By confining to harbour the three submarines that made it to Canada, the Canadian Forces and the Department of National Defence have raised some tough questions: Will it make any difference to Canada and Canadians if these boats are out of service while a Military Board of Inquiry looks into the fire that disabled HMCS Chicoutimi? And if not, do submarines really have any role in a modern Canadian navy?
These are deeper issues than those bobbing on the surface of the Chicoutimi tragedy. It may be that the four second-hand diesel submarines purchased from the United Kingdom were a bargain at $750 million - particularly since much of this bill was to be paid by allowing use of Canadian bases for U.K. tank exercises. Perhaps the fire was caused by sailor error, perhaps by a structural defect, perhaps by both. This is for qualified experts to determine. But had the Chicoutimi sailed safely to Canada, would she and her sister subs have made us, or the world, any safer?
It is worth bearing in mind when the Mulroney government hoped to buy new nuclear submarines for Canada, the Berlin Wall was still standing and military thinking in North America remained rooted in Cold War culture. The Russians, at least in theory, were still coming. Subs were designed to do what they did in the Second World War - destroy enemy surface vessels.
Canada's military objectives are now confined to surveillance, peacekeeping, support of civil
authority in emergencies, and fulfillment of
NORAD and NATO obligations. It is hard now to see how submarines can help us meet any of these needs.
Surveillance is performed by aircraft and by helicopters stationed on ships. These are sufficient to protect fish stocks, police illegal immigration by sea, and deter ocean dumping. Peacekeeping and civil support are mostly the business of the army. NATO does not need our subs.
Some of the arguments in favour of maintaining a submarine fleet are curiously circular. We cannot train sailors in anti-submarine techniques without exercises involving submarines. But from what enemy should we anticipate a submarine attack? Al-Qa'ida?
A fair case can be made the U.S. does enough submarine surveillance for all of us. Canadians have little interest in missiles fired from submarines. Americans have no need for our assistance in this fine art. There is no doubt a crack Canadian submarine fleet would be a source of pride to people in the service. But the money spent on submarines could instead be used for other pride-enhancing materiel.
After years of underfunding, the federal Liberals have promised to attend to our tattered military. First, they will conduct a thorough review of policy and objectives. The Chicoutimi tragedy has made the submarine dossier surface at the top of the list. Whether or not the subs are found to be defective and not the safe units Canada agreed to buy, this could be a fortuitous opportunity to reconsider the reasons for buying them in the first place.
