Angry in the Great White North

During the campaign, the Conservatives promised to establish a real Canadian presence in the Far North:

• Stationing three new armed naval heavy ice breakers in the area of Iqaluit which will include 500 regular force personnel for crews and support;
• Building a new military/civilian deep-water docking facility in the Iqaluit area;
• Establishing a new Arctic National Sensor System for northern waters which will include underwater surveillance technologies;
• Building a new Arctic army training centre in the area of Cambridge Bay on the Northwest Passage staffed by an estimated 100 regular force personnel;
• Stationing new fixed-wing search-and-rescue aircraft in Yellowknife;
• Providing eastern and western Arctic air surveillance through stationing new long range uninhabited aerial vehicle (UAV) squadrons at CFB Goose Bay and CFB Comox;
• Revitalizing the Canadian Rangers by recruiting up to 500 additional Rangers increasing their level of training, activity, and equipment; and
• Providing an army emergency response capability through the new airborne battalion and airlift capacity stationed at CFB Trenton to provide a rapid emergency response capability throughout the entire Arctic region.

The Liberal party offered this:

Mr. Harper's questionable proposal is in stark contrast to the Liberal government's approach to maintaining and defending Canadian sovereignty in the North.

There are currently 4,000 Canadian Rangers providing a military presence in 165 remote, isolated and coastal communities in the North. They report any unusual activities, and conduct surveillance and sovereignty patrols as required. The Liberal government will increase this surveillance and detection capability by acquiring new state-of-the-art, medium-altitude, long-endurance Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV).

The planned launching of Radarsat 2 in 2007 - a highly advanced imaging satellite funded by the federal government - will also greatly enhance our ability to detect pollution in our waters, monitor ship movements along our coasts and assist in vessel navigation in ice-choked waters.

Canadian Rangers are part-time reservists. Look at the picture -- most of them look like grandfathers. They take a ten-day orientation course, and that's it. They get paid for 12 days a year, plus a parka budget and an orange safety vest. Equipment? The No. 4 Lee Enfield rifle. A fine weapon -- in 1931 when it was first made!

UAVs? A cheap promise (and I suspect one to be forgotten had the Liberals won), and unless the UAVs are armed, they won't scare anyone. And in any case, they are useless for finding a nuclear sub deep underwater, and are not capable of carrying any kind of credible threat with which to prosecute a sub contact.

Sorry, but I don't see how the Liberals could think this group of part-time soldiers with World War II rifles and toy airplanes could establish Canadian sovereignty in the face of a American nuclear submarine.

Radarsat is a combined effort between National Defense, Evironment Canada, Transport Canada, and the Canadian Space Agency. It is not a military satellite, just a satellite the military uses. Its mission to look for pollution and such means it is not going to be much good for looking for submarines. Not that a satellite is necessarily the best tool for the job. In any case, without actual ships in the area, all Radarsat lets you do is watch helplessly while foreign surface ships sail unopposed through the north. Not much better than those UAVs, really.

The Conservatives sound serious, and they have a credible plan, and so the Americans reacted:

During the campaign, Harper said his government would beef up Canada's military presence in the Arctic. [U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins] took exception to that policy, saying that the U.S. "doesn't recognize Canada's claims to those waters" and implying Canada should rein in its Arctic ambitions.

Harper's response was unequivocal: "It is the Canadian people we get our mandate from, not the U.S. ambassador."

I think this was a test from the US. The American administration pushes, and studies the push back. Here's what I noticed:

• No nasty words for the US.
• No coupling with, or even mention of, trade issues or terrorism or gun control or health care.
• No mention of the United Nations or "international law".
• No attempt to personalize the issue or to score partisan points, for example, by claiming to be the only prime minister of the only party who can stand up to George W Bush

To me this suggests a mature and constructive relationship is possible, and that areas of disagreement can be resolved.

I think the folks at Foggy Bottom are thinking the same thing, having designed this test.

And who doesn't think Stephen Harper and his people saw this from a mile away. I've met some of these people -- they are sharp.