Canada’s Minister of National Defence David McGuinty places the Arctic “in his top three priorities” and assures that Canada will maintain its sovereignty in the northern region.

Since his appointment in the spring, the minister has reiterated the country’s military and strategic ambitions in a region long marginalised. There will be new submarines, fighter jets, a super radar, and icebreakers. But there will also be an economic and human presence to protect this sovereignty, he says. Is that enough?

“We have responsibilities here, and our geography no longer protects us there, as it once did,” he said in his first extensive interview on Canadian sovereignty in the region.

In his office on the executive floor of National Defence Headquarters in downtown Ottawa, Minister McGuinty concedes that “everything has changed” in recent years. Geopolitics are changing, the climate is changing, and access to the Arctic is changing. Protecting the region is imperative in his eyes.

How do you personally define Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic?

It means a continued presence of people, of the people who live there. It means exploiting the resources there. It means a presence where we manage the Arctic. For me, that presence must obviously continue. It affects the people who live there, our defence, our security, our military presence, and our international intelligence systems.

How much money does it take to protect the North?

It’s very difficult to answer that question. We must continue to make investments, particularly with NORAD. There is obviously everything that will follow in the private sector. There are critical minerals, there are resources, there are mines. We’ve found a huge amount of natural gas. There’s the issue of electrification. We have projects we’re currently evaluating. Finally, there’s the construction of houses.

Do you see this as part of defending the region and the country?

Yes. It’s part of our presence to more directly project the fact that this is our sovereign territory. There’s no doubt about that.

To what extent is there a foreign presence in our waters in the Arctic?

The presence is real. There are ships, there’s a continuing presence. There are often ships there for legitimate reasons. They’re offshore or scientific. An ally like Japan, for example, may be there to study permafrost or the bacteria that are there. There are people who are studying oil and fossil fuel exploitation. So there are many legitimate reasons. From time to time, there are actors we monitor and we know they’re there.

Which country currently poses the greatest threat to the Canadian Arctic?

[Pause] It’s very difficult to answer because many countries would like to have part of the Arctic or what the Arctic represents. Obviously, with 11 of the 12 essential minerals present in Canadian soil, including in the Arctic, there are people who want access to what we have.

Which one worries you the most?

I think there are probably two countries that worry me as well: China and Russia.

Do you think Russia might want to expand its territory into Canada?

One thing I’ve learned from the situation in Ukraine is that it’s very difficult to understand exactly what the Russians want. It’s very difficult to understand where they will go next.

In the event of an attack, in the North, is there a plan to repatriate the inhabitants of the High Arctic?

I’m sure this is something that has been taken into account within the department. But right now, this is Canadian territory. It’s our territory. We are sovereign. There will be no displacement.

Is there a world in which Canada could lose its North?

No.

Why?

Because we have been making investments for several years now that will strengthen our position in the world. This is sovereign territory that belongs to us.

Many experts believe that among the three greatest threats to the Arctic are China, Russia, and also the United States. Do you agree with this interpretation?

When it comes to the United States, I follow the advice I received from my mother: you can’t be angry and smart at the same time. So, with the United States, we have a country with which we do a lot of business. There are deep historical ties that will continue. We still dance together. They may have indicated they want to change the tune, but we dance and manage our relations with the United States. That will continue.

So, for you, this is not a threat?

For me, it’s an issue that needs to be managed. I understood a long time ago, after 21 years in this field, that you control what you can control and you manage the rest.

Source: La Presse (in French)