Canada and the Arctic

by Maj (ret'd) CORNELIU. CHISU, CD, PMSC, FEC, CET, P. Eng. Former Member of Parliament Pickering-Scarborough East The Arctic is an important part of our country and deserves a lot more attention than it is getting. It is a vast land, our land, which is being completely ignored by our esteemed politicians. As Canadians we routinely and unquestioningly sing its praises in our national anthem, O Canada, referring to "the True North Strong and Free". However, a more realistic description would be "the True North Weak and Neglected". Forty percent of Canada's land mass is considered Arctic and Northern. There are 162,000 kilometres of Arctic coastline, accounting for 75% of Canada's national coastlines, making Canada's coastline the world's longest. The territory is vast, but the population is small at 200,000 inhabitants, half of whom are indigenous. Our Arctic immediate neighbours are Russia, the United States, and Denmark, putting the Arctic at the centre of increasing geopolitical rivalries since 1945. In my tenure as an MP on the Defence Committee, I tried several times, to draw attention to this important region. I voiced the need to develop our Arctic in a way that would allow us to rightfully claim sovereignty over the contested North West passage and develop the vast resources that exist there. It is in the interest of our nation to have a well and uniformly developed country with many essential resources for our own use. A meaningful debate on Canada's role in the Arctic is long overdue, and hopefully we will finally get around to holding one soon. Such a debate is of particular importance, given the central place that the circumpolar region occupies in the tapestry of Canada's national interests. Beside the obvious strategic military importance of our Arctic, on which I will not elaborate, there is also potential wealth off our Arctic coastline. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) gives coastal states full sovereignty rights over a 12 nautical mile territorial sea, and a 200 nautical mile continental shelf exclusive economic zone. That allows countries the rights to exploit resources like deep-sea mining or oil and gas exploration in the seabed and subsoil (the economic zone confers rights below the surface of the sea; the surface waters are international waters). Half of the Arctic Ocean's 14 million square kilometres is already claimed by the five coastal states. Canada's economic zone of approximately 2.9 million square kilometres is the seventh largest in the world. Beyond this bounty for coastal states, the Law of the Sea provides a process for assessing further claims if science can delineate that the continental shelf extends beyond 200 nautical miles. States submit claims to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which examines the submitted data drawn from mapping underwater geological features like ridges (Canada began collecting data in 2003 and submitted a claim in 2019, with an addendum in 2022). The Commission judges the accuracy of the claim and makes recommendations. If states have overlapping claims, they must negotiate the boundaries. In 2021, Russia made a maximum claim that its continental shelf stretched right up to the exclusive economic zones of both Canada and Denmark/Greenland, potentially giving it 75% of the seabed in the central parts of the Arctic Ocean. Canada then revised its 2019 submission in 2022, now arguing that its continental shelf extended to 2.4 million square kilometres, an area about the size of the Prairie provinces. It will be years before the UN Commission makes recommendations on Canada's claim but when it does, Canada must negotiate with Russia. The stakes are potentially very high indeed. The case that a greater concentration on the Arctic would fulfill several of Canada's national interests is compelling but articulating a strategy and actually making it happen are very different things. In recent years, the Government of Canada's rhetoric about our economic development in the Arctic and foreign policy goals and accomplishments has been effusive and confused. This has resulted in underinvesting in its diplomatic capacity, spending huge quantities of taxpayers' money overseas without accountability and totally neglecting national interests. In 2008, for example, Stephen Harper announced that Canada's aging heavy icebreaker, CCGS Louis S. St-Laurent, would be replaced by a new vessel, the CCGS John G. Diefenbaker: Fifteen years later in 2023, steel for the Diefenbaker has yet to be laid, though the government is now promising to do so. In 2007, Stephen Harper announced that Canada would construct a naval refuelling facility at Nanisvik, Baffin Island to service new Arctic patrol vessels with a planned opening in 2013. Initial plans were for year-round personnel and a jet airstrip to support the naval facility, but these were soon scaled back due to costs. Instead of pursuing our interests in the Arctic the Liberal government is spending huge amounts of money on foreign aid for their own political purposes. As a result, delays with the icebreaker program have suffered delays year after year. It is now expected that the facility will not be operational until 2024-25, 18 years after it was first announced. Well done! During the same period, Rob Huebert a prominent Arctic defence analyst, and I, have noted, that Russia has modernized and reopened 13 Cold War military bases in the Arctic as well as dozens of smaller posts and has also enhanced economic activities in the area. Since 2011 for example, an interdepartmental Marine Security Operating Group has repeatedly identified gaps, looming equipment obsolescence and weaknesses in satellite surveillance in the Arctic, but limited actions have been taken. The report concludes, "we found significant risks that there will be gaps in Canada's surveillance, patrol, and presence in the Arctic in the coming decade as aging equipment reaches the end of its useful service life before replacement systems become available." The need for a serious economic development plan in the Arctic should be a priority for any future Government of Canada for the benefit of our stringent national interest. We as Canadians deserve better! In conclusion, both achieving our interests and enhancing our values, the Arctic should be a preeminent priority of Canadian policymaking. Developing the Arctic is in Canada's national interest, perhaps even its paramount national interest. Time to focus on the future of our own Canada the good! mate e for cities to hit their decarbonization targets by 2040, but they have to act now, and the shift will require a co-ordinated effort between government, industry and residents. The question is, where is the money coming from? Mark Hutchinson, vice-president oange experts this is possible. But wait a moment, WHO will foot the bill? Like I said, get ready to pay more taxes soon….