Opinion: The port of Churchill needs a more modest vision

Skip to Content News Archives Economy Defence Energy Oil & Gas Renewables Electric Vehicles Mining Commodities Agriculture Real Estate Mortgages Mortgage Rates Finance Banking Insurance Fintech Cryptocurrency Defence Work Wealth Smart Money Wealth Management Investor Personal Finance Family Finance Retirement Taxes High Net Worth FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials More Innovation Information Technology FP500 Podcasts Small Business Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Financial Post Store Obituaries Place a Notice Advertising Advertising With Us Advertising Solutions Postmedia Ad Manager Sponsorship Requests Classifieds Place a Classifieds ad Working Profile Settings My Subscriptions My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ News Economy Energy Mining Real Estate Finance Defence Work Wealth Investor FP Comment Executive Women Puzzmo Newsletters Financial Times Business Essentials This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.HomeFP CommentOpinion: The port of Churchill needs a more modest visionBig ambitions are not bad. But a smaller-scale vision for Churchill would be more achievable and of greater ultimate benefitLast updated 5 minutes ago If we're finally willing to invest in Churchill, let's build the port the North actually needs — one that serves communities in need, not just the commodities passing through. Photo by Handout/ Churchill Gateway Development CorpPremier Wab Kinew of Manitoba keeps talking about making the port of Churchill a launchpad for critical minerals, grain and Arctic exports — a shipping gateway that in the face of unjustified U.S. tariffs will help Canada compete on the world stage. He recently floated a $70-to-$80-billion price tag for an offshore liquefied natural gas terminal.THIS CONTENT IS RESERVED FOR SUBSCRIBERS ONLYSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman, and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.SUBSCRIBE TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESSubscribe now to read the latest news in your city and across Canada.Exclusive articles from Barbara Shecter, Joe O'Connor, Gabriel Friedman and others.Daily content from Financial Times, the world's leading global business publication.Unlimited online access to read articles from Financial Post, National Post and 15 news sites across Canada with one account.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles, including the New York Times Crossword.REGISTER / SIGN IN TO UNLOCK MORE ARTICLESCreate an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.THIS ARTICLE IS FREE TO READ REGISTER TO UNLOCK.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountBut the premier is not describing a plan built on a solid analytic foundation. He’s making a seductive pitch wrapped in the language of sovereignty and economic nationalism. It’s a common pitch these days among federal and provincial leaders. But even in turbulent Trump times reaching for the biggest possible outcome isn’t always wise; sometimes, it’s a gamble.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Churchill isn’t Vancouver or Montreal. The port has never turned a profit without Ottawa covering the gap, and the premier downplays the fact that there’s no pipeline in place to feed LNG exports, nor even a plan for one. There’s no confirmed investor and a pipeline from Alberta to Churchill is not on the prime minister’s list of major projects. By Kinew’s own admission, no Indigenous communities have yet bought into his vision.Get the latest headlines, breaking news and columns.By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.A welcome email is on its way. If you don't see it, please check your junk folder.The next issue of Top Stories will soon be in your inbox.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againFor all the fanfare given it, the premier’s Churchill project remains, in the words of an Arctic Research Foundation report, only “likely feasible.” But “likely feasible” is hardly a green light. And “feasible” is a long way from “profitable” or “economic.” Many questions remain. The premier’s own report suggests that extending the shipping season hinges on Ottawa’s commitment to fund a polar-class icebreaker, which costs between $280 and $410 million.Over the decades, the Port of Churchill’s recurring pattern has been: ownership changes, government commitments, federal subsidies and persistent struggles. Even a fleet of icebreakers seems unlikely to provide a happy ending to this latest chapter in a cycle of repeated policy ambitions that fail to come to fruition.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Manitoba’s own feasibility studies conclude that final approval for the port’s expansion depends on unresolved project details, missing baseline environmental data, and consultation requirements yet to be met — future work the report itself flags as essential before regulators could, in theory, sign off. In other words, the studies being paraded as proof of feasibility are, by their own admission, just a starting point.Does Premier Kinew or Prime Minister Carney intend to invoke the Building Canada Act, treating Indigenous rights, environmental obligations and consultation requirements as a procedural formality to be worked around rather than genuinely addressed? Press releases make expanding the port sound beguilingly simple, but scores of unanswered questions remain.For example, how does a port that has never turned a profit suddenly do that? And on what timeline, if any? Will dredging the harbour entrance be necessary to accommodate larger tankers? Does the provincial government plan to ask Ottawa to expand search-and-rescue capacity in the Canadian Coast Guard to match increased vessel traffic? How will beluga whale populations be monitored and harm to them reduced? Can a notoriously challenging rail line built on a floodplain and destabilized by permafrost really be trusted as the port’s only supply line? And, above all, what will stop Churchill from becoming another Nanisivik — Stephen Harper’s abandoned Arctic naval facility, now a monument to unfulfilled Arctic ambition?This advertisement has not loaded yet.This advertisement has not loaded yet, but your article continues below.Big ambitions are not bad. But a smaller-scale vision for Churchill would be more achievable, less risky and, quite possibly, of greater ultimate benefit. Rather than a world-scale port oriented around major commodity exports, a regionally focused model — one centred on supporting local communities in isolated regions of Manitoba, Nunavut, Northern Quebec and Labrador — may better serve the North’s actual needs.The urgent but achievable case for Churchill isn’t as an export terminal. It’s as the regional transportation hub the Kivalliq region and northern Manitoba have needed for decades — a place where fuel, food, and freight move reliably inland to communities that currently pay some of the highest costs in the country simply to keep their lights on and shelves stocked. If we’re finally willing to invest in Churchill, let’s build the port the North actually needs — one that serves communities in need, not just the commodities passing through on their way somewhere else.Jackson Walling, Ph.D. candidate at Trent University, is a graduate research fellow at the North American and Arctic Defence and Security Network (NAADSN).We apologize, but this video has failed to load.Notice for the Postmedia NetworkThis website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.