Party leader Pierre Poilievre says a Conservative government would build a base in Churchill to strengthen Canada’s defence systems — but two defence experts say the northern Manitoba town presents challenges as a military location.
“I really worry about politicians deciding that we have a ‘new priority’ that’s going to derail other ones which were threat-informed, agreed upon with allies and that people are depending on,” said Andrea Charron, the director of the Centre for Defence and Security Studies at the University of Manitoba.
“Now is not the time to switch focus, when we have a detailed plan in place.”
During a speech to Conservative delegates at the party’s convention in Calgary on Friday, Polievre said Canada must be a country that protects itself without depending on foreign powers, like the U.S.
To achieve that goal, Poilievre — who pulled in an overwhelming share of the vote in his leadership review— said his government would cut back bureaucracy to see defence spending “actually hit the front lines” and “reassert Arctic sovereignty.”
“We will take back control of our North and ensure no foreign power ever threatens our territory,” Poilievre said during his speech.
“We will open new bases in Iqaluit, Churchill, Inuvik. Four rather than two icebreakers will break open that ice and open new passageways for Canadians.”
Alex Rogers, a Conservative delegate for Manitoba’s federal riding of Provencher, told Radio-Canada a military base in Churchill would be an asset to increase the Canadian Armed Forces’ monitoring capabilities in the North.
It could also be an opportunity to invest in the redevelopment of the Port of Churchill, Rogers said.
Winnipeg-South Conservative delegate Sean Kopytko agrees with that idea.
“Churchill is the gateway to the Hudson’s Bay. One day we can start shipping stuff from … [Churchill] to Europe. I think it’d be important to have some kind of military presence in Churchill,” Kopytko said.
“I think it is strategically important … to defend it, should anything happen.”
The federal Conservatives have talked about building Churchill’s military capacity in the past. During last year’s federal election campaign, the party said it would create a new arctic naval base in the town of about 900 people roughly 1,000 kilometres north of Winnipeg, if elected.
At the moment, there are eight staffed military sites in Canada’s Arctic, the largest of which is in Yellowknife. There are also facilities in Whitehorse, Iqaluit, Inuvik and a few other communities.
From a location perspective, building a base in Churchill is “problematic,” according to Charron.
The town is too far south to deal with issues in the Arctic and too far north to protect the large population centres closer to the U.S. border, she said in a Saturday interview.
While there’s an assumption military sites can also be an economic driver, it’s often underestimated how many resources a city needs to sustain a base, including housing spaces, sewage capacity, energy and road maintenance, said Charron.
“All of that comes at a great cost, and especially small towns like Churchill might struggle to be able to host.”
A base in Churchill would also be very difficult to resupply, according to Nicholas Glesby, an administrator at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network — a network of academics and others focused on defence and security challenges in North America and the Arctic.
There’s currently no road access to Churchill, and even if the existing rail network was improved, it is susceptible to failure because of environmental degradation, he said.
Ships could be used for supplies or personnel, but more icebreakers would be needed to access Churchill during the winter, he said.
Air transport is an option, but one that’s more commonly used for bases that also serve other purposes, like research, as opposed to solely a military role, he said.
Churchill could host military support infrastructure, such as radar systems, transmitters or other sensors for Arctic surveillance and early attack warnings, Glesby said. Canada currently operates 47 radar sites that make up the North Warning System.
But Charron said sites for military infrastructure should be chosen only after study has determined need and then identified the best site to meet that — rather than picking the site first.
“Rather than making assumptions that we need more of XYZ, it really has to be threat-informed,” she said.
“We already have dozens and dozens of projects that we have already started, and we need to have in place because domain awareness in the Arctic is the number 1 priority.”
Glesby said Canada made a series of commitments with North American Air Defence Command (NORAD) for military modernization in 2022, including updating fighter infrastructure at existing bases and improving space-based surveillance capabilities.
“Those have been well thought out and have been structured in a way that responds to the changing threat environment, and also works with Indigenous communities,” Glesby said.
Both he and Charron said diverting resources for the creation of a base in Churchill without enough study or planning is a concern.
“We just have to be careful about allocation of scarce resources and committing ourselves to following through on investments,” Glesby said.
