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.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Please answer the question: do you approve of our participation in NORAD?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
There are good reasons to work together in NORAD, yes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Thank you.
Would think that it's acceptable for the U.S. if we didn't buy an aircraft like the F-35 to replace the CF-18? Do you think it's acceptable for us as Canadians to rely on U.S. forces to provide air sovereignty over Canadian airspace?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
I don't believe we need the joint strike fighter to maintain air sovereignty in Canada. There are other options. I know there are capabilities that are not reported to be or dreamed of as being as sophisticated or advanced as the joint strike fighter, but there are other options for Canada.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Laurie Hawn Conservative Edmonton Centre, AB
Given that we have to respond to other fires around the world, where we will need aircraft or a capability more robust than that required for the relatively simple air sovereignty exercise, and given the fact that cost is definitely a big consideration, and given the fact that we can't afford to buy 20 or 30 F-18E/Fs or anything else and then buy a more robust, more survivable, more operationally capable aircraft to do the worst fires around the world, do you not see some logic in having one aircraft type? If you're going to have one type, then do you not see some logic in having an aircraft that will be able to put out the strongest fire you think you might face in the next 20, 30, or 40 years?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
It's feasible to propose that Canada would not do those sorts of things alone. It would do them with allies or in a coalition, as it has in the past. We don't need to have joint strike fighters that replicate the capabilities of the U.S. and others. We can play other roles in those coalition processes and be just as good an ally, and not necessarily provide the stealth joint strike fighter.
3:35 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bryon Wilfert
Thank you, Mr. Siebert.
Thank you, Mr. Hawn.
That will conclude this round.
In the second round I have Mr. Wallace first.
Mr. Wallace, you have four minutes.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to thank our guests, both from Calgary and from here, for coming today. The parliamentary secretary stole some of my questioning lines, but I'm going to follow up a little bit, maybe in more general terms.
My understanding of Project Ploughshares is basically that the organization is interested in turning military spending into more peaceful opportunities in terms of where to spend the money.
When we announced the Canada First military strategy, did your organization come out as being opposed to that strategy?
3:35 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
Mr. Chair, perhaps only Peter Braid from Waterloo read the Waterloo region Record op-ed piece that I wrote on Canada First, in which I raised significant questions, first about the strategic environment that was being described there and also about why the military is being called on to carry out a number of roles, in other words about mission creep. We're clearly advancing the ability of the civil power as opposed to how providing aid to the civil power would do that.
Also, I did raise the question of having military power as the leading foot in the international expression of a country's best foot forward, and I have a question about that.
3:35 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Okay, I appreciate your telling us that.
So what surprised me today in your discussion here is that Project Ploughshares, though, in general terms, is still supportive--is that correct?--of Canada having a military and a military presence.
3:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
That's correct, and there are certain missions that it's appropriate to apply to.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Would you also agree that the men and women who have volunteered in Canada to be part of our military family should be well equipped to do the jobs we're asking them to do? I'm assuming Project Ploughshares agrees with that.
3:40 p.m.
Executive Director, Project Ploughshares
Yes, and what we're asking them to do should also be balanced with the proper equipping of our diplomats, our development practitioners, and our democracy promoters.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
In your presentation today you talked about opportunity costs. I'm on the finance committee and I hear about opportunity costs of things virtually every day. Were you supportive of our recent announcement on navy procurement and what we're doing with the navy?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, certainly if I can't talk about fixed-wing search and rescue, I don't see the relevance of bringing in the navy.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
If you don't want to hear the answer, Mr. Simms, you can get the white flag out now, if you want.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL
I just want to ask my own questions, sir. I want to ask just like you do.
3:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Vice-Chair Liberal Bryon Wilfert
Mr. Simms, before your quick intervention, I was about to say to Mr. Wallace that we're above ground, not on the water here. We're talking about airplanes.
You have one minute.
3:40 p.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
However, Mr. Chair, I'm responding to them coming up.... In their presentation they talked about opportunity costs, and that if they were not spending the money on the F-35s, the money could be spent elsewhere. So I was asking whether it would be wise to spend the money they think could be saved by having a plane other than the F-35 on the navy, and how they felt about the navy procurement we announced earlier this summer. I think it is relative to what we are talking about today, but I'll be happy to move on.
Let me finish by asking for predictions. With regard to your discussion about what you wrote in the Waterloo region Record, would it be fair to say that your organization, like any other...? This plane that we're looking at purchasing has a 30- to...so by the time it hits the tarmac here, another 30 years after that, so it's about a 40-year life span. There is no way you can predict what challenges and issues Canadians and the world might face in 30 or 40 years. Would you agree that we need to at least equip our folks, if we're going to be spending this kind of money now, for any eventuality that may happen in the future?
3:40 p.m.
Liberal