrained or rendered entirely useless for the majority of the traditional season. We already see the effect this is happening on dozens of communities in Manitoba, along James Bay, and across the Mackenzie, which itself is dealing with historically low water levels that just last year forced the cancellation of sealift to several communities.

When both of these come to head? The only available option in airlift, which is unviable for many communities, both in terms of expense and logistics.

It is a crisis, an ongoing crisis that, while this won't fix, and while it wont help many, does set a spine to build around, a province spanning road network that can.provide future growth opportunity to other communities.

Ive often said that Sovereignty is a matter of integration, where the lands and people up North feel as close to us as anything from Vancouver to St. John. That includes defence, but also economic, energy, finance, commerce. All of it. You can't skip one. You can't pick. You need all of them to come together.

The Arctic Security Corridor links Grays Bay to the rest of the country, and in turn starts the process of integrating the territories more closely to the rest of Canada.

On that note however, we do have two other promises here related to infrastructure, ones that are far more complex in my opinions of them, but let me start with Inuvik.

Let me say, on this as I did with Iqaluit. I do appreciate the effort to want to establish new infrastructure into the Arctic, much needed upgrades.

Ignoring the bold promises that Iqaluit has been given with it's two year timeline. I do agree that it is far easier to upgrade existing infrastructure over building new. Both Inuvik and Iqaluit fall under that banner.

However there is the people favtor involved here, as well as the cost-benefit. This is hard to talk about, as we have zero vision to what these bases, nor the Liberal NOSH will fully look like? Establishing two new bases in the Arctic will be difficult manpower wise, as both are far from lucrative places, and I imagine tough sells to the average person to go.

I believe this is something I want to wait for the platforms to drop, to see if there is more info there, before comparing the strategies. I should note that the Conservatives have also committed to other upgrades similar to the NOSH policy for other locations, but haven't given full details.

Of course the other promised development is bound to capture the interest of far more people. The promise of a Naval Base in Churchill has long been on the minds of people, far before my time, before everyone's time. Its been a lingering debate for decades, the concept of a base adjacent to the Arctic, but not truely in the Arctic, taking advantage of the Hudson Bays link to the wider NWP.

This is something that has been fiercely debated by people far smarter than me. Of course the history of HMCS/CFS Churchill has long been a call of what could have been had we not abandoned in 68.

Of course, I have a personal connection to the idea, being a proponent of development in the Bay, and an active member of several projects, including a major concept in Moosonee, I have a vested interest im such a concept coming to life.

Of course we dont know what this base would look like, and calling it an Arctic base is a bit of a stretch, as Churchill doesnt fall into the Arctic itself, but thats a personal note.

There are challenges, heavy challenges, and we have to debate whether those challenges are worth the benefit that could come from such a base.

Firstly, the Bay is an icey wasteland for eight-months of the year, Churchill is also very shallow, which makes operations difficult, and the distance between it and where something like a Polar might want to go might not be truely much saving compared to Halifax.

The viability of Churchill beyond icebreakers is also limited by that landscape, as well as its general distance from everything. Its out of the way from where is needed.

Compare it to upgrading facilities at Iqaluit, or even duel-use development of Grays Bay, which are both where these vessels need to be, and forms a much more comprehensive chain from Halifax to the Arctic compared to Churchill.

A permanent base at Churchill will also be difficult for the same reason as other remote locations, connected only by rail, not much infrastructure for families, and a lack of economic opportunity all play a critical role here, as with any base up North, while also not being truely Arctic.

Perhaps as the MPV fleet comes in there will be more opportunity and viability, and perhaps a base there might help spur development and investment, but both are base hypothetical that we can't assume will come to fruit.

Now does this mean I think we should abandon Churchill is defence planning? No. I still think it can play a role, both economically and as a duel-use station, to an extent. Will it be a massive port? No, not for the foreseeable future, sorry Wab.

Does it have a role to play in the future as economic links in the Bay develop, amd we see more demand for an established presence? Absolutely we could. I want it to happen. I am working to make it happen lol.

But we have to have some realism to its potential. Churchill is not an optimal location for anything. It is a nice asset, it has its niches and roles, but the challenges in location and conditions prevent it from being more beyond that.

So while I appreciate it, I hope we can temper expectations, and dont get lost in trying to make it something it can't be, which has long been a common problem. It has its role to play, but Let's not use it in Arctic defence in play of other locations where such duel-use infrastructure can benefit.

Lastly, I want to briefly speak on thr Conservative promise for 2%. Many know I was hopeful for the Tories to pull something nice out in this category, and I have heard previously that they wanted to do something big.

As you can imagine, last nights announcement was a disappointment. Another 2030 timelime that doesn't even try. A policy of using defence as a negotiation tactic is never good, especially with a government that is known for being volatile and unpredictable.

Tying defence increases to trade negotiations feels like a cop out, especially with all thr hype given to rebuilding the military, only to give a low ambition target with a magical bind to a trade deal that doesnt exist, doesnt even have a concept.

Its an easy way to push the issue off, and to ignore it until next election, something ive been heavily critical on eith all parties. I expected just some effort, but am sad to say it wont come from the Tories. By saying that the goal is 2030, you constrained yourself to what is essentially a non-commitance.

You dont even pressure yourself to recall before that, save a magical trade deal you super promise to use to fund defence. It is lackluster and disappointing.

I truely hope that, despite the lack of tlak on debates, both parties are prepared to take the needed steps to defence. I have no hope, and while I am eager to see platforms, I dont expect much to come from them, other than to see the coating between both.

Hopefully we have better ideas this weekend.