Evidence of meeting #24 for National Defence in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was aircraft.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
3:30 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
I have just a quick question for you. We've talked a lot today about the fact that the air sovereignty mission in the north is only one of the missions of the F-35, and it's probably, relatively speaking, one of the most benign missions of the F-35 compared to the other things it gets involved in in places like Afghanistan and so on. Would you have a short comment on how air sovereignty or sovereignty generally is largely about just being there?
If we're going to say that we're exercising sovereignty and if aircraft that have not filed flight plans are operating within our air defence identification zones, we have an obligation under NORAD and under common sense to exercise air sovereignty and just be there so that they can see that we are there and we are exercising it. Would you comment on that?
3:30 p.m.
Associate Director, Centre for Military and Strategic Studies, University of Calgary
The major thing about responding by being there is, of course, having the ability to do something about it. When we see police on the road, their just being there is part of it, but the fact is we know there is a penalty.
Somebody made the observation, of course, that deterrence didn't require the use of fighter aircraft, but the reality is that was because deterrence was successful. The Soviets ultimately made the decision that if push came to shove, presumably our aerospace, our air power with the NATO alliance, would be sufficient to possibly cost them in terms of any invasion. In other words, yes, we never utilized them, but it was that potential to actually utilize them that was so critical.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Huebert. I can identify with that personally.
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I have a question for Mr. Epps. Fire trucks spend most of their time in the fire hall, but when there's a fire, firemen kind of need fire trucks. Would you agree with that?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
It's a pretty self-evident question.
Are there any weapons acquisition programs, deadly force capability acquisition programs, that you support for the Canadian Forces?
3:30 p.m.
Senior Program Associate, Project Ploughshares
That's a very loaded question, of course.
September 15th, 2010 / 3:30 p.m.
Senior Program Associate, Project Ploughshares
I would say in response that, as John mentioned, we certainly support Canadian Forces being equipped with appropriate equipment for the missions they have been assigned.
3:30 p.m.
Senior Program Associate, Project Ploughshares
Well, the range of missions is vast. We all acknowledge that. They include, in some cases, the use of force, particularly if a mission involves protecting civilians, for example. We would also like to note that because there is a range of missions, Canada does get to choose where it may want to emphasize its engagement. I think that's the question we would want to raise: has there been a full discussion of the mission range that this aircraft in particular would be meeting?
3:30 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Well, you may not have had that full discussion, sir, but I suggest that others may have. And those folks, who have a little more insight into those things than any of us do, can't predict what's going to happen in 30 years or 40 years, or what we might be involved in. I suggest that none of us here can, which is why we have to be prepared with the fire truck to put out whatever fire comes along, to use an analogy.
3:30 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
Certainly, Mr. Hawn, there are a range of fires going on in terms of international security. Canada has never had and never will have the full range of response capacity that others do. In other words, we don't have aircraft carriers. We don't have atomic submarines or nuclear powered submarines. There's a range of things we have chosen not to get into because of costs or for a range of strategic reasons, etc.
So not every fire that comes up in the world creates a call on Canada to send a fire truck.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Absolutely, and that's why we're part of alliances. That's why we have allies who count on us to do our part.
Do you believe we should be part of NORAD?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
Mr. Chair, there are benefits to NORAD. There are certainly aspects of it that are worth sharing. Allies can share capabilities for deterrence, for surveillance, and for detection, but finally Canada always needs to maintain the capacity and the ability to respond to threats as it sees fit, and also to engage or to ask for the assistance of allies. We do not want threats emanating from within Canada to our allies, and so we need to be a good neighbour.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
So you approve of our continued participation in NORAD?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
There are good reasons for allies to work together on--
