NDDN Committee Report

Supplemental Opinion from the New Democratic Party

The New Democratic Party would first like to thank everyone involved in producing this report, especially those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. We want to thank the academics, community leaders and policy makers that shared their experience with the Standing Committee on National Defence. We also want to thank the Library of Parliament analysts, the committee clerk and the interpreters for their work.  

Our study includes testimony from a dozen meetings and several written briefs, exploring elements of Arctic Security. The New Democratic Party appreciates the evidence provided by all participants, and we wish the Committee’s recommendations reflected the full testimony we heard.  

Climate Change

The Committee passed a motion to study “Russia’s threat to Canada’s Arctic; China’s threat to Canada’s Arctic; the Security of Canadian Arctic Archipelago; Security of the Northwest Passage and NORAD Modernization”. The New Democratic Party is concerned that this report’s recommendations strayed from this mandate while minimally addressing or outright ignoring testimony on the most imminent threat to the Arctic: Climate Change. 

The committee was reminded by Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer that we must distinguish “between threats passing through or over the Arctic rather than threats to or in the Arctic”. The committee’s recommendations focused too strongly on potential threats to North America passing through the Arctic, at the expense of centering threats to the Arctic itself.

The Arctic Ocean’s warming rate is up to seven times faster than the global average. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, up to 70 percent of Arctic infrastructure will be at risk from loss of permafrost. This is a direct threat against both the Canadian Armed Forces and Arctic communities.  

This threat to Arctic security was discussed at length throughout the committee: Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Wayne Eyre stated the challenge of making “infrastructure durable and sustainable into the future with the changing circumstances related to climate change”. Chief of Defence Intelligence MGen Michael Wright stated that while Russia and China pose threats, the “third threat facing the Arctic is climate change”.  

With climate change, we have already seen the number of voyages in Canadian Arctic waters triple in the last three decades. New sea lanes are being opened by melting ice, which will cause increased fishing, transportation, tourism and research activity in the area. Further, the loss of permafrost is also increasing the viability of access to the Arctic’s massive oil reserves, natural gas and precious minerals.  

This will bring new threats in the Arctic that must be addressed. We will need to increase domain awareness for Arctic sovereignty. We will need increased Search and Rescue capabilities as new activity in the region is met by increasingly unpredictable disasters caused by climate change. Increased fish populations and access to new transportation routes will require increased naval constabulary services to combat illegal activity.  

The testimony heard at committee was rooted in the context of this increased activity caused by climate change, which is why the New Democratic Party is profoundly disappointed with the report’s lack of climate policy. The New Democratic Party tried to push for the consideration of climate change as the existential threat to Arctic security, but unfortunately the committee was opposed.  

Within this context, Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities must be central to our Arctic security strategy: Whether it is the disastrous impact of climate change on the Arctic, or it is the increased activity in the Arctic, Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities will be the front lines and first responders. All government spending on Arctic security must reflect this truth.  As part of Arctic security, we must see investments in the north help northerners access safe housing, clean drinking water, fresh food and healthcare.

The New Democratic Party is concerned that this report continues a decades-long tradition of defence policy leaving Arctic communities behind. It is easy to fall into escalating calls for the militarization of the Arctic, but this is a disconnect from what this committee heard from witnesses. The best Arctic security policy is investments in our Arctic communities.

Canadian Rangers

One clear message heard at committee is the need to invest in the Canadian Rangers to address threats to the Arctic. Gen. Wayne Eyre described the Canadian Rangers as “an important tool in building our situational awareness”. We heard from Calvin Pedersen, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger, about his work in monitoring vessel traffic in the Northwest Passage. We heard from Dr. Peter Kikkert about the important operational capabilities uniquely offered by the Canadian Rangers, as they are “often mobilized as the first responders to provide aid to their communities and their regions”.

The Canadian Rangers are essential to meeting the security needs to address the impact of climate change and increased economic activity in the Arctic. We also heard from Dr. Peter Kikkert that “The Rangers wear lots of hats, so they’re often volunteers on the ground search and rescue teams in their communities. They’re often members of the Coast Guard auxiliary units that go out to do marine searches … The training that is given to Rangers is not always just used in an official capacity, but is often used to bolster the search and rescue system on a voluntary basis”.

Investments in the Canadian Rangers will increase our domain awareness, increase the CAF’s operational capabilities, and will bolster search and rescue capacity.

New Democrats strongly support recommendations 21-25 and hope the Government will act on these quickly.

Rangers have faced mistreatment from successive governments that expect continued service while being undercompensated for equipment usage, a slow and inadequate reimbursement process for damaged equipment, and a lack of funding for administrative supports. As the need for Canadian Rangers increases, we must act immediately to solve these concerns.

In addition to the permanent Arctic search and rescue roundtable prescribed in recommendation 46, the committee received a written submission entitled Inuit Nunangat needs a community public safety officer program, first published in Policy Options and coauthored by witnesses Calvin Pedersen, Peter Kikkert, and P. Whitney Lackenbauer. New Democrats support this approach to building community resilience.

Infrastructure Investments in the Arctic>

The New Democratic Party strongly supports recommendations 13, and wish the language in the recommendations went further to mandate the Government to prioritize investments that serve Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities.  As we expect more and more from Arctic communities, Canada’s history of neglect and harm must be reconciled with meaningful investments. In prioritizing the backlog of NORAD modernization and the backlog of infrastructure gaps in the Arctic, we can address many shared needs.

Gen. Wayne Eyre told the committee: “We need to look for win-win solutions. When we invest in security in the north, it has to be security not just for the entire country, but more specifically for the north as well. At the same time, it has to bring economic benefits and job opportunities to those communities in the far north and open up other opportunities such as communications”.

 Further, we heard from the President and CEO of Nunasi Corporation, Clint Davis, that “Inuit have lived there for 5,000 years, and our uninterrupted presence substantiates any Canadian claim of sovereignty over the Arctic … federal priorities of reconciliation and national security can support each other when it comes to the Arctic … the goals of Arctic security can only be reached through well-planned investments in local infrastructure”. 

New Democrats believe the government must use funding allocated for NORAD modernization to address the infrastructure and service gaps in the Arctic. We must give greater attention to the water crisis, housing crisis, and health care crisis in Arctic communities; all these crises are a threat to Arctic security.

Ballistic Missile Defence & Disarmament

Finally, the New Democratic party strongly rejects recommendation 3. After hearing the witness testimony throughout this study, New Democrats believe it is time to permanently shelve the Ballistic Missile Defence system conversation. Here is a short collection of expert testimony on Ballistic Missile Defence systems:

Gen. Wayne Eyre: “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant”.

Jonathan Quinn, Director General, Continental Defence Policy:  “While Canada’s policy on ballistic missile defence has not changed, Canada has always played a significant role in the warning against attack from all aerospace threats. We’ll continue to play that role”.

Jody Thomas, National Security and Intelligence Advisor to the Privy Council: “We need to take a broad view of what the missile threat is and what the North American response to that is going to be, as opposed to just focusing on BMD”.

LGen (Ret’d) Alain J. Parent: “The ballistic missile defence system is a U.S. system only. It was not built to go against Russia or China. It was built to go against the terrorist threat of North Korea, mainly”.

Dr. Adam Lajeunesse: “Arctic security and defence are very important, and we need to make serious investments, but we need to zero in on what exactly the threat environment is. What I have argued is that we are not seeing, and are not likely to see, a great power threat to the Arctic … I’m arguing that it would be a waste of money and an inefficient use of our resources to build the Arctic defences in such a way as to gear them towards Russia or China”.

While the decision to not join the Ballistic Missile Defence system by Prime Minister Paul Martin continues to upset the hawkish voices in the room, New Democrats understood then and understand now that joining the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence system is a mistake.

First, the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence system was explicitly designed to deal with North Korea, a country that was not part of this study. It is inappropriate and disappointing that the committee chose to wedge this conversation into the study while refusing to adequately discuss climate change.

Second, New Democrats do not believe that sabre-rattling in the Arctic with Ballistic Missile Defence systems will accomplish anything except escalate tensions further.

Finally, New Democrats believe in the principles of disarmament. Over 50 years ago, the Soviet Union and the United States agreed to the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to limit the amount of anti-ballistic missile systems. This was widely seen as necessary to slow down the rapid development of nuclear-capable intercontinental ballistic missile warheads because it removed the need for military superpowers to react against the other’s defensive capabilities.

The American withdrawal of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002 was a mistake. We have seen the rapid development of cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles that are being used in Putin’s illegal invasion of Ukraine. New Democrats believe we must do everything we can to slow the development of new missile technology, oppose nuclear arms build-ups and actively support international efforts to promote nuclear disarmament.