The Harper government needs to deep-six its plan for Arctic patrol vessels, a costly $3.1 billion program that will produce “compromised” ships ill-suited to patrol northern waters — or elsewhere, a new report says.
Just months after the government was forced to restart its process to buy new fighter jets, the Conservatives are being urged to press to reset on another major military procurement — their politically charged plan for navy ships for Arctic operations.
A report by two think tanks aims a torpedo squarely at the plan — first proposed by Stephen Harper when he was in opposition — to equip the Royal Canadian Navy with a fleet of vessels to keep watch in Arctic waters as well as the east and west coasts.
Authors Michael Byers and Stewart Webb say the challenge of building a vessel to fulfill both missions will result in compromised design that won’t do either job well.
“They’re not going to be any good at much of anything,” Byers said.
“This is a very expensive procurement because they are building hybrid vessels that are not based on any pre-existing design,” he told reporters Thursday at an Ottawa news conference.
Calling for an “urgent change in course,” they urge the Harper government to scrap the proposed Arctic patrol ships and instead use the money to build high-speed patrol boats for the east and west coasts and rebuild coast guard icebreakers for northern operations.
Since coast guard vessels are already in Arctic waters for icebreaking, resupplying northern communities, and search and rescue duties, it makes sense to give them a “constabulary” style security role, perhaps by arming them rather than building an entirely new fleet, the report says.
“Sending two ships to the same remote location to fulfill tasks that could be carried out by one ship is, quite frankly, a waste of taxpayer money,” says the report, titled, “Titanic Blunder,” done by Rideau Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.
The authors raise questions about the capabilities of the proposed ships, saying they lack the speed and range to patrol the vast region. And they say the ships’ hulls won’t have the strength to handle Arctic sea ice that exists for most of the year.
Indeed, coast guard icebreakers may be needed to break ice for the navy ships, a scenario Byers calls “grossly inefficient.”
The report downplays the security risks in the North, ostensibly the original justification for these ships in the first place. It highlights increased cooperation among Arctic states and the low chance of actual conflict.
And while melting sea ice has meant Arctic shipping is increasing at a “rapid rate,” the actual level of shipping is low compared to traffic on the east and west coasts, the report says. In 2012, just 30 ships used the Northwest Passage.
One government official said the criticism was premature, noting that the proposed ships have yet to be designed.
Defence Minister Peter MacKay was silent on the capabilities of the new ships but touted the economic benefits their construction will mean for Canadian shipyards.
“The strategy set forth by our government ensures that the navy and coast guard have the ships they need to keep Canada safe while also revitalizing an important industry,” he said in a statement.