We did look at having nuclear submarines twice and, ultimately, what's been the killer both times has been the cost. There's no question that having a nuclear-capable submarine is what will allow us to go under the ice, but the problem that has always bid the devil for all planners has been what to sacrifice to get that capability. In other words, it has proven virtually impossible for Canadians, be it Liberals or Conservatives, ever to come up with a defence budget that would allow having the capability to deal with all the requirements that have already gone through from a surface capability and at the same time going nuclear. It has always been that cost factor that has been the killer.
Would I personally like to see us having one or two nuclear submarine capabilities? Of course, but I'm an academic. I don't have to deal with the broader issue in that particular context.
Realistically, the best thing we can do is work as closely as possible with the Americans, which we have done, to allow them to ensure that that is in fact protected under the ice, but ensuring we retain a submarine capability so they keep us fully informed in terms of what they have done, which I will add we now know has been the case.
There was a lot of speculation that wasn't the case in the past, but one of our students at the University of Calgary found documents that demonstrated there has been an agreement between Canada and the U.S. on how to proceed under the ice, which makes it clear there were not sovereignty violations.
As for nuclear capabilities, keep in mind that ultimately because of the manner of the Cold War, Canada had to be, as a NATO member, always subscribed and avoided the issue of no first strike because we were quite aware that if the Soviets attacked, we might have to go to the nuclear option, if that ever came in.
You get into a fuzzy area in your second question in the context of how much and what we can and cannot do.
I'll say one other thing about your point about information. This is also a challenge that we as academics often face in terms of getting information. For example, we don't know how many flights the Russians have had in terms of bomber long-range patrols up to Canadian airspace. That tends to be classified information, and it's very difficult for us to know whether or not we should be concerned, because that information is not made widely available.
A lot of the materials that form the basis of what we're trying to come to is, in fact, classified. Some of it is classified for very good reasons, some I would dare say for political reasons and because we've inherited the words from the British tradition, and that is, classify unless you can prove there is no harm, as opposed to the Americans who say to classify if you can only show there is harm. That's a challenge I think we all face.