What about northern vessels?

Re: Expanded Arctic presence is military priority: Putin, Dec. 11.

Days after the Harper government says it will extend its seabed claim to the North Pole and beyond, Russia announces a big military buildup in the Arctic. By contrast, eight years since promising armed naval icebreakers, our federal government lacks even a single enforcement vessel for the Northwest Passage or other Arctic waters. Its muscle is all in its mouth.

It could have provided vessels in eight months, or even eight weeks, simply by arming our existing Canadian Coast Guard icebreaker fleet. It was an armed CCG fishery-patrol vessel that arrested the Spanish trawler Estai in the 1995 turbot war. If we can arm the Coast Guard for fisheries, why not for northern safety and rule enforcement?

It may be objected that we need northern vessels with more firepower. But the government’s projected Arctic/Offshore Patrol ships, if ever built, will carry little armament. The navy says the A/OPS will not be designed to fight military vessels, but rather to provide enforcement and help other government departments.

Most of their role sounds like what the Coast Guard already does, only better, since the navy lacks experience with northern duties such as aids to navigation, search and rescue, pollution prevention, and community supply. CCG ships could of course carry military as well as other government personnel.

Instead, the Coast Guard icebreaker fleet continues to rust out, with only one new vessel promised. Meanwhile, the government stumbles towards a multi-billion investment in Arctic/Offshore Patrol Ships that will be unable to fight military vessels, unable to break heavy multi-year ice, and unable to work a full Arctic season.

JOSEPH GOUGH, Orléans