All commenters have raised excellent points: from a diversification from Canada/US continental defence to a broader Arctic defence predicated on northern Nordic nations/NATO context. For years our country has been delinquent on believing our Arctic was just that appendage…
Canada now smartly and belatedly realizes that our Arctic is the northwestern flank of NATO. This change is crucial as NATO cannot be guaranteed continued active participation of the US. Our Arctic is our place first and requires our demonstration of sovereignty.
The crucial elements of protecting environmental, animal migration routes and above all the active participatory engagement of Indigenous peoples is vital.
I believe MP Idlouts’s move to the Liberal government is wise. She has seen a plan of action. Canadian prime ministers and politicians for decades talked the big nonsense talk about the Arctic. Now someone is actively moving forward with actions and attitudes to match previous unachieved aspirations. The stalled port of Nanisivik was a primary example of poorly articulated Arctic planning.
[This suggests that the Carney government is looking to a long-term future in which the essential underpinning of Arctic, and indeed North American, defence, for decades provided by the NORAD alliance with the United States, would be superseded by a much more independent Canadian military capability.]
When I first heard that, I had to consult the written press to be sure I had heard it correctly. What's curious is how little the weight of that has been reported in the wider press.
Edit to Add: On further thoughts, this segues to the acquisition of the Gripen.
"... the Carney government has identified the links between economic and national security in the Canadian North and Arctic. Now we need to build those links."
As an aside to Carney's latest chess move in the Arctic, his Davos speech continues to resonate:
[March 13 (Reuters) - France and Italy have opened talks with Iran seeking to negotiate a deal to guarantee safe passage for their ships through the Strait of Hormuz, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people briefed on the efforts.]
This story gaining traction as it and reporting spreads in Europe. The FT source is now out of date and proven partially incorrect, and FT don't like to be quoted.
So this is non-paywall, and more up to date:
[Summary
France and Italy are reportedly in talks with Iran to ensure safe passage for their ships via the Strait of Hormuz.
Shipping has slowed in the Gulf since US and Israeli strikes on Iran, raising oil prices to levels not seen since 2022.
Italy denies direct negotiations, but France confirms open communication channels with Iran amid regional tensions.]
The real actor in the story is France, and frankly, I'm surprised and impressed by the size of 'boots' they're putting into this. The contrast to the UK is not by accident, even as Starmer's position is proving to be the best for the UK.
[France has confirmed it maintains open communication channels with Iran and is deploying a dozen naval vessels, including its aircraft carrier strike group, as part of the EU-backed defensive mission Operation Aspides. ]
- Brave AI
And Canada makes it into this account:
[France's Diplomatic Engagements with Iran
France has maintained direct and indirect contacts with Iran. The presidents and foreign ministers have spoken and Paris has kept its Tehran embassy open.
A French official said efforts were focused on the coalition rather than a way of securing safe passage for French ships.
International Discussions and Strategic Considerations
There have been discussions with several European partners, India, Gulf Arab states, Canada and others, but nothing is close to being finalised, with India showing some resistance, two diplomatic sources said.
"The French want to disassociate themselves from the American approach because at the end you will need to have a minimum approval from Iran," said a European diplomat.
The idea was not to do it by force, which some American officials have suggested, the diplomat said.]
First, I need to hear how/when/where a real cross-section of people from Northern communities gave their comments on these plans to Canadian government officials, and then how the officials used the information provided by long-term residents to tailor their made-in-Ottawa projections.
---- If Ottawa treats local communities as obstacles or push-overs, there will be no credible long-term viability for these projects.
Second, I need to hear about how all the vital aspects of environmental standards will be respected in these boreal and tundra conditions, and how they will be monitored and harms mitigated during construction as well as operation.
That includes how Canada will effectively address growing annual wildfires and how people in any new Northern outposts will be protected and/or evacuated.
---- No respect for environmental standards = no long-term viability.
Third, that Canada moves away from NORAD seems of a piece with all participating countries carefully and with due haste moving to alternatives to NATO.
I think as we go forward, it's important that we listen to Northerners, when they tell us what's best for their region. They may make use of modern conveniences, but my experience with former colleagues from Iqualuit and other Northern communities is that they are still deeply connected to the land.
So far, I'm hearing general acceptance and even praise for the plans to ramp up northern all weather construction, and construct bases, and smaller nodes to improve our military reach, and transportation linkages across the north.
And I'm going to be guided by what they the residents have to say, as these projects put shovels in the ground.
Canada (alone or with EU members) should be talking directly with Iran about safe transit through the Straits of Hormuz. However, we should recognize that Iran will require that countries transiting through have absolutely no alignment with the US and that these countries condemn any military infringement on a country's sovereignty and territory or any attacks on civilians in violation of international law.
But the Strait of Hormuz aside, the destruction and damage of the fossil fuel facilities in the Middle East (and the attendant long term loss of the fuels) means that Canada will need to be frugal and creative in developing its Arctic defence infrastructure and strategies. Tried and true military equipment and strategies, which are heavily fossil fuel dependent , may not be feasible in a world with very expensive oil and LNG.
All commenters have raised excellent points: from a diversification from Canada/US continental defence to a broader Arctic defence predicated on northern Nordic nations/NATO context. For years our country has been delinquent on believing our Arctic was just that appendage…
Canada now smartly and belatedly realizes that our Arctic is the northwestern flank of NATO. This change is crucial as NATO cannot be guaranteed continued active participation of the US. Our Arctic is our place first and requires our demonstration of sovereignty.
The crucial elements of protecting environmental, animal migration routes and above all the active participatory engagement of Indigenous peoples is vital.
I believe MP Idlouts’s move to the Liberal government is wise. She has seen a plan of action. Canadian prime ministers and politicians for decades talked the big nonsense talk about the Arctic. Now someone is actively moving forward with actions and attitudes to match previous unachieved aspirations. The stalled port of Nanisivik was a primary example of poorly articulated Arctic planning.
We can do much better!
Excellent amble.
[This suggests that the Carney government is looking to a long-term future in which the essential underpinning of Arctic, and indeed North American, defence, for decades provided by the NORAD alliance with the United States, would be superseded by a much more independent Canadian military capability.]
When I first heard that, I had to consult the written press to be sure I had heard it correctly. What's curious is how little the weight of that has been reported in the wider press.
Edit to Add: On further thoughts, this segues to the acquisition of the Gripen.
"... the Carney government has identified the links between economic and national security in the Canadian North and Arctic. Now we need to build those links."
I have to wonder if this was the final impetus for Idlout's crossing the floor?
Mr. Wark, this was a very good article and I eagerly await the sequel.
As an aside to Carney's latest chess move in the Arctic, his Davos speech continues to resonate:
[March 13 (Reuters) - France and Italy have opened talks with Iran seeking to negotiate a deal to guarantee safe passage for their ships through the Strait of Hormuz, the Financial Times reported on Friday, citing people briefed on the efforts.]
- https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/france-italy-open-talks-iran-securing-safe-hormuz-passage-ft/
Or: "Donald gets his Duck", the latest, greatest bathtub adventure bigly.
This story gaining traction as it and reporting spreads in Europe. The FT source is now out of date and proven partially incorrect, and FT don't like to be quoted.
So this is non-paywall, and more up to date:
[Summary
France and Italy are reportedly in talks with Iran to ensure safe passage for their ships via the Strait of Hormuz.
Shipping has slowed in the Gulf since US and Israeli strikes on Iran, raising oil prices to levels not seen since 2022.
Italy denies direct negotiations, but France confirms open communication channels with Iran amid regional tensions.]
[...]
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/europe/france-italy-open-talks-with-iran-over-hormuz-passage-italy-denies-ft-report
The real actor in the story is France, and frankly, I'm surprised and impressed by the size of 'boots' they're putting into this. The contrast to the UK is not by accident, even as Starmer's position is proving to be the best for the UK.
[France has confirmed it maintains open communication channels with Iran and is deploying a dozen naval vessels, including its aircraft carrier strike group, as part of the EU-backed defensive mission Operation Aspides. ]
- Brave AI
And Canada makes it into this account:
[France's Diplomatic Engagements with Iran
France has maintained direct and indirect contacts with Iran. The presidents and foreign ministers have spoken and Paris has kept its Tehran embassy open.
A French official said efforts were focused on the coalition rather than a way of securing safe passage for French ships.
International Discussions and Strategic Considerations
There have been discussions with several European partners, India, Gulf Arab states, Canada and others, but nothing is close to being finalised, with India showing some resistance, two diplomatic sources said.
"The French want to disassociate themselves from the American approach because at the end you will need to have a minimum approval from Iran," said a European diplomat.
The idea was not to do it by force, which some American officials have suggested, the diplomat said.]
[...]
- https://www.globalbankingandfinance.com/france-italy-open-talks-iran-securing-safe-hormuz-passage-ft/
First, I need to hear how/when/where a real cross-section of people from Northern communities gave their comments on these plans to Canadian government officials, and then how the officials used the information provided by long-term residents to tailor their made-in-Ottawa projections.
---- If Ottawa treats local communities as obstacles or push-overs, there will be no credible long-term viability for these projects.
Second, I need to hear about how all the vital aspects of environmental standards will be respected in these boreal and tundra conditions, and how they will be monitored and harms mitigated during construction as well as operation.
That includes how Canada will effectively address growing annual wildfires and how people in any new Northern outposts will be protected and/or evacuated.
---- No respect for environmental standards = no long-term viability.
Third, that Canada moves away from NORAD seems of a piece with all participating countries carefully and with due haste moving to alternatives to NATO.
Good to have Lori Idlout on the government bench to represent the people of Nunavut
It's a start!
I think as we go forward, it's important that we listen to Northerners, when they tell us what's best for their region. They may make use of modern conveniences, but my experience with former colleagues from Iqualuit and other Northern communities is that they are still deeply connected to the land.
So far, I'm hearing general acceptance and even praise for the plans to ramp up northern all weather construction, and construct bases, and smaller nodes to improve our military reach, and transportation linkages across the north.
And I'm going to be guided by what they the residents have to say, as these projects put shovels in the ground.
Canada (alone or with EU members) should be talking directly with Iran about safe transit through the Straits of Hormuz. However, we should recognize that Iran will require that countries transiting through have absolutely no alignment with the US and that these countries condemn any military infringement on a country's sovereignty and territory or any attacks on civilians in violation of international law.
But the Strait of Hormuz aside, the destruction and damage of the fossil fuel facilities in the Middle East (and the attendant long term loss of the fuels) means that Canada will need to be frugal and creative in developing its Arctic defence infrastructure and strategies. Tried and true military equipment and strategies, which are heavily fossil fuel dependent , may not be feasible in a world with very expensive oil and LNG.
This is good news for the CAF, but I’m not sure how we will pay for any of this if unemployment keeps climbing and the economy continues to shrink…