In Defense of the Canadian Arctic

Now that we have our election behind us, albeit with a minority government, we shall see if all the political parties actually work together to tackle the many economic, security and political issues that face our country. The civilized process thus far - a hallmark of our democracy - should demonstrate to the Canadian public, and to the world, that even with our imperfections we can all pull in the same direction to gradually improve our national well-being - in every sense of the word.

Canada faces several challenges in the current geo-political landscape.  Each of these challenges will be dealt with in turn.  In my view, the most pressing concern is the threat to our sovereignty. The word "sovereignty" was bandied about hundreds of times during the recent election campaign, and more often than not it was used in reference to threats from Donald Trump to make Canada the 51st state. As much as it became a central election issue, I do no give Trump's vacuous musings much credence.  What he says and what is achievable in the conduct of global statecraft is two very different things. The responses to his statements by his own officials who would have to execute that policy, give little oxygen to his nonsense. Trump's statements are just another ploy to put our own officials off balance so that we, in his view, negotiate from a position of weakness and/or fear.

However, this is not to diminish the real threats to our sovereignty which will emerge as more focused and incremental challenges where there is a perceived gain of economic advantage (like trade) or in a region were the geo-political interest of the US can be gained.

The trade negotiations will likely begin immediately - and will dominate the attention of our political leaders and officials in the many departments that have a stake in trade.  However, the meantime, lurking in the shadows with both covert and over challenges to our security will begin at the top of our country - where I believe our security and territorial integrity is most at risk - namely our Arctic archipelago.

Few Canadians realize that the Arctic archipelago accounts for 40% of Canada's territory, 70% of our coastline and consists of 94 major islands (greater than 130 km²) and 36,469 minor islands covering a total of 1.4 million km.(https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/arctic-archipelago). 

According to the Canadian Encyclopedia the scope and scale of this region is even more pronounced:

"Apart from Greenland, which is almost entirely ice covered, the Canadian Arctic Archipelago forms the world's largest High Arctic land area. It contains six of the world's 30 largest islands; Baffin Island (fifth) is larger than the United Kingdom. The largest islands are Baffin, Victoria , Ellesmere, Banks, Devon, Axel Heiberg, Melville and Prince of Wales. They are separated by large channels, some of which would qualify as seas elsewhere in the world. For example, Parry Channel runs from Lancaster Sound to McClure Strait and divides the Queen Elizabeth Islands in the north from the rest of the archipelago, and is an important part of the Northwest Passage."

The region is rich in resources and its waters, ice covered at certain times of the year, are a haven for mammals and birds (summer).

Although the Arctic, its islands and waters are considered to be "Canadian" we have a long and embarrassing history of taking the region for granted.  In fact, since 1870, Canadian sovereignty in Arctic has been subject to recurring challenges from the United States, on land and at sea, which prodded the Canadian government into taking actions to deal with intrusive American interests.

The details regarding these challenges, among other matters relating to our claim, were documented in my Master's Thesis, and are a thorough examination of our claims up to 1978 (Canadian Sovereignty in the High Arctic 1870-1978: A Reexamination, University of Western Ontario. 1978); they need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say, our record for protecting our claims to the Arctic territories and waters has not been an example of determined consistency. This is an understatement. Consequently, sporadic demonstrations of "effective occupation", a fundamental principle of international law to establish sovereignty over territory coupled with how we have managed the Arctic waters within the archipelago since 1978 to the present, has left us open to further challenges from both allies and adversaries.

In recent years, the waters of the archipelago have exposed the Achilles heel of our claims to sovereignty.

The Northwest Passage, which flows along the northern coast of North America would shave approximately 14 days off East-West trade, a much shorter transit time than the Panama canal. The North West route is almost 7,000 kms shorter than using the Panama canal to reach major markets in Europe and Asia. Although the route is currently not passable year round, with climate change and receding ice in some segments, as well as improvements in ice breaking technology, the prospect for year round transit is significantly improved.

Herein lies the rub for Canadian sovereignty in the region.  Arctic States like Russia and the US, as well as self-described "near Arctic States" like China, seek unhindered access to the North West Passage for both economic and security reasons. The United States in particular, has challenged Canada's assertion that the passage is not an international strait under international law, which if recognized as such, would allow it and other nations unfettered access and transit. Ever since the impending voyage of the USS Manhattan in 1968, and the planned accompaniment without permission by the US Coast Guard's Northwind, the Americans have issue with full Canadian control over the Northwest Passage.

Again prompted by the threat to its jurisdiction, the Canadian Government enacted the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act (Bill C - 202), designed to control navigation as well as resource exploration activity in the Arctic waters and above the continental shelf. The Act and the attendant regulations established navigational standards, as well as hull and fuel construction standards, pilotage requirements, cargo limitations and ice breaker assistance provisions. The government also mounted initiatives before the international courts to gain acceptance of its right to protect the vulnerable marine environment. Canada's assertions of these rights have not been accepted by all states, especially those with Arctic interests.

Consequently, despite the initiative other Arctic states, remain emboldened to challenge Canadian claims to control on the basis of unfettered navigation as well as security concerns.

Moreover, as the International Law of the Sea has developed to the present, the rights of passage through straits like the Northwest Passage has been reinforced.  A reading of Part III of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea appears to reinforce the right of passage. Nevertheless, Canada's right to protect its interests, especially environmental interests in the unique circumstances in the Arctic have not been forcefully challenged. (https://www.un.org/depts/los/convention_agreements/texts/unclos/part3.htm)

What remains to be proven however, is Canada's ability to police and enforce its rights, enshrined in domestic law and regulations, with sustained and substantial operations in the water waters, launched from formidable and permanent bases. And yet again, the Canadian government has awakened to its shortcomings in defending the Arctic in the evolving geo-political landscape.

"In December 2024, Global Affairs Canada published its revised Arctic policy statement, a piece which also reflected the cold realism of changed security circumstances in the far north. Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy described the pillars of Canada’s renewed northern strategies as the need to ‘assert Canada’s sovereignty; advancing Ottawa’s national interests through pragmatic diplomacy; leading on Arctic governance and multilateral challenges; and adopting a more inclusive approach to Arctic diplomacy.’ The statement pointed to ‘major powers that do not share Canadian interests’ as obstacles to peace in the region, and also referred to non-traditional or ‘grey zone’ Arctic threats in the form of malicious cyber activities, interference in local affairs and economic coercion."  

https://overthecircle.com/2025/04/20/canadas-arctic-choices/

Election rhetoric implied attention to addressing these issues with the building of airstrips, revitalizing ports, investments in early warning detection systems as well as construction of new homes along with an infusion of assistance in a variety of forms to support the communities that call the Arctic home.

The first step should be to get new and long promised icebreakers off the drawing board and into the water. This action would be a visible and long overdue affirmation of our intentions to control the Arctic waterways - and reinforce the "effective occupation" that accompanies these vessels in ports and infrastructure.

It is clear that the defense of our sovereignty in the Arctic must be undertaken by clear and substantive action rather than unfulfilled promises. The total defense of our Arctic archipelago and our sovereignty, as well as security, will require a determined and continuous multi-layered approach, with the necessary investments and political will to sustain our true North into the future.