Is Canada an Arctic Nation or a Maritime Nation?

It was probably some speechwriter in Ottawa who fed his political master the catchy phrase for describing Canada as a country ‘from coast, to coast, to coast’. The introduction of this phrase fragmented the image of Canada’s coastline into three segments that has likely impeded Canadian maritime policy formulation. Successive generations of Canadian politicians seem comfortable perpetuating the image of Canada’s coastline being comprised of three mutually exclusive littoral regions. In our current era of global warming and melting sea ice, with the possibility of the legendary North West Passage (NWP) becoming a reality, this twentieth century political rhetoric urgently needs to be updated in keeping with the maritime responsibilities Canada must adopt in the twenty-first century.

Rather than seeing Canada’s shoreline being comprised of three segments, the time has come to recognize Canada as a maritime nation with a single shoreline that embraces the Pacific, Arctic and Atlantic Oceans. In keeping with the intent of the Canada Oceans Act, the shoreline in its entirety and the oceans it fronts must be treated with equal respect. To put one part in jeopardy over another does not do justice to the North American peninsula Canada will become in an era of routine NWP shipping lanes.

The idea that Canada’s shoreline could be separated into three parts originated during the Cold War era; Canadians were more accepting then of their north being frozen solid, separating the east coast from the west coast. During this era, the Canadian Forces developed arctic expertise in collaboration with our US allies in defence of the continent from attacks by the now debunked USSR. The emphasis on purchasing fighter aircraft and warships in Ottawa suggest that the Cold War state-of-mind is still prevalent in Ottawa. Canada and the US have always found ways of working together in border arrangements while at the same time respecting each other’s sovereignty. It will be interesting to observe how such bilateral arrangements relate to governance issues of the Arctic Council.

The UN’s Convention on the Law of the Sea requires Canada to define and defend its sovereignty in terms of its maritime domain. This involves claiming ownership of what lies above the water, on the water, below the water, on the sea bottom and below the bottom of the sea on the side of the line where sovereignty begins and ends. This means that the traditional role of the navy cannot be ignored and needs to be updated.

Maritime history for most Canadians originates with European immigrants arriving at the atlantic port of Halifax to begin their trek westward, and Dominion of Canada naval vessels leaving Halifax in defence of Great Britain and the liberation of Europe. More recently, Canada has provided naval support in military theatres around the globe in compliance with its international treaty obligations, thereby demonstrating its modern naval proficiency. Canadians identify with these accomplishments when they see TV images of naval vessels leaving or arriving at Halifax. Partly because of time differences feeding into broadcast news cycles, rarely are Canadians provided with similar imagery of their pacific naval port at Esquimalt; few Canadians east of the Rockies are likely to identify Esquimalt’s location on a map of Canada.

In addition to providing the legendary sea route between Europe and Asia, the melting of arctic sea ice opens the opportunity for exploiting sources of energy that it is claimed lie below the arctic seabed. Canada’s ability to reliably provide energy, in all its manifestations, to nations in need of such resources will be pivotal to Canada’s role in the future global economy. Accessing energy from below Canada’s arctic seabed has considerable environmental risk, is dependent on unproven technologies and difficult to predict weather conditions. Assuming these risks is all the more questionable when there are other parts of the Canadian shoreline where such opportunities are well documented, less risky, accessible year round with involve proven technologies.

Barry Gough’s Fortune’s A River and Stephen Brown’s Merchant Kings show that Canada’s maritime history evolved from its European genealogy. Canada’s management of the Asia-Pacific Gateway and Corridors on its pacific shoreline will determine its future.  This investment needs Canada to build sustainable alliances with Indo-Pacific countries, most of which are native homelands of new Canadian immigrants. (For more on this, see: Wendy Dobson, Canada, China, and Rising Asia: A Strategic Proposal.)  Paul Heinbecker’s book Getting back in the Game reminds us that Canada’s population is close to Britain’s at the peak of the British Empire. Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s recent designation of ‘Royal’ to the Canadian navy suggests his appreciation of the role of a navy in securing maritime export and import routes in a globalized economy. Robert Caplan’s Monsoon explains the importance of the Indian Ocean to the American economy.  Canada’s naval presence in the Indian and Pacific Oceans is critical to defining our national role in a globalized economy.

Seeing Canada’s maritime challenges through an arctic prism is limiting. Adopting a more holistic vision of Canada as the North American peninsula is more realistic. Leadership is called for that will inform Canadians that they are part of a maritime nation. This must begin by turning the Canadian ship of state in a more westerly direction.

*Tim Lynch is a policy analyst in Toronto who writes about maritime affairs.

Send your comments to