The Arctic Is Increasingly at the Centre of Canada’s Defence Planning

Arctic security dominated headlines earlier this year as Trump renewed demands for control of Greenland. NATO allies responded by moving troops to the island, an unprecedented escalation between NATO members, highlighting the wearing threads of old alliances and putting a spotlight on the strategic importance of the Arctic.

Beyond this war of words, the Arctic’s strategic importance has been quietly growing. Diminishing Arctic ice has led to significant increases in traverses of the Northwest Passage (NWP) and to Arctic nations’ rising interests in resource extraction in the region, raising the economic and security stakes.

Despite fears about U.S. threats against Greenland and Canada, Russia and China remain the greatest threats to Canadian Arctic sovereignty. CSIS Director Daniel Rogers highlighted this risk in discussing the Arctic’s strategic importance for Canada, suggesting both nations desire economic and strategic advantage in the region.

Multiple Canadian policies have focused on securing and developing the Arctic (Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy and Arctic and Northern Policy Framework) including for resource extraction, and major projects like the planned over-the-horizon missile defence radar and the expansion of the Churchill Manitoba port. In March the Prime Minister’s Office announced plans for tens of billions in spending on Arctic and Northern infrastructure and defence, beginning to translate policy into tangible action. This was followed in April by the announcement of up to $8 billion in improvements at the 5 Wing Canadian Forces base at Goose Bay, Newfoundland which is slated to be part of Canada’s NORAD northern basing infrastructure (NNBI) modernization. These efforts all signal a continued push by Canada to take more control over its own security in the region.

But what can Canada actually do in the Arctic, and where should it focus its limited capacity?  How do we ensure that investments in defence and major projects in the North translate into tangible value for the people who live there? 

At its core, this is a question of balance. Canada must reconcile the imperative to secure and develop the North with its commitments to Indigenous rights and environmental stewardship. In practice, these priorities are likely to come into tension with pressures for resource extraction and the economic opportunities created by a warming Arctic. 

There are three main areas that encompass the primary risks and opportunities for Canada in the Arctic: defence, infrastructure and resources. Within these pillars there are clear spaces where Canada can make significant progress and which are more pressing for our national interests.

Defence, Beyond Presence

As Arctic ice continues to melt, all Arctic and some non-Arctic nations are positioning themselves to both benefit from and protect their interests in the region with Russia having the largest military footprint along the Arctic ocean, and China expanding its interests there. Rather than directly threatening Canada militarily, experts suggest Russian operations will focus on protecting the sea routes and resources along the Russian coast while disrupting western resources and sea routes like the NWP. On the other hand, China’s Polar Silk Road seeks to make greater use of shipping lanes through the Arctic to expand trade and potentially avoid U.S. controlled chokepoints for trade like the Panama Canal.

Canada’s Arctic defence strategy must emphasize infrastructure for commercial and military operations, enabling better monitoring and rapid response. Critical procurements that are under way include 12 under-ice capable submarines and 8 additional Canadian-built icebreakers. These include 2 polar-class vessels for year-round Arctic access to add to the 6 that can already be deployed at one time. This will also require enhanced satellite imagery, over-the-horizon radar, quantum sensing and communications, autonomous systems, and AI-enabled networks to integrate data and enable rapid decision-making across all of these platforms. These systems are essential for a modern approach to monitoring the expansive region and processing the vast pools of data that will be produced from all of these sensors and monitoring systems. While some existing and emerging Canadian companies, such as Calian Group, Dominion Dynamics and Juno Industries aim to provide these kinds of tools and systems, Canada’s capacity to meet this need will have to advance rapidly.

While we may lag in certain defence and innovation areas—such as drone and ammunition manufacturing for example—Canada’s vast and diverse geography positions us to develop dual-use technologies that serve national defence while creating allied cooperation opportunities and economic markets. As we work to develop new tools and adapt existing tools to our unique environment there are opportunities to lead in new technologies as well as develop IP in the specialized application of existing technology. 

It is however important to consider how defence priorities might conflict with development priorities in the region. In Canada’s Arctic Foreign Policy the government argues that “Canada supports Indigenous advocacy against pervasive colonial approaches to Arctic science and research, which marginalize and discredit Indigenous Knowledge and participation.” However, there is a clear push by the Department of National Defence, private companies including those mentioned above, and universities to develop sensor arrays, AI data analysis and other systems for surveilling and monitoring the Arctic. If these expansive technological solutions come into conflict with local Inuit or other communities’ vision of their own knowledge sovereignty, especially given the tendency of AI systems to misrepresent cultures and perpetuate biases, which perspective will win out?

Dual-Use Infrastructure: Double Duty

Effective Arctic defence will rely on robust ports, transportation networks, and energy systems that can sustain year-round operations. But those will be best sustained if they can also create economic opportunities for northern communities and the rest of the country. This is the dual-use infrastructure imperative outlined in the Canada Strong Budget 2025 (see pages 80, 101, 191).

The term dual use usually refers to technologies that have both military and civilian uses. Examples of dual-use technologies are Canola oil, a Canadian invention that was used for lubrication of aircraft and maritime equipment and then was made into a cooking oil through minor changes, or the internet which began as a U.S. government communications system and became a central part of global commerce and information systems.

The Churchill port expansion represents one critical element of this strategy as it expands both Canada’s trade and military capacities in the region through the expansion of a single port. Additional proposals include a deep-water port off Baffin Island for resource extraction and naval operations, energy and transport infrastructure to support mineral development and delivery to global markets, and potential energy export facilities in Hudson Bay that could provide additional outlets to European and Asian energy markets.

This dual-use approach must balance strategic imperatives with community needs. Rather than simply importing southern businesses and workers, infrastructure investments should create meaningful employment for northern residents while preserving Indigenous ways of life. As climate change accelerates Arctic transformation, building resilient, multi-purpose infrastructure becomes essential for both sovereignty and sustainable development. This will require deep thinking about what dual-use infrastructure actually could mean and ensuring that every project meets defence and sovereignty, economic development, and social needs equitably, while understanding that at times it may be necessary to forgo economic opportunity in the interest of sovereignty or social needs.

Resources, and the Trade-Offs We Keep Circling

Vast oil and gas reserves lie beneath Arctic waters, increasingly accessible as ice melts. Canada and other Arctic nations have committed to a moratorium on exploiting these resources, extended to 2028. While Canada should maintain this commitment to uphold climate principles, the moratorium’s approaching expiry may intensify competition, forcing difficult choices between values and strategic interests. This may also change the security environment as new forays into Arctic energy extraction may heat up this “cold war” brewing in the north.

The more immediate opportunity lies in critical minerals that are becoming increasingly accessible—copper, rare earth elements, and other materials essential for modern technology and defence systems. Extraction will require significant infrastructure: processing facilities, expanded ports, and transportation networks to deliver materials to market.

This development risks conflicting with Canada’s commitments to environmental stewardship and Indigenous rights. Fast tracking military and commercial projects in the North to meet emerging strategic needs may undermine processes of consultation and engagement with communities that might have well-founded concerns about specific projects or might have different priorities for development in the region. For instance Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, the national representative organization for Inuit in Canada, argue in their “Vision for Arctic Sovereignty, Security and Defence” that too much focus on expanding military presence in the region, while important, might ignore more pressing social challenges faced by Inuit that are essential to long-term prosperity and security.

It also must be noted that previous Canadian Arctic policy focused heavily on climate protection like the aforementioned moratorium, or commitments to protecting pack ice and marine ecosystems. Now, the policy accepts the disappearing ice as a fact of life and frames it instead as an opportunity for military and commercial expansion. Perhaps this is a necessary reality to come to terms with, but the shift is stark.

While there is genuine urgency to secure Arctic resources, Canada must find ways to expand security and access without abandoning our values. This requires thoughtful consultation, sustainable practices, and recognition that Canadian values may be evolving as global realities shift. Economic feasibility of extraction also remains uncertain. Trump’s Greenland ambitions, for instance, ignore that ice coverage, harsh environments, and lack of infrastructure make many deposits prohibitively expensive to exploit. 

We often forget how Canada’s physical geography can shape our political and strategic realities. The Hudson Bay and Arctic watersheds have always connected south to north as sites of extraction and transportation, first as networks of indigenous migration and trade, then as the territory of the Hudson’s Bay Company and its projection of British power deep into the continent, later as a strategic battleground of the Cold War. Once again, this region is central to the future of Canada, economic opportunity, and the projection of power, but now in the context of Arctic sovereignty, security, and development in a rapidly warming world. The wealth, security and health of our populous south is inextricably tied to the vast and seemingly distant north. We must be thoughtful, learn from past mistakes, and proceed in a spirit of unified effort, not extractive and colonial renewal.

© OpenCanada