Discussion · Government Orders
Scott Anderson Conservative
“The government is buying European military planes to build political ties instead of listening to what Canada's military needs. These European planes will cost taxpayers more money because they need expensive changes to work with North American defence systems. I want the government to tell Parliament if any promised jobs or benefits are actually worth these extra costs.”
“Mr. Speaker, the present Liberal government is simultaneously pursuing European defence procurement arrangements through SAFE and Readiness 2030, negotiating with Saab over GlobalEye and creating a new Crown corporation with sweeping powers to direct defence investment. These developments raise the serious concern that procurement decisions could be influenced by the Prime Minister’s preferred geopolitical relationship rather than the operational requirements identified by Canada’s military leadership. Take Saab’s GlobalEye airborne warning aircraft, for example. This is a project being advanced by the Defence Investment Agency itself, the very organization that Bill C-40 proposes to transform into a powerful Crown corporation. Concerns have been raised about radar coverage, aerial refuelling, and compatibility with NORAD’s secure communications networks. Will Canada be paying for additional engineering, modifications, training, infrastructure and long-term maintenance to make a European-designed surveillance platform compatible with the North American defence architecture? How does that compare with alternative surveillance aircraft already designed to operate within existing NORAD architecture? The Prime Minister frequently invokes strategic autonomy to justify his European ambitions, but autonomy is measured by whether Canada can independently operate, maintain and sustain the equipment it purchases. A European aircraft that requires expensive modifications to integrate with NORAD does not make Canada more sovereign. It just makes continental defence more expensive. If Canadian industrial participation is being used to justify a preferred supplier, Parliament and the people of Canada deserve to know whether those promised industrial benefits outweigh the additional costs. Conservatives are not opposed to European defence co-operation. We are opposed to allowing geopolitical preferences to substitute for military judgment and financial accountability. The Prime Minister is entitled to pursue closer relations with Europe, but he is not entitled to make Canadian taxpayers finance that ambition to our detriment.”
Mr. Speaker, the present Liberal government is simultaneously pursuing European defence procurement arrangements through SAFE and Readiness 2030, negotiating with Saab over GlobalEye and creating a new Crown corporation with sweeping powers to direct defence investment. These developments raise the serious concern that procurement decisions could be influenced by the Prime Minister’s preferred geopolitical relationship rather than the operational requirements identified by Canada’s military leadership. Take Saab’s GlobalEye airborne warning aircraft, for example. This is a project being advanced by the Defence Investment Agency itself, the very organization that Bill C-40 proposes to transform into a powerful Crown corporation. Concerns have been raised about radar coverage, aerial refuelling, and compatibility with NORAD’s secure communications networks. Will Canada be paying for additional engineering, modifications, training, infrastructure and long-term maintenance to make a European-designed surveillance platform compatible with the North American defence architecture? How does that compare with alternative surveillance aircraft already designed to operate within existing NORAD architecture? The Prime Minister frequently invokes strategic autonomy to justify his European ambitions, but autonomy is measured by whether Canada can independently operate, maintain and sustain the equipment it purchases. A European aircraft that requires expensive modifications to integrate with NORAD does not make Canada more sovereign. It just makes continental defence more expensive. If Canadian industrial participation is being used to justify a preferred supplier, Parliament and the people of Canada deserve to know whether those promised industrial benefits outweigh the additional costs. Conservatives are not opposed to European defence co-operation. We are opposed to allowing geopolitical preferences to substitute for military judgment and financial accountability. The Prime Minister is entitled to pursue closer relations with Europe, but he is not entitled to make Canadian taxpayers finance that ambition to our detriment.