Expanding definition of military spending in North is a good idea: Nunavut MP
All infrastructure projects across North should count towards defence, urges Canadian Federation of Municipalities in report
Nunavut Liberal MP Lori Idlout, shown here at a media event in Iqaluit in March, said she sees merit in a recent report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities on northern infrastructure. (Photo by Daron Letts)
Nunavut’s member of Parliament likes the idea of expanding the definition of defence spending to include all community infrastructure projects, and plans to share it with her committee colleagues.
Lori Idlout was referring to a recently produced report from the Canadian Federation of Municipalities about the infrastructure gap between the country’s northern and southern regions.
She called it a “great report” that “accurately reflects what the needs are in the North” in an interview Friday with Nunatsiaq News.
Idlout said she plans to share the federation’s recommendations with her parliamentary colleagues on the standing committees on national defence and Indigenous and northern affairs.
The federation is calling on the federal government to define all northern municipal infrastructure as dual use, which means projects traditionally thought of as civilian could count towards defence spending.
It’s an opportunity to take advantage of Prime Minister Mark Carney’s commitment to allocate five per cent of Canada’s GDP to defence spending by 2035, the report says. This would work out to $81.8 billion based on the country’s GDP from the last fiscal year.
Idlout said the report’s authors expressed “all the same things that I’ve been saying all along since I’ve become a parliamentarian about just how much the needs are in Nunavut and the North.”
She said she also agrees with the federation’s call for a municipal infrastructure fund that would mitigate the high cost of construction in the North.
The report cites Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s 2020 finding that a $75.1-billion infrastructure gap exists across Inuit Nunangat. It also calls for $10.6 billion for the Yukon and $17.8 billion in spending for the Northwest Territories.
Idlout said these numbers are likely higher due to inflation.
It’s unclear what Nunavut’s infrastructure gap is. Nunatsiaq News was unable to obtain an estimate from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, Nunavut Association of Municipalities or the territorial government.
Federation spokesperson Olivier Pilon said the federation is planning “ongoing meetings with [Idlout] and with her officials” about the report’s recommendations.
What kind of Orwellian world are we turning into in Canada. How can you call spending on something that has absolutely no military purpose be called “military spending”? I have a revolutionary idea for Ms. Idllout and the liberals: Why not just call things what they really are instead of pretending they are something else? I think we’re all getting a little of these illusions put forward by them.
I think you’re missing the point of the proposal. Nobody is suggesting that a water plant, airport, port, broadband network, or all-season road suddenly becomes a tank or a missile system.
The argument is that in the North, much of our basic infrastructure serves both civilian and national security purposes. A runway that serves residents also serves military aircraft. A deep-water port that supports local communities can also support Arctic sovereignty operations. Reliable communications, energy, and transportation infrastructure benefit both residents and Canada’s ability to operate in the Arctic.
Whether you agree with the proposal or not, that’s a legitimate debate. Calling it Orwellian seems a bit much when the discussion is really about how we define and fund infrastructure in a region that is strategically important and chronically underbuilt.
Sometimes it feels like people hear an idea, decide they don’t like who proposed it, and then reject it without considering the merits. If this exact same proposal had come from a conservative government as part of an Arctic sovereignty strategy, I suspect many of its critics would be defending it.
and, as a plus, counting this spending would help Canada seem to achieve its 5% target.
If Ms Idlout was representing the people that elected her, instead of representing the Liberal party she would be ranting. Yes Nunavut needs critical community infrastructure, but you can’t build a community hall and say look how much money we are spending on defense.
If a community hall or school is earmarked to be used as a civilian shelter during an emergency, (they commonly are in Nunavut), then these places serve a civil defense purpose.
Whether a local power plant simply breaks down, or is bombed to smithereens by an aggressor nation, the same steps (centralize people into a facility with independent power) need to be taken to ensure that residents do not freeze to death in the winter.
Where is the nutrition north report? I feel like Nunatsiaq should be asking Idlout this question every day until it’s answered.
Not sure why Nunatsiaq isn’t posting my comment. Agenda??
I think you’re missing the point of the proposal. Nobody is suggesting that a water plant, airport, port, broadband network, or all-season road suddenly becomes a tank or a missile system.
The argument is that in the North, much of our basic infrastructure serves both civilian and national security purposes. A runway that serves residents also serves military aircraft. A deep-water port that supports local communities can also support Arctic sovereignty operations. Reliable communications, energy, and transportation infrastructure benefit both residents and Canada’s ability to operate in the Arctic.
Whether you agree with the proposal or not, that’s a legitimate debate. Calling it Orwellian seems a bit much when the discussion is really about how we define and fund infrastructure in a region that is strategically important and chronically underbuilt.
Sometimes it feels like people hear an idea, decide they don’t like who proposed it, and then reject it without considering the merits. If this exact same proposal had come from a conservative government as part of an Arctic sovereignty strategy, I suspect many of its critics would be defending it.
So, in your mind building a school can be defined as a military expenditure?? You might call that “nuance”, but I call that——- . Well, you know what I would call that.
No, but you could legitimately call a port, a railway, a road, a power station, or a communications tower dual-use infrastructure. I give you the Alaska highway or Iqaluit airport as examples.
Here in Nunavut, the greatest risk of attack from a foreign power has always come from Russia, and more recently and to a lesser degree, the USA.
Both the USA and Russia has recently invaded and attacked other countries.
During those wars and “special military operations” and while supporting their proxies, Russian and American forces have consistently shown little or no regard for civilian infrastructure and casualties, contrary to the Geneva Convention.
Additionally, China and the USA have recently excelled in waging economic warfare, without direct use of military force, against consumers and business in order to meet their foreign policy objectives.
Therefore, Nunavut can safely assume if either of these two countries attacked us, our communities will sustain damage and our residents will be directly targeted, with or without the dual use of community infrastructure for Canadian national defense.
While at the same time, some of our largest communities and projects in the north will and do support our military operating in the Arctic.
We simply cannot be naive in thinking that us building up our communities to assert our sovereignty while supporting our armed forces will not be viewed in a military sense by our potential adversaries.
Spending federal dollars on recreation centres—especially ice rinks, pickleball courts, and swimming pools—does not logically advance NATO commitments or Canada’s defence and security objectives. Municipalities and provinces are always eager to rebrand local infrastructure projects as matters of national importance when federal funding is available.
We’ve seen this before. The Grays Bay Port and Road project, for example, was originally promoted largely as a mining-development initiative, yet eventually found its way into broader strategic and nation-building discussions.
With all the talk about “slush funds” in the United States, one could argue that redirecting defence spending toward projects only marginally connected to national security risks falling into the same category. Apparently, a pickleball court is now a critical component of continental defence.
“Municipalities and provinces are always eager to rebrand local infrastructure projects as matters of national importance when federal funding is available.”
You’re so close to the point…lol