1 Something I've asked a couple times in other places and never once saw an answer - did the Canadian government ever say WHY they thought they needed submarines? What good would they do, what would they be used for? There's a million smaller, simpler things that are considered more basic military requirements that Canada just doesn't have, subs never made sense to me.

2 Wasn't it to secure the Arctic and Canadian waters from the pesky American imperialists? Who could have guessed the Danish Vikings would secure Hans Island first ...

3 Oh, so it was "All about the snow".

4 Debbye, thanks for the props. Personally, I think Canada needs a milblogger or two, but until that happens, it's turning into a bit of a niche for me. Jay, your question is one a lot of Canadians have asked as well. The truth is that Canada has the second longest coastline in the world. We have three oceans for borders. Patrolling that much territory is one hell of a task. Subs are useful on a couple of fronts - low manpower requirements and low operating and capital costs compared to surface ships, stealth (great for drug interdiction, fisheries patrols, smuggling, etc). And if others know you have subs, but don't know where they are, it multiplies the deterrent factor. As well, given our international alliances (NATO especially), bringing subsurface capability to the table is a significant contribution. Ask a U.S. naval officer if he'd prefer to just play against his own forces, or if he'd like to hone his skills against another friendly nation from time to time, and he'll pick the latter ten times out of ten.

5 Coincidently, I saw a documentary where they mentioned that the Soviets (back then) had shifted almost their entire fleet of missile boomers into the Arctic Ocean after American traitors revealed the success of the SOSUS program that had been tracking Soviet subs. Americans said that they were not able to track the subs nearly as well among and under the ice.

6 Submarines are essentially the "entry card" for being a serious 1st world Navy with pretensions of serious defense and offense. They can stay "on station" in any weather, they are hard to track ( if not noisy old boats), they are discreet, and they are hugely dangerous, in comparison to their numbers and size. One sub rumoured to be hunting in an area can completely paralyze shipping across a whole ocean, and can keep a whole navy cowering in port. (After the Brit's sunk the Belgrano in the Falklands the Argentines were cut off by sea from the islands. ) Example 2: Consider one sub doing mischief in the Straights of Malaca (Singapore)or Arabian Gulf, or off South Africa. Instant commercial chaos and paralysis. (Honestly we could use some nuclear boats if we wanted to be serious about patrolling the far north, but that's not this discussion.) Canada has had some since before WWI if I recall.

7 So to answer the question more explicitly: The Navy was trying to maintain itself as a (small) 1st rate force. There is a lot to be said for subs as operational and observation platforms. Subs are a very useful addition if we want to interoperate with our traditional friends as actual useful allies.

8 I'll second what's already been said: maybe even particularly if you're not going to have a big navy, if instead you want one that's relatively small but gives you bang for your buck, subs are worth investing in. They're potentially huge force multipliers compared to conventional surface warships. Of course, Fred's also right: to REALLY get that kind of advantage from submarines, you need nuclear boats. Diesel-electrics just don't have the same kind of range, and have to spend time on the surface to recharge their batteries.