Governor-General Michaelle Jean rides as a passenger on the first snowmobile while on a patrol with the Canadian Rangers during her visit to Resolute Bay, Nunavut on May 27, 2009.Sean Kilpatrick/The Canadian Press
Stephen Harper's Conservatives have done more than any other Canadian government to advance sovereignty, and enable research, in the Arctic. They would seem an unlikely target for criticism of a lack of "vision" when it comes to polar policy.
The government invested $156-million into Arctic research during the International Polar Year (2007-09). It is refurbishing 18 research stations in the North at a cost of $85-million. It has announced its intention to build a world-class High Arctic Research Station. It has unveiled plans for a new icebreaker, for the refurbishment of an existing deepwater port at a former mining site in Nanisivik, on Baffin Island, and for the expansion of military capability in the North, including a new training centre for cold-weather fighting. In light of the fiscal challenges facing Ottawa, some of these major projects may be put off, but there can be no doubt as to the sincerity of the government's commitment to the region, underscored in last year's Northern Strategy.
Yet, in an article published last month in Nature, John England, a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council northern research chair at the University of Alberta, says the Northern Strategy fails to commit federal departments to the government's stated priorities, and calls for a more formal federal polar policy. He writes that, despite Ottawa's emphasis, Canadian scientists are finding it actually more difficult to get into the Arctic to conduct their research: "The capacity to support researchers in remote field sites has plummeted." He notes in particular the problem of chronic under-funding of the Polar Continental Shelf Program, a federal agency that provides logistical support for researchers who would otherwise be deterred by prohibitive transportation costs. There are cases where researchers are given research grants by other federal agencies, such as NSERC, but then can't afford to conduct the research because they do not have the resources from the PCSP to actually get into the field.
Mr. England would like to tie PCSP logistical support to NSERC grants. Of course, there are also other research interests in the Arctic with similar claims, most notably the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, another federal agency.
The article was seized upon as the pretext for a critical editorial, also in Nature, calling for the government to have a "bigger vision," not only with respect to Arctic scientific research, but more generally. In fact, there's plenty of vision to go around. What is needed is a more lucid allocation of resources in the Arctic. For example, the federal government is currently spending $11-million to double the capacity of the PCSP's facility at Resolute, on Cornwallis Island. This is undoubtedly a much needed capital expenditure, yet at the same time, operational funding shortfalls have made it impossible for PCSP to properly fulfill its mandate.
There is always a temptation with this government to dismiss any criticism as a sign of disloyalty or as being somehow politically motivated. However, the Conservatives would do well to heed some of Mr. England's warnings.