Is the promise of military icebreakers political theatre or sensible policy?
The debate over whether to arm the Royal Canadian Navy with heavy icebreakers to defend the Arctic continues to puzzle former top naval commanders and defence experts. The recent statements from both the governing Liberals and Opposition Conservatives about building heavily armed icebreakers have left many questioning the military sensibility of such a decision.
Retired vice-admiral Mark Norman expressed his confusion, stating that while he understands the political objective of demonstrating a commitment to Arctic sovereignty, the practicality and sensibility of building costly icebreakers with limited usefulness remain unclear. The decision to invest in heavy militarized icebreakers seems more political than practical, according to Norman.
The issue of Arctic defense was a key topic during Prime Minister Mark Carney’s meeting with U.S. President Donald Trump, highlighting the importance of Canada’s presence in the region. The debate over heavy icebreakers is not new, as a similar promise was made by the former Conservative government in 2006 but was later abandoned due to high construction costs and limited utility.
The current plan to expand the navy’s capabilities with new submarines and heavy icebreakers raises questions about the division of responsibilities between the navy and the coast guard. While the coast guard traditionally operates unarmed icebreakers, the Liberals have proposed arming them for maritime surveillance and integration into Canada’s NATO defense capabilities.
However, defense experts like Rob Huebert and Wesley Wark argue that investing in under-ice capable submarines would be a more effective way to enhance surveillance and deterrence in the Arctic. They caution against making decisions based on political motives or external pressures, emphasizing the need for a strategic approach to Arctic defense that aligns with Canada’s national interests.
On the other hand, Dave Perry of the Canadian Global Affairs Institute believes that a strong and visible Canadian presence in the Arctic is essential. Whether through navy grey or coast guard red and white ships, increasing Canada’s year-round presence in the region is crucial for understanding and monitoring activities in the Arctic.
Ultimately, the decision to arm the Royal Canadian Navy with heavy icebreakers remains a contentious issue that requires careful consideration of practicality, effectiveness, and national security interests. As Canada navigates its role in the Arctic region, it must prioritize strategic defense planning over political gestures to ensure the safety and security of its northern territories.
