Armed icebreakers too costly, military says
Arctic plans: Officers view Tory election promises as unworkable
David ********
CanWest News Service
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
OTTAWA - Worried about the excessive cost of the Conservative government's plan to build armed icebreakers for the Arctic, military officials are trying to convince Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor to instead use less expensive hovercraft or small patrol boats to monitor the entrances to northern waterways.
Resistance is building inside the Defence Department toward some of the Conservatives' military policies, particularly those involving the Arctic, as well as the stationing of a new rapid reaction army battalion in Goose Bay, Nfld.
Officers view some of the government's election promises as unworkable or too costly and in some cases have proposed alternatives. For example, in regards to Mr. O'Connor's multi-billion- dollar plan to purchase armed icebreakers, the navy has countered with suggestions a small fleet of hovercraft or a new class of ice-capable patrol ships might be a less expensive option. The hovercraft could be stationed in the Arctic while the ice-capable vessels could patrol near key entrance ways to northern waters, officers said.
They noted Mr. O'Connor appears receptive to the idea.
The army also has concerns about the Conservative plan to station troops in Goose Bay. The army is focused entirely on its ongoing mission in Afghanistan and there are questions about where troops for new army units at Goose Bay and other locations would come from.
The Canadian Forces' recruiting system is barely keeping pace with attrition, potentially putting into jeopardy plans to expand the size of the military, Auditor-General Sheila Fraser warned in her latest report.
Mr. O'Connor's office did not provide comment on the status of the government's Arctic plans. But the Minister hinted at a May 8 Senate defence committee hearing that the Harper government might be open to altering some of its proposals.
"I have the staff working on Arctic options now," he said. "We may, in the future, end up with a mix of icebreaker and hovercraft or something like that ... or maybe there is another way to do it."
Mr. O'Connor added that "our vision for the North and sovereignty for the North is at the heart of our [defence] policy."
But University of Calgary defence analyst Rob Huebert said the military sees its role as mainly conducting overseas operations such as in Afghanistan. The navy, he noted, is worried about diverting financial resources to build the icebreakers the Conservatives promised in the last election.
"And anything that is viewed as taking away from the army's overseas capability is seen as a black hole," Mr. Huebert said.
He said Mr. O'Connor is going to "have a huge battle on his hands" in moving forward significant parts of the government's Arctic agenda, particularly with the Afghanistan mission scheduled to continue until 2009. At the same time there is a pressing need to re-equip the military with billions of dollars of modern gear.
A defence think-tank last week released figures that Canada's commitment to Afghanistan since late 2001 has so far cost more than $4-billion.
But Mr. Huebert said if the Harper government is serious about protecting Canadian sovereignty in the North it could do the job with a combined force of military personnel, RCMP and members of the coast guard. He noted the coast guard is recognized as one of the most skilled in the world when it comes to ice-breaking operations but various federal governments have severely cut that organization's funding.
International law professor Michael Byers, who supports a greater government presence in the Arctic, said the military has never been keen on northern missions. Mr. O'Connor can expect to meet a lot of opposition from the defence leadership on his Arctic agenda, he added.
"The capacity of the general officers to slow things down, to flood the agenda with alternatives, is pretty extraordinary," said Mr. Byers, of the University of British Columbia. "They will try to 'Yes minister' him."
He agreed new icebreakers are needed but also said they should be operated by the coast guard.
David Rudd, president of the Canadian Institute of Strategic Studies, said the military leadership is also concerned about the government's plans to station a rapid response battalion in Goose Bay and other units in places like Comox, B.C. He noted there is "absolutely no military reason to station troops in Goose Bay."
Mr. Rudd said some officers have suggested increasing reserve units in Goose Bay and other locations to deal with the Harper government's election promise.
© National Post 2006
