PUBLICATION GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: THU OCT.21,2004
PAGE: A1 (ILLUS)
BYLINE: JEFF SALLOT
CLASS: National News
EDITION: Metro DATELINE: Ottawa ON
Military brass have trouble justifying subs
JEFF SALLOT
With a report from Rob Shaw
OTTAWA Canada's top military officers found it difficult yesterday to convince skeptical opposition MPs that the country needs submarines to defend the coasts.
Even Liberal MPs at parliamentary hearings into the $750-million purchase of used British subs asked whether they are the right kind of boats to maintain coastal sovereignty in the Arctic. Also yesterday, a crew member on HMCS Chicoutimi said he called the Halifax command centre on Oct. 5, the day the sub caught fire, to report that the blaze was major. The public, however, was initially told that the fire was minor.
Lieutenant Peter Bryan told the CBC that on the day of the fire, he used a satellite phone to reach officials in Halifax. "I told them that we'd had a major fire," he said. A second crew member, Gary Taylor, said the submariners were confused when they saw media headlines the next day.
"First thing we saw was 'A minor fire cripples Canadian submarine,' and we're like looking around the compartment going, if this is minor I'd hate to see major.
"Somebody had their wires crossed somewhere. Never was it reported from the boat it was a minor fire. It was a major fire."
The severity of the blaze became publicly apparent a day later, after Lieutenant Chris Saunders died from smoke inhalation and two other crew members were sent to hospital.
The hearings at the Commons defence committee into the purchase of Chicoutimi and three other diesel-electric submarines are the first test of the opposition's ability to control Parliament's investigative tools in a minority situation. Committee chairman Pat O'Brien, a Liberal from London, Ont., seemed willing to accommodate opposition MPs as they grilled General Ray Henault, the chief of the defence staff, and Vice-Admiral Bruce MacLean, the navy chief, about the rationale for submarines.
The officers asserted that the subs are a crucial component of Canada's coastal defence capability because they can operate covertly, deter intruders such as illegal fishing vessels and can launch a deadly attack on hostile warships.
But when pressed for details as to what Canada's submarines have done in the past 25 years that the navy has been operating them, the officers came up with only two examples.
Vice-Adm. MacLean, a former sub commander who sailed the older Oberon-class subs that the British subs replace, said he recalled an episode in the mid-1990s in which a sub helped to stop a ship smuggling drugs into Canada. He also noted that a sub located the black box flight recorders from the Swiss Air jetliner that crashed off the Nova Scotia coast in 1998.
Bill Blaikie, the NDP defence critic, said that he's going to need to hear more evidence about what subs have been able to do that other military equipment can't. But based on the answers yesterday, "there's a paucity of that kind of information."
Noting that most of the overfishing off the East Coast is being done by ships from countries that are Canada's military allies, Claude Bachand, the Bloc Quebecois defence critic, scoffed at the suggestion that a submarine is the type of ship to deter fishing vessels.
"Do you seriously think a Canadian submarine would sink a Spanish boat?"
Aircraft, including unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that were used to try to find Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, are better types of military equipment to find smugglers and illegal fishing boats, Mr. Bachand said.
Conservative defence critic Gordon O'Connor, a retired army general, suggested that submarines are a rather expensive way to go after fishing boats and smugglers.
Subs can also locate other submarines, often at a great distance, Vice-Adm. MacLean said, noting that about 40 other countries have submarines.
But other types of underwater sensors can do the same thing, Mr. O'Connor said.
The Conservative MP said in a later interview he is keeping an open mind about whether Canada needs subs, but this is an important question as the government conducts a full-scale foreign and defence policy review this fall.
Larry Bagnell, the Liberal MP from Yukon, said this particular type of British-made subs could not operate in the Arctic, where other countries have challenged Canadian sovereignty. He asked whether Canada wouldn't have been better off with nuclear-powered submarines that can remain submerged for longer periods, a crucial capability for operating under ice.
Keith Martin, the Liberal parliamentary secretary for defence, wanted to know whether a submarine is more expensive to operate than a surface ship such as a frigate.
He didn't get a direct answer. "I'm loath to compare costs," Vice-Adm. MacLean said.
pbi - That's an article from the Globe. Not smart enough to link to it but added the bold face. The Lt(N) in question was giving interviews from home to the major networks. At least he didn't wear his uniform for them. The comments from the interviews were what got my blood pressure up. Is it what he really did? Who knows, but its what he's claiming in the national media.
