Not to my mind what a navy is for, but maybe the justification politically is warm and fuzzy, er, cold and slimey. From a post at Milnet. ca:
…As for the Kingston class [more here], those ships are so laughably cheap to run that the cost/benefit math for tieing them up just doesn’t compute. They see off a lot of the RCN’s domestic commitments (SOVPATs [sovereignty patrols], FISHPATs, SAR station, etc) at a fraction of the cost (like, a tenth) of running a heavy [the frigates] to do the same thing…
Then:
… Right from the Admiral’s mouth last month he said the MCDV’s [Kingston class] will be doing the lion’s share of Fisheries and such as other CPF’s [Canadian Patrol Frigates] go into refit for the foreseeable future [FELEX, looks like LockMart is making out splendidly on this $2 billion $2 billion contract for the RCN]. They are cheap to operate compared to a CPF…
Silly me. I thought it was primarily the job of the (terribly neglected) civilian Canadian Coast Guard to carry Fishery Officers to protect our fisheries. Which again raises the question…
Disclosure: I ended my public service career as a bureaucrat at the CCG.
Mark Collins, a prolific Ottawa blogger, is a Research Fellow at the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute
By the way, the Navy goes so far as to use fisheries enforcement as a rationale for their submarine fleet, a novel concept indeed. From an earlier post, further links at original:
“…
From the Globe and Mail story linked to above:
‘Military experts don’t dispute the value of submarines to a nation such as Canada, with its vast coastline. The stealthy diesel-electric subs can covertly combat smuggling, illegal fishing, terrorism and polluters.’
Those are all primarily law enforcement/coast guard roles (scroll down to the Canadian Coast Guard section in this post on the Conservatives’ election platform); any “military expert” who thinks very expensive subs are important contributors to those missions is not well grounded in naval realities. No other navy cites such missions as justifications for their boats. But the RCN in fact itself does tout those roles too (I’ll wager the Globe reporter had a glimpse of the following):
‘…
They can monitor and record the presence of a suspicious vessel without being detected. The information collected can be shared with other Government departments to prosecute those would violate our sovereignty and national laws. This offers a strong deterrent to:
Terrorists
Smugglers (of people, drugs, and other contraband)
Illegal Fishing
Polluters
Canadian submarines have played a significant part in supporting national security and sovereignty. Submarines are like hidden cameras in Canada’s ocean areas. Both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have made use of the Navy’s submarines, using their stealth and advanced sensors to gather evidence for use in the prosecution of fisheries violators, polluters, and narcotics smugglers [really? where’s the evidence? and how often given that the boats are almost never operational?]. Because it is almost impossible to know whether or not a submarine is present, potential lawbreakers must always be concerned that their activities are being monitored…’
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=467
Is the point of the RCN to go (not) fish? Too hydroplane silly.
Mark Collins