Vancouver shipbuilders win $3.3-billion contract

Good stuff. I have a relative working in that shipyard. Man, do we ever need the ships, too ... longest coastline of any country on Earth,folks.

The amount that is navigable for most or all of the year is rather tiny for a nation of the size of Canada. The amount that is economicaly important is even smaller.

"tiny"?

Apparently, you have never been there. Live beside a slough in Saskatchewan do you?

Try this simple excercise. Get a map of all of Canada and a pencil. Start on the New Bruswick-Maine border around St. Andrews. Trace all of the way along the N.B. coast ... then all around Nova Scotia (don't forget Cape Breton!), back along New Brunswick up the St Lawrence to Quebec (Yes, it is tidal, salty up there and it is authentic sea-coast. The U-boats even hunted, there.) Now, cross the river and head back East ... past Baie Comeau, Sept Iles around the corner and all the way up along the Labrador Coast right up to the Quebec-Nfld, border. Pause there a moment and trace around PEI and, of course, Newfoundland. Newfie alone has a seacoast that is about half of the size of that around Britain. Now, back to the top. From here westward, you are permitted to draw a dotted line along the top of Quebec, all along Hudson's Bay, James Bay and go to Churchill Manitoba. This is open seasonally only (most of what you have traced to date is open year around except for part the Gulf of St. Lawrence). Those grain elevators in Churchill were not built as a some sort of folly during the War. This is all navigable for a big part of the year. The Hudson's Bay Company has been sailing that coast for every year since the 1600's, so it isn't a "warming thing", either. Leave your pencil line for now, because the rest of that coast up to Alaska represents the near future but not quite the "now".
So, starting again near the mouth of the Columbia River, trace all around those thousands of crinkly bits until you reach Skagway, Alaska. Don't forget to trace Vancouver Island, Haida Gwai.
Now, lay string all around your tracing. Stretch the string out onto a map scale and start adding up the furlongs. Guess what? the navigable part of our coast is feckin' huge. The US has a bigger coast. So does Australia but that is about it. Our coast is bigger than China's, Britain's, France, Spain, Indonesia, Japan, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Brazil, Mexico, even Russia if you disallow the Arctic coast, as we have in our measure. We have the largest sea coast of any nation on Earth and, by my reconning anyway, the third longest navigable coast. (Perhaps, 4th ... I'm not sure about India).

If you live in the middle of a field of Canola, it likely seems pretty tiny, insignificant and not part of the REAL economy. There's nothing worthwhile out on the sea ... just a few fishies.

Red part has some a reasonable economic value and interest.
Yellow part as a lower order economic value and interest.

Uncoloured parts are either non Canadian shores or the north.

The amount of Canadian coast that is very important to the nation is very small, and most of it can be limited down even further to the shipping lanes and a small number of ports

In pure terms yeah all those islands add up to a lot of shore line, but in terms of distance needed to be covered to provide force projection it's much smaller.

Our total coast might be larger than Indonesia or Japan, but the part that we care about isn't.

Even counting the Newfoundland and Quebec cost is likely over stating it's value.

Aside from coastline, Canada has one of the largest offshore territories and also one of the largest maritime EEZ's

Likewise if there is any branch of the armed forces that needs to be larger and more capable, it's the Navy.

One of your squiggles is around one of the planet' major petroleum reserves.


p.s. Your choice of that particular map projection is VERY deceiving and it distorts the situation dramatically. I have to admit that it is clever though, if dishonest.

Sweeeet. When's the protest?

There's a quibble about whether Canada needs another paltry 17 vessels, most of which are needed to replace old ones?

I say it's about damn time.

Maybe I'm wrong but isn't the sort of economic protection and SAR more a Coast Guard job than one for the Navy?

Isn't the job of the Navy to engage other navy ships in ship to ship combat and to support land and air elements in offensive and defensive operations? Not run off illegal fishing boats, or escort refugee rafts?

Does it need a Navy ship to exploit it? I don't think so.



It's harder to get a good map that shows the roundness of the earth, it does make the north look far larger than it really is.

Does it need a Navy ship to exploit it? I don't think so.



It's harder to get a good map that shows the roundness of the earth, it does make the north look far larger than it really is.

The RCN is tasked with a bit more than naval warfare......especially when we don't have a shooting war.

SAR, security patrols, anti-drug ops, anti-human trafficking etc.

The Coast Guard isn't used for some of these tasks because, unlike the USCG, their ships are not armed. The RCMP can be used for some of the ops, but their ships are littoral and quite small. For an all around universal fit, nothing like an RCN asset at the centre of the op.

... and our Southern coastline FAR smaller, less signifcant ... tiny and worthless. You must live in the middle of the country, somewhere.

Sounds like jobs the Coast Guard should be doing, sounds like the navy without a war fighting roll has picked up jobs that belong to a different group in order to justify their cost.

I wouldn't want the land forces doing policing work as their main job because we didn't have a war to fight.

The military should stick to military actions and not take on other tasks that should be covered by civilian policing.

We should fund the Navy to be a warfighting group. When we deploy our Navy they shouldn't be doing what amounts to police work (searching ships for drugs).


A full military ship is packing around a lot of extra, expensive, and useless gear for a police action. If the problem is our Coast Guard is too small, the answer shouldn't be to send the Navy.

Again it seems that Canada needs a better Coast Guard, not a Navy doing the job of the Coast Guard.


What part of "a reasonable economic value and interest" didn't you understand? The southern coastline is far smaller, but it's way more significant and way more valuable. Which is good. If the whole coast was equaly important we would need to spend hugely more on it.

Where have to picked up this idea that you think I said the coast doesn't have value?

Sounds like jobs the Coast Guard should be doing, sounds like the navy without a war fighting roll has picked up jobs that belong to a different group in order to justify their cost.

I wouldn't want the land forces doing policing work as their main job because we didn't have a war to fight.

The military should stick to military actions and not take on other tasks that should be covered by civilian policing.

We should fund the Navy to be a warfighting group. When we deploy our Navy they shouldn't be doing what amounts to police work (searching ships for drugs).


A full military ship is packing around a lot of extra, expensive, and useless gear for a police action. If the problem is our Coast Guard is too small, the answer shouldn't be to send the Navy.

Again it seems that Canada needs a better Coast Guard, not a Navy doing the job of the Coast Guard.



You would need to take that up with government. The RCN doesn't pick up roles, we do what's tasked of us.

The army, when it has no war to fight, sits in garrison or exercises in the field (on occasion) The RCN sails for operational missions each day it passes Duntz Head or Chebucto Head.