Debating Defence and Naval Policy (XX)

David Perry: Commenting on Rob Huebert's draft editorial, Rich Gimblett said:

I think the important linking idea is that sovereignty-building in the arctic is a whole-of-govt activity; the CF (in this case navy) does nation-building as a result of what we do defending the nation; however, it is not the responsibility of the CF (navy) to bear the considerable burden of nation-building from its existing meagre budget. If we (the people) give the CF (navy) new tasks, we must give them the money to do it. Icebreakers are a new task that must be funded - that is why the CFDS is walking back - this govt failed to fund the bold promises it made during the election.”

David Perry: On 11 February, Eric Lerhe stated to everyone that he thought it important to get the funding for both the coast guard and the navy for Arctic vessels. "The navy must be in the arctic." he said, "I think submarines with AIP are needed but likely too far off. So an Arctic Patrol Vessel (APV) is needed." and then elaborated to explain that he did not believe that the new patrol vessel need be a heavy icebreaker but must have an ice transit capability equal to any other nation's commercial vessel, research vessel, or patrol vessel. He concluded, "My intent here is to use the current debate to ensure the navy gets the right ship. We cannot accept that the navy is absent from the third ocean and action to correct this must start in the next year."