I never suggested that troops be carried in subs. My point was that troop carriers should have been purchased by the navy instead of subs.
Yes, we can move troops faster by air, and we do that. The trouble is that they arrive at the destination without the equipment that they need. In the past military equipment shipped in private bottoms has been held hostage while international companies fight over shipping rates.
Canada's place in the world since WW2 has been as a peacekeeper in the worlds hotspots. In this we operate, not unilaterally, but under the U.N. Canadians take great pride in their "blue berets". It is to move them and their equipment that these ships are needed. The other great task that we ask of our navy and air force is search and rescue. If they are to put their life on the line to save others they should have the finest equipment available.
Canada considers itself a nation of peace and subs are for the most part a weapon of offense. We have no great desire to sink enemy shipping or to sneak undetected into the waters of other nations, or to launch missles at another nation.
Under NATO our navy has undertaken a sub detection role and the main purpose of these boats is to play the fox in the hunt, for training. I am not saying that this is not important to do, but to put a priority on limited resources.