So why do we need military slushbreakers again?

As the verbal dances our government does over arctic sovereignty grow increasingly complicated, the possibilities of a misstep grow too. Case in point (subscriber only?):

Construction of Canada's Nanisivik Naval Facility could begin in 2011, bolstering the country's military presence in the disputed Northwest Passage (NWP), a National Defence spokesperson has told Jane's .

The initiative, which is designed to provide a berthing and refuelling hub for coastguard and naval vessels in the area, has been advancing steadily through its project construction work and could possibly commence in 2011.

The second major prong of Canada's Arctic security strategy, the Arctic Offshore Patrol Ship (AOPS) project, which was approved by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in 2007, is currently being reviewed "to accommodate long-term shipbuilding options that could be considered by government", the spokesperson said. Progress on that project has been criticised. For example, the chairman of the country's Standing Senate Committee on Fisheries and Oceans, Bill Rompkey, said in December 2009 that "the project has yet to be lifted off the drawing board. The earliest ships will appear only six years from now".

Straightforward enough, right? Except for this little gem at the end of the same piece, attributed to "Alain Cacchione, a spokesman for the country's Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade":

While a number of Arctic countries, particularly Norway, have called for an increased focus from NATO in the region, particularly regarding activities such as surveillance, Cacchione said Ottawa did not view the alliance as the appropriate forum for the resolution of Arctic issues.

"Canada sees no military threat in the Arctic. As such, we see little or no requirement for an enhanced NATO role in the Arctic," he explained. "We already have a co-operative international framework in the Arctic Council, as well as through our bilateral and multilateral relations, and are committed to the peaceful resolutions of disputes should they arise." [Babbler's emphasis]

If there's no military threat, somebody needs to inform our Hornet squadrons - they're scrambling up there against Russians on a regular basis. And I'm wondering why exactly we're investing in Navy slushbreakers rather than Coast Guard icebreakers in that case.

Dopey.