Canadians will have to decide if they're going to have a state-of-the-art welfare state (as they currently do), or a military that is worth maintaining.

It appears that the majority go with the former. Living Canadians who fought courageously in World War II are wondering what has happened to their once significant nation.

Military forces have two functions: Deter, protect, or defend; and attack or intimidate.

If Canada has no plans to conquer other nations, then, since the demise of the USSR, it really only needs a small defensive force, with a few modern weapons.
Unless Canada truly thinks that the US would let it be nuked without retaliating, then Canada doesn't need any submarines.

What would be both reasonably cheap and allow Canada to remain a world player, if that's what they'd like to do, is a fleet of troop transport planes, and a brigade of SpecOp soldiers that could be rapidly deployed to global hot spots.

For instance, Canada could easily handle the Janjaweed, assuming that all their troops aren't tied up in Afghanistan.

The bottom line, though, is that a Canadian force projection capability is purely for national pride, and Canada really doesn't need any military at all, only the equivalent of a large national SWAT force, plus a Coast Guard.
Maybe a large Reserve Force, just to be on the safe side.

Canada did not have any more navy in 1939 than it does now, but it proved not irrelevant in 1941-2.

The US depended on Canada then, not the other way around

More, or fewer, submarines is not the measurement of relevance

Everything Michael said.

Doesn't all that apply to Europe, Britain, Australia. Mexico. Maybe there is a marginally greater threat to Europe, but the good ole US of A will I presume come to their defense in the same fashion. (unless there is a major upheaval in US public opinion)

Canada claims rule of a huge chunk of land it cannot protect. The U.S. already disputes the Northen passage, if others follow will Canda's towed submarines deter?

I once commented that Canada has a military for two reasons: tradition and because they like being peacekeepers. Neither of those reasons require them to have submarines. There probably is a third reason: Not having any military would make it much too clear that they are our satellite. Having some military allows them to deny that, even if only to themselves. That reason allows for submarines, even if it doesn't require them.

Harry: This is a very telling statement: The US depended on Canada then, not the other way around. The implicit assumption is that WWII was our problem with which Canada helped us out. We certainly took charge of the war after Pearl Harbor, but in no way was WWII (particularly the war in Europe) more our fight than Canada's.

(Also, we don't hear much about this, do we.)

Folks, it is not just a few submarines that ails the Canadian military, it is just about everything. They are way underfunded and becoming irrelevant. If that is what the Canadians want, fine. In any event, it isn't the best idea to rely on another country's military as your only defense.

Apart from an anti-militaristic streak in Quebec and within Canadian elites, this is what happens when you live in a dream world and imagine your country to be more significant than it is. Pchuck is right that everything is falling apart because there is absolutely no consensus on what a military is needed for or what enemies we should be worried about. If Canada saw itself clearly, it would understand that at a fundamental level it was part of something bigger than itself led by the States and it would negotiate military expertise and capacity to complement and support accordingly, thus earning itself the right to whine on bilateral issues and perhaps even influence some global ones. But the irony of the era is that, by touting some kind of sacred independence and trying to think and act globally, while lacking any capacity to actually behave like a major independent power or do much to influence the globe, we can't decide whether we need subs, planes or armoured infantry support, because we can't see how any of them matter. So we study the question ceaselessly while we spend the money on other things and watch what we do have fall apart.

We do something the same at the Olympics, trying to compete in all sports and investing in, and supporting them all, equally. The result is we underachieve chronically.

Harry, your defense of our Canadian capacity is appreciated, but, although it isn't my area, I don't think you can compare the rapid mobilization and construction of 1939-42 with today. Modern high tech military equipment demands much longer delivery times, doesn't it? And don't forget in WW 11 our forces weren't engaging the enemy in a major way until 1942-3, except in the Atlantic. I'm not sure the next enemy will be that courteous about lead times.

Finally, David et al., can't we settle the WW 11 issue by agreeing that both countries deserve eternal glory and admiration for courage, nobility, sacrifice and a truly heroic contribution of men and materials? And that we both treated our Japanese citizens shamefully?

And let's not forget the impending Danish-Canadian war (From a no longer National Post story back in March) —

TINY HANS ISLAND, COVETED BY DANES TYPIFIES A REGION'S UNCERTAIN BORDERS: The arrow and circle at bottom right indicate Hans Island, which sits halfway between Ellesmere Island, left, and Greenlad, top right, just above the 80th parallel. Denmark has gone so far as to send warships to the island and plant it's flag on the frozen soil.

[Gotta be a comic opera in there somewhere.]

Canada currently has four international territorial disputes in the north, two with the United States, one with Russia and one with Denmark, according to the Department of Foreign Affairs.

Find some way to add in Norway and Iceland, and I think you got just about everybody who's anybody in the Artic. And El Gran Blanco Mexico del Norte claims to be peaceable.

Raoul:

Laugh all you want, big guy, but we're holding everyone off, aren't we? However, I hope you don't waste all your powder on the axis of evil 'cause there's a new threat to global stability developing and things could get ugly.

What modern equipment? Canada's military personnel are well-trained, but they've been starved for years by Ottawa. Kind of sad, really.

All;

Canada needs a military to protect its fishing grounds. Apparently European boats are stripping them clean and Canada is reduced to ineffectually calling "stop it!".

Peter: I thought that was my point. In WWII, Canada was fighting its own fight; it wasn't just our little buddy. That came later.

The problem with Canada integrating into our armed forces is that we won't want to give Ottawa a veto on our use of force, and we won't integrate a force that we can't rely on. Look at NORAD, where participation in missile defense over Canada is controversial.

David, it may not have been our fight in 1942, but the Germans were sinking our ships all the same, and we had nothing (thanks to Coolidge isolationism) to prevent it.

Peter's understanding of the mobilization of the Canadian Navy is correct, and, no, such a thing could not be repeated -- which is why Orrin's scoffing at navies is so awkward.

It takes years to build a ship, even longer to train its crew.

David, maybe other people are not aware of the things in your link, but I am. If I can ever get my review of Malkin's 'In Defense of Internment' published, I intend to send you a copy.

Harry:

Coolidge left office in '28. FDR might have built one during his ten years in office.

David:

I would be astounded if, after the last three years, the U.S. would tie its freedon of action to any "ally", even Australia or Britain.

One clever, articulate, high profile speech from a respected U.S. senior official (Powell would be perfect) to the effect that you would dearly love to protect Canada from missile attack, because it is so close to home and we are the closest of friends, but you appreciate the importance of our independence and, if we want to leave ourselves exposed to missiles from North Korea, you understand completely... as a good neighbour...and you will be ok on your own.

Is that too much for a poor Canadian conservative boy to ask for?

Well, Orrin, he tried. But he had been presented with a wrecked economy and empty treasury.

Sort of like Canada, eh?

After he did ten more years emptying and wrecking we were still able to build a fine miltary machine. It wasn't money that was lacking.

Well, it was money, although we eventually borrowed our way around that.

It was the moral will to rearm that was lacking.

Almost the very first thing FDR did as president was to reverse the insane unilateral disarmament policy of the Republicans and release $1B for new ships.

But navies are complicated things and you cannot create one overnight.

Overnight? He was elected in '32 and we were ill-equipped ten years later when he went to war.