|
|
 |
|
Spotlight: |
|
|
| You are here: Home > Spotlight > Fire
on the HMCS Chicoutimi |
The Debate on Canadian Submarines
The following provides an introduction to some of the issues and
controversy that have surrounded the vessels from the earliest
days with the deal to acquire them, and the most recent troubles
with the HMCS Chicoutimi.
The 1998 purchase of Victoria-class submarines by the Liberal government:
There was controversy right from the time the Liberal government
first outlined the deal to acquire the four submarines. At the
time of the purchase of the submarines, arguments against their
acquisition were quite vociferous. They emphasized
- The impact of placing undue pressure on limited
government resources – During the
1990s the federal government had reduced spending
levels significantly in order to cut the deficit.
Many argued the $800 million price tag for the four
submarines could not be justified at a time when
the government was cutting resources in areas including
health care, education, and other social programs;
- Uncertainty regarding the effectiveness of the ‘Victoria-Class’ submarines – The
Victoria-class submarines are conventional submarines:
they are powered by diesel and electrical fuel cells instead
of nuclear fuel cells. As ‘non-nuclear’ submarines,
their capability to patrol the northern Arctic (an important
strategic objective) severely restricted. Arctic patrolling
requires submarines to stay under water (due to the ice)
for periods longer than conventional submarines are capable
of. While fuel cell upgrades (which would allow the subs
to function fully vis-à-vis the needs of the Canadian
Navy), were always an option, such upgrades would drastically
increase the fleet’s overall costs; and,
- That cheaper forms of surveillance might
be more cost-effective – Although submarines are
known for their ability to provide ideal surveillance capabilities,
the case was put forth that the Canadian Navy could find
alternate means of rounding out its surveillance needs
without committing the $800 million to the four subs, such
as investing in planes, satellites, or surface ships.
The Liberal government and the Canadian Navy, however, strongly
supported the purchase of the submarines, largely based on the
following arguments:
- The military required submarines in
its fleet in order to effectively fulfill
its role of providing multi-purpose combat capable
forces;
- Submarines provide an effective means of surveillance,
particularly given that one submarine can conduct surveillance
of an area as large as 125,000 square kilometres for approximately
50 days. In this context, operating a submarine is much
less costly than, for example, using Canada’s Halifax-class
frigates to patrol a similarly-sized area; and,
- The cost-effectiveness of the acquisition,
given that the Victoria-class submarine lease was much
lower than the costs, in theory, that would have been incurred
to build new submarines. The costs to build comparable
vessels would have been approximately 4-5 times greater.
Fire on the HMCS Chicoutimi: Political Party Perspectives
The crippling of the HMCS Chicoutimi has sparked strong debate
in the House of Commons, leading to questions and speculation
by members of the opposition parties about the original submarine
purchase and the vessels’ safety. Summarized by party,
the criticisms levelled are as follows:
- Conservative Party of Canada – Conservative
leader Stephen Harper has accused Prime Minister Paul Martin
of failing to provide the Canadian Navy with adequate resources.
Specifically, Harper has asserted that the Liberal government
has cut $54 million from the submarine refurbishing program.
The Conservative Party (as well as one of its antecedents,
the Canadian Alliance ) has consistently attacked the Liberal
government for under-funding the Canadian military overall.
Gordon O’Connor, the Conservative’s current
Defence Critic, has accused the Liberal government of “wanting
a military capability on the cheap.” Conservative
MP Peter McKay has also accused the Liberal government
of failing to heed warnings about the sea-worthiness of
the HMCS Chicoutimi.
- New Democratic Party of Canada – New
Democratic Party MP Bill Blaikie, the Party’s House
Leader and a long-time veteran of the House of Commons,
has argued that the submarines are “obviously inferior” and
that the Martin government should push Britain to compensate
Canada for the problems found with the submarines.
For its part, the Liberal government has defended its acquisition
of the four vessels, and the sea-worthiness of the HMCS Chicoutimi.
With regards to the safety of the submarine, Bill Graham, Minister of National
Defence, has stated that the submarine only left port for Halifax after
numerous tests that were overseen by both Canadian and British officials.
Graham also stated that the Canadian government fully trusted the Defence
department and its assessment of the submarines in making the acquisition.
Anne McLellan, Deputy Prime Minister, has stated that answers to all questions
regarding the HMCS Chicoutimi will be found in the military’s examination
of the incident through its Board of Inquiry. To date, members of the Cabinet
have not stated whether they believe Canada should be compensated by the
British government for the problems associated with the acquisition of
these four vessels.
|
