We don't have Canadian submarines permanently with a presence in the Arctic at the moment, but we operate our submarines in the Arctic. Our submarines are not capable under ice, but that doesn't mean they're not Arctic-capable submarines.
You say that we have other submarines transiting the north. The impression I get is that you mean they are transiting through our Canadian territorial waters. I would say that we do not have submarines doing that—at least not without our permission and careful control.
So the premise of the question leads me to believe or suggests that we're going to have a lot of nuclear submarines hanging out in the Arctic. I don't think we will. As a result, I don't see a need for a deepwater port that can deal with nuclear accidents. I think it would be a huge investment for nothing.
We do have the ability to respond to nuclear accidents if they occur on either coast. You know that we have a regime in place to allow, in certain areas, visits of nuclear-powered vessels, and we have the ability to deal with the potential consequences of that. I would say that if there is, through some remote set of circumstances, an accident in the north to which we have to respond, then we would look, between ourselves and our allies, at the capability we can deploy to respond to it.
I don't think having a permanent capability in the north would be a good investment, and it would imply that we have a level of activity up there that I don't think we will have
Does that answer your question?