Canadian Coast Guard for the North, not Navy

The chairs (Liberal) of two Senate committees give their views:

Wrong decisions could sink Canada’s navy

By COLIN KENNY and BILL ROMPKEY

THERE are two very good reasons why military planners cannot afford to make mistakes when purchasing ships for Canada’s navy.

First, new ships are going to be at the heart of the kind of navy Canadians are going to need to negotiate the turbulent waters of international politics in the coming decade. Anyone who doesn’t think a robust navy is important to a nation’s political and economic influence is not paying attention to the way the world works.

Second, vessels are extremely expensive, and one or two procurement blunders could bankrupt plans to rehabilitate our navy, which is currently in danger of sailing toward irrelevance.

For those reasons, the strange goings-on at the Department of National Defence these days regarding two vital purchases has some close observers feeling a bit seasick.

The most obvious problem is with the announced purchase of three joint supply ships ["Joint Support Ships", actually]. That purchase has been on hold since bids came in that would have put the cost of the ships well beyond what the current government seems willing to pay for them.

These were supposed to be huge vessels that would play dual roles, replacing 40-year-old supply ships that provide ammunition and fuel for Canadian task force operations at sea as well as hauling vehicles and other equipment for Canadian land forces operating abroad. The standstill on this purchase threatens naval renewal.

But there is another dual-purpose vessel on the drawing board that is cause for concern — the planned purchase of six to eight naval patrol vessels to be used in the Arctic in the summer and fall and off Canada’s East and West coasts the rest of the year.

The Senate Committee on National Security and Defence has maintained for the past two years that the government’s plan to purchase these ships is wrong-headed for a number of reasons.

Now the Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans — in its new report Rising to the Arctic Challenge: Report on the Canadian Coast Guard — is also pointing to a better strategy for controlling Northern waters.

The Harper government, rightly seized with the issue of promoting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic, has decided that the best way to do this would be to put these new patrol vessels under the control of the navy. They would also take on some Arctic responsibilities traditionally handled by the Canadian Coast Guard [icebreaking here].

The Fisheries and Oceans report points out, "The coast guard has far more experience and expertise in the North than the navy." It says that the coast guard should be outfitted with new icebreakers that might not be in the same league as the powerful Russian icebreaking fleet, but which would at least be more respectable than the ones we have now.

Canada’s current icebreaking fleet, the report points out, is long in the tooth and was designed to be used in the St. Lawrence River, not the Arctic Ocean. "Canada’s icebreaking fleet will not be adequate once shipping increases" (due to warming in Northern waters). Unfortunately, only one new icebreaker is being ordered ["The "Diefenbreaker"--in 2017!?!"], as the government focuses instead on the patrol vessels. Those patrol vessels, the Fisheries and Oceans report observes, will only be capable of breaking newly formed ice. Serious Arctic vessels must be capable of handling the harder, thicker multi-year ice that will continue to clog Arctic waters.

Furthermore, the report quotes Michael Turner, former acting commissioner of the coast guard, as saying that since the new ships would be of hybrid design, they would have "limited capability in open water." This obviously applies to both the Arctic and along Canada’s East and West coasts. Slow and lightly armed, the new ships are meant for "low threat" environments. They would be too weak for Northern work.

The Committee on National Security and Defence has argued in two reports that moving the navy into the Arctic will drain its effectiveness elsewhere, and that the navy does not have the competence that the coast guard possesses in the Arctic [see here and here].

It has further argued that the coast guard should be armed like the U.S. coast guard is armed. If the government wants guns on boats to make a point about sovereignty — which it obviously does — then arm the coast guard. The union representing coast guard employees is not against this, as long as officers and crews are properly trained and compensated.

Again, the Defence committee reports dovetail with the Fisheries and Oceans report, which recommends deploying multi-mission coast guard icebreakers "as a cost-effective alternative to Canada’s surveillance and sovereignty patrol needs in the Arctic."

In short, both the manning of these patrol vessels by navy officers and the purchase of the ships themselves would be a huge mistake — the kind of mistake a country with a limited military budget can’t afford to make. These patrol vessels wouldn’t even be fast enough to outrun speedy fishing vessels, which makes them of dubious use on the East and West coasts.

When two committees tell the government it needs to rethink its course in the Arctic, perhaps the government should show some signs that it is listening.

I agree with most of the above. However I do not think the Canadian Coast Guard itself needs to be armed. Armed RCMP or Fishery officers are now carried as necessary (as can be Navy personnel), and weapons such as machine guns can be temporarily mounted if needed. Heavier calibre weapons are not necessary. Canada is not going to assert its (dubious) sovereignty over the Northwest Passage by shooting explosive shells at foreign vessels but by maintaining a presence of government vessels, for which the Coast Guard is just fine.

The Harper government's insistence on using the military to assert sovereignty in the North is wrongheaded, especially as no country has any claim to our land there (Hans Island aside). Some earlier posts:

"Icebreakers best bet in Arctic"
The right approach to Arctic "sovereignty"
The icebreakers we should build
"A job for the Coast Guard"
What to do with the Canadian Coast Guard?
"Military should focus on coastline, not war: Layton"