We Stand on Guard for Thee – Canadian Version
The US Version was about Senators and Trump. The WTF Version was about the USA and the Kurds. This Canadian Version is about us and our country. Do We Stand on Guard for Thee or just sing about it?
The world agrees that the Ukraine has de jure sovereignty over Crimea, but Russia possesses de facto sovereignty over Crimea. By de jure I mean that the international community and law recognizes that you (eg Ukraine) are the ultimate authority over your territory (including Crimea). By de facto I mean that actual control over your territory (Crimea) has been lost (to Russia) because you do not have the ability to defend against armed invaders or (Russian-backed) internal rebels. For Cyprus substitute Turkey for Russia. Now substitute Canada for Ukraine and Arctic for Crimea.
The Presidential unit citation given to USS Nautilus after she cruised from west to east under the Arctic ice in 1958 says, “This voyage opens the possibility of a new commercial seaway, a Northwest Passage …” using nuclear-powered cargo submarines. The ice melted. Then came the tanker Manhattan when she made transit through the Northwest Passage in 1969. Neither the owner nor the US government asked permission. In 1985 the US Coast Guard – part of the US Armed Forces – icebreaker Polar Sea went through the Passage. The US told Canada that prior notification was not required.
That forced the Mulroney government to actually draw lines around the Arctic Archipelago to define Canada’s historic inland waters. Only two countries objected. Who objected? The USA and the UK.
Two years later, Mulroney and Regan agreed that the US would seek consent before sending ships into Canadian waters and that Canada would give consent when asked. Why? Because it was in the self-interest of the USA to have a friend and ally who has de jure sovereignty over the Northwest Passage. In other words, the Northwest Passage was seen as an internal waterway under Canadian control and friends could use it. All settled, right?
In 2010, the Harper government instituted an Arctic shipping reporting system and the US protested. Why? Because the US now takes the position that the Northwest Passage is an international waterway and therefore available for use without asking. That is still the US position.
If Canada has de jure sovereignty within the Mulroney baselines, then the question is: Does Canada have de facto sovereignty within that same territory? Well, sort of, at least until the first foreign troops arrive and stay. Like Russia in the Crimea. Like Turkey in Cyprus.
What assets and capabilities do we have to defend and repel within our Arctic Archipelago and our inland waters of our Northwest Passage without depending upon NATO or NORAD or Trump and without sending our Forces abroad to fulfill any other national or international commitments? Sources disagree but the RCAF might still be using one of the original three Arcturus sovereignty patrol aircraft and we do have 14 of our 1980’s Aurora aircraft – some of which can fly. Only 76 of our original 138 1980’s CF-188’s (popularly known as the CF-18) remain but we are getting more – used, from Australia. Add four 1980’s submarines, twelve 1990’s frigates, and twelve 1990’s coastal defence vessels none of which are purpose-built for Arctic service. As many as eight Arctic & Offshore Patrol Ships (AOPS) are being built. These are the first and only purpose-built Arctic patrol vessels in the RCN under a Conservative program that has been continued by the Liberal government. Permanent military installations in the Arctic are few – one (maybe two) is under construction – but none house ground forces. Except for the Canadian Rangers who live in the Arctic, the Canadian Army would be flown in – one small unit at a time.
Is there a will among adults to Stand on Guard for Thee where “Thee” means Canada?
Stuart Syme
Gail Blidook says
Thank you once again Stuart for an awesome article. This is what I have learned about “the Conservative program that has been continued by the Liberal government”.
In 2016, two leading defence analysts from the Canadian Global Affairs Institute urged Mr. Sajjan and the Liberals to build a “leaner, more agile and better equipped military” noting that this government had inherited a ” Canadian First Defence Strategy mapped out by the former Conservative government that was hopelessly underfunded.” “The annual defence budget exceeded $20 Billion per year, and proposed investments, dictated by the existing strategy crafted in 2008, outstripped the supply of available funds by tens of Billions of dollars.” They warned the Liberals not to overpromise like the previous government, to reassess how to defend the North, and restructure defence capabilities. The Liberal government welcomed the best advice available according to these analysts. Because they had also inherited a military funded for 68,000 regular troops and 27,000 reservists, they were urged to carefully consider shrinking this to liberate funds for necessary capital funds on the massive ship building effort and renewal of the RCN combat fleets. Some of the projects were too far along to recast, or the procurements were already in contract. For example, Harper had signed a $39.7 million engineering contract with Seaspan, despite having promised that the yard would prepare itself at no cost to Canada. When did he sign this contract? On Election Day Oct 19, 2015, the day his government fell! When interviewed, Seaspan’s CEO said there was no politics involved to get the money out before the new government took over….. hmmmm??!
Harper certainly started out with a desire to defend Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty, but the fact is that between 2006 and 2015 most of the large number of defence projects ended in failure. Hundreds of millions of dollars were wasted on Harper’s inability to organize defence procurement, all of which had a highly negative impact on the capabilities of the Canadian Armed Forces. One major failure was when the Conservatives decided not to renew a proper replacement program for the CF-188s, embraced the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter as the only choice, and announced in 2010 it would commit $9 Billion to acquire a new fleet of 65 F-35s. Shortly after that it was revealed that this figure neglected to include approximately $16 Billion in other costs. In 2011, the Parliamentary Budget Officer, at request of Liberals, conducted a study and claimed the program was now at $29.3 Billion, which rose to $36 Billion in 2012. Harper called in KPMG for an independent audit who reported the figure was actually $45.8 Biĺlion. At this point the Harper government stopped the acquisition. When Trudeau announced in 2015, ” We will not purchase the F-35 Stealth Fighter, he did so without pointing fingers or shining a light on the previous government’s embarrassing failures, and of course the Conservatives remained silent, not wanting to draw attention to this failed venture and the lack of competence of the Harper government to manage National Security. The Liberals have pursued the defence and sovereignty of the Arctic with a more careful and inclusive consultation process, not wanting to repeat the lofty goals, hawkish behaviour, and blunders which ended very badly for Harper.
This information was primarily gleaned from the “Centre for International Defence Policy” and Globe and Mail: ‘Liberals urged to boldly revamp defence policy’
Stuart Syme says
Gail, my friend, you and I have been around these matters before – sometimes on-line, sometimes off-line.
I will not give wholesale support to the Conservative Party, but in fairness, I accept that they encountered some difficulties as a minority government at the beginning, further that they were obliged to undertake some emergency re-equipment programs in order to ensure safety and success in Afghanistan (chinook helicopters, leopard tanks, howitzers, mine-resistant vehicles) and therefore put their planned programs on hold. Both were significant factors impeding their implementation of their defence platform.
The F-35 program was properly costed each time. The original cost of $9 Billion was a fly-away cost. The later costings were life-cycle costs. None of the later costings increased the annual cost, they simply extended the expected life and therefore reported greater costs. The fly-away cost and life-cycle cost per year never changed. If Trudeau saw a need for air superiority he would have committed to a capable aircraft. Used F-18’s from Australia don’t cut it.
The Seaspan incident. To be fair, one either builds at home or buys off-shore. If you commit to building at home, yes, you can ask and be assured that the shipbuilders will prepare their facilities at their cost. Turns out in this case, they could not. Where is the priority – home-built or purchased? I have no problem with subsidizing essential capabilities. In fact, doing that on Election Day is probably less political than doing it a month earlier.
The Trudeau Defence Policy does not defend the North. It is focussed on surveillance, search and rescue, and assistance to other government departments. So sayeth the policy.
Let’s talk manpower for a minute. Trading personnel for capital dollars makes no sense if you intend to actually use the things you have purchased. Yes, you can send a sailor to sea for a 20 year career without a shore posting – two examples come to mind: 17th century Royal Navy, and the current Australian coastal defence fleet. Realistically, you cannot. Shore rotations are necessary. You can buy more F-18’s from Australia but if you can’t keep the pilots in harness the aircraft won’t actually fly. The big difference in approach to personnel numbers in the Trudeau Defence Policy is to increase the Reserve Force and employ it in mission-capable units. That is new. The Reserve Force has been seen, and has been employed as, a source of trained individuals. Good luck with this change.
You did not mention the AOPS – the first and only Arctic capable warship (the Coast Guard is not part of the Canadian Forces and icebreakers are not armed) in the RCN. In my opinion, a good choice by the Conservatives and a good decision by the Liberals to continue the program. Yes, I know that other countries have taken the same basic design and built them for less. Should we have gone to them to purchase ours or should we build them at home where the money spent goes into Canadian pockets?
One final point: I am unconvinced that Trudeau and the Liberal Party have gone beyond de jure sovereignty. Will Scheer and the Conservatives? They have moved their platform closer to the Liberals on this issue so I don’t know.
Maybe I’ll know by next week.
Gail Blidook says
Thanks Stuart for good info. My comment was already too long to mention all that the Liberal government had proceeded with. For example, putting federal government on course to increase defence spending by 70% by 2027. It was my understanding that the F-35 program is on hold, not dead while CF -18’s replaced? And yes, since 2015, five Arctic ships built and sixth contract awarded to help keep shipyards and employees alive.
Haven’t been able to find Scheer platform on Arctic defence except his referral to previous Harper programs some time ago, and being a “deficit hawk “(his words). Page 73 of his newly released platform has one insipid paragraph entitled “The North”, about allowing the North to keep their resource revenues, and nothing about defence.
Stuart Syme says
The Pope has outlawed adjectives and adverbs. (You think I’m joking?)
I suggest a ban on ‘insipid’ as a good start. I won’t use it if you won’t use it.
Of course, JB can use it.
Publisher: JB doesn’t even know what it means. He, I think, (writing in the third person) is at a much lower level of intellect than you two.
Gail Blidook says
You are so amazingly funny!! Yes, about the Pope, it is true! Writing without descriptive adjectives and adverbs would be extremely uninteresting, flavourless, anemic, wishy-washy, unimaginative grossly spiritless and possibly even insipid.
Pat Rossiter says
Excellent exposition.
Given the exploration Russia is doing in their sector of the Arctic Ocean, they might arrive on the archipelago before the Americans. I don’t think the people in Alert will be much impediment. Imagine: the Russians wanting the north for its oil and mineral resources, and the Americans wanting the south for its water.
We should expect some Finlandisation to happen sooner rather than later.
Stuart Syme says
Thank you for mentioning Finland, Pat. I had missed the analogy.
They are not in NATO, but sat at the table as one of the Partners for Peace (since 1994). They have a unique approach to conscription, employing the troops as close to home as possible – usually in their hometown.
But – and this is the analogy which you have brought to the page – Finland is fully prepared to fight the last war. For them, it was (and is) the Russians coming across the ice.
For Canada, the last war is what? The Medak Pocket? Sarajevo? Anaconda? Libya? Syria? Korea? Cyprus?
Doesn’t matter. We’re fully prepared to fight that same war again.
Fred Steele says
You are right and even if it cost a fortune one of the ways to mitigate some of those intentions would be to institute Provinces out of the territories. Provinces with the same provisions of the other ten. It would mean any incursion is a direct invasion of our country. I also have more misgivings about American intentions with the present regime if they were in search of our resources. Rather than an invasion they would attempt to annex us with sympathizers from within. And no I am not pointing to one group or another. The fact is America has become a spinning unstable top. What I am talking about is when the Germans opened the border and walked into Austria. Greed for resources does strange things to some. It might not make you feel better but at the moment America is not necessarily our friend or anybodies friend. Their ally the Kurds found that out. At the present time we cannot depend on the Americans beyond doubt when it comes to the north