Infrastructure is infrastructure; defence is defence
Nunavut needs the federal government to deliver on both fronts
A military truck unloads cargo from an air force jet in Iqaluit in 2022. During this federal election campaign, beefing up Canada’s military spending is an election issue at the same time there’s pressure to spend more on civil infrastructure in the North. (File photo courtesy of the Canadian Armed Forces)
A hydroelectric generator in Iqaluit isn’t going to convince Canada’s allies — especially the United States — that the country is beefing up its defence spending, so stop trying.
During this federal election campaign, one big issue has been how to improve civil infrastructure in the North to make life better for Nunavummiut and to strengthen the territory’s economy. Another issue has been how to ensure Arctic security in the less stable world we live in, in 2025.
But make no mistake — they are two distinct issues. The more that infrastructure and defence are mentioned in the same breath, the greater the risk that they’ll be linked in Canadians’ minds.
In the past few years, some Nunavut leaders and federal leaders have equated more federal money for infrastructure with ensuring national security.
Recently, the Government of Nunavut and Nunavut Tunngavik Inc. teamed up to squeeze the federal government for funding for Qikiqtarjuaq’s deepsea port, the Grays Bay Road and port, the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link, and Iqaluit’s hydroelectric project.
Premier P.J. Akeeagok calls them “nation-building” projects because they’ll transform economic activity in Nunavut.
While they might boost Nunavut’s economy, they’re truly civil infrastructure projects. They can’t really be considered defence spending.
But Nunavut shouldn’t need to dress up its necessary infrastructure as defence spending. Both are needed.
Canada needs a federal government that can do two things at the same time — meet the North’s need for better infrastructure and live up to its NATO obligations on defence spending.
Three world events have focused attention on Canada’s need to increase military spending — U.S. President Donald Trump’s election in 2016, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022, and Trump’s re-election last year.
Russia’s aggression against Ukraine was a wakeup call to Arctic nations that they suddenly had to contemplate what it means to have a hostile, expansionist neighbour.
For a decade, Canada has been under pressure from the United States to increase its defence spending. Trump has been critical of Canada and other NATO members that haven’t been meeting the commitment to spend two per cent of their gross domestic product on defence.
Canada spends 1.37 per cent of its GDP on national defence. While the official NATO commitment is two per cent, Trump has suggested member nations should up that to five per cent.
That’s spending on real military hardware, like tanks, fighter jets and battleships. People in uniforms. Boots on the ground.
It’s hard to imagine Trump and others counting money for ports and electricity generators as defence spending.
Nunavut has infrastructure needs. Canada has defence commitments. There’s no need to dress infrastructure up in the guise of strengthening Arctic security. They both need to be met.
Reminder about candidate profiles
Nunatsiaq News wants to help readers make an informed decision in the April 28 federal election.
Earlier this week, we published online profiles of the candidates running to represent Nunavut in the House of Commons — Conservative James T. Arreak, the NDP’s Lori Idlout and Liberal Kilikvak Kabloona.
Those profiles are published in the April 18 edition of Nunatsiaq News, on pages 6 and 7.
Next week, we’ll publish profiles of the four candidates in Nunavik’s big riding with the long name, Abitibi–Baie-James–Nunavik–Eeyou. They’ll also be in the April 25 print edition. Readers should sign up for the free e-edition to see them before election day.
Iqaluit thanks Americans for its paved airstrip and Rankin in the later Canadian military spending. Perhaps Cambridge Bay can be the next beneficiary.
However, the GN loss cause efforts are nowhere near nation building investments and trust the federal government will just treat them as temporary territorial vote buying efforts.
I have to disagree that benefits for the military and benefits for Nunavut are mutually exclusive.
I believe infrastructure benefiting the military can benefit the people of Nunavut very much.
I will provide one example but I want to preface this idea with a statement that the people of Nunavut are consulted before any money is spent. If the people of Nunavut do not want certain types of infrastructure it is their prerogative to reject it.
I believe military infrastructure in Cambridge Bay can provide immense benefits for many stakeholders. Three big improvements in this community not only help the military but also the entire Kitikmeot: a lengthening and improvement to the runway, ie pavement and all weather capabilities. A port capable of handling both military and resupply ships, and finally a military hospital.
These investments require massive amounts of capital, planning and effort to execute. I believe this is an opportunity to spend a lot of dollars for the benefit of Canada’s military and its ability to defend its waters and airspace. This is also an opportunity to make the life better for every Canadian citizen in the Kitikmeot.
The U.S. interstate system was largely a product of thinking about the nation’s defence.
I just wanted to note that there are very specific criteria for what NATO considers as spending toward the 2%. It matters not what a given country make cite. If it meets the criteria it counts. If it doesn’t… it doesn’t.
I have to strongly disagree with the Editor’s assertion that all GN and NTI – identified priority infrastructure projects statement saying that: ‘While they might boost Nunavut’s economy, they’re truly civil infrastructure projects. They can’t really be considered defence spending.’
One project in the list: the Grays Bay Road and Port ion the Northwest Passage stands out as not only addressing security and sovereignty but also providing economic spinoffs in making the development of known rich mineral deposits (including critical minerals) viable through access to tidewater but also in civilian benefits like community resupply and as a coast guard, commercial shipping and search and rescue hub with an airstrip. The Soviet Arctic Coast is bristling with hostile capabilities from ports, military bases and airstrips. Grays Bay port would be the first and so far only deep water port on the Northwest Passage which has been designed to accommodate patrol and combat vessels of the Royal Canadian Navy. So of course it’s a prime example of multi use infrastructure spending which will also help Canada meet its NATO defence spending targets. And it’s promising that the two major parties in the current election both have the Grays Bay Road and Port Project as investment priorities.
You are mostly correct (particularly about how it would be the only road connected deep water port on the Arctic coast), but see Guillermo above. Unless DND is building a base or a DND wharf, etc., it won’t count towards the NATO calculation. That said, it will certainly facilitate other expenditures that are eligible. For example, DND wouldn’t think to build their own berth unless there was a road south.
The sad part of all this, we’ve have been promised before every election that some party will do something for the North, Should have built all the ports in the 80-90’s when it cost 10 bucks, now its what $Billion’s of dollars cause bringing and building in the North is super costly. Not only that, our waters are traveled by Arctic Char, how will they be affected from all the future ships crossing our waters? All the sea life and food chain that will be gone down the road.
From the NATO Defense expenditures and NATO’s 2% guideline” document- “Expenditure for the military component of mixed civilian-military activities is included, but only when the military component can be specifically accounted for or estimated. For example, these include airfields, meteorological services, aids to navigation, joint procurement services, research and development”.
Based on spending 30 seconds online to determine this, I do not think that these points need to be debated.
If Grays Bay is used to resupply and/or overwinter navy or CCG ships, and/or military supplies are stationed their for Arctic Operations, (which appears to be the plan) a portion of this public spending to build Grays Bay would count towards NATO spending.
Qikiqtarjuaq’s deep sea port is currently not being intended to resupply and/or overwinter navy or CCG ships, or to station military supplies, so portion of this public spending to build Grays Bay would not count towards NATO spending.
There are no plans to build any military installations in the Kivalliq region. Therefore, the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link would be of no assistance to national defense. So, any portion of public spending to build the Kivalliq Hydro-Fibre Link would not count towards NATO spending.
For the Iqaluit hydroelectric project, if Iqaluit is used as a military base, as is being promised by some, having lower cost, consistent and less vulnerable electrical supply would support national defense. Any portion of public spending to build the Iqaluit hydroelectric project would depend on other investments, but could count towards NATO spending as such.