National Defence Committee on Oct. 30th, 2014

[LGen George Macdonald]

There will come a day, I think, when UAVs will perhaps replace manned fighters, certainly augment them more than they are today. I don't think we're there yet. I think the opportunity for that will evolve as the technology evolves. Just the mechanics of operating a UAV in domestic airspace has its own issues that have to be resolved.

Certainly, UAVs have the ability to provide a persistence and endurance that you cannot achieve through any manned aircraft, certainly not a fighter, which offers an advantage. There's a project to address that within the Department of National Defence.

There always will be, though, a desirability or an advantage to have a person on scene to provide the so-called man-in-the-loop decision-making process that you may not be able to achieve with the UAV. I think most people agree that the days of the fighter are giving way maybe not completely but gradually to UAVs.

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

In that case, the balance is definitely better.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Yes.

[Jean-François Larose, Forces et Démocratie, Repentigny, QC]

I have a concern about ballistic missiles. My concern is that the effectiveness of what exists now has not really been fully proven.

It's an uncertainty about the effectiveness of the countermeasures that also exist, or that are seen as perhaps even being developed.

Let us talk about the dynamics of that.

If Canada provides money to support development by the Americans, what is our guarantee in that relationship? Going by the number of reports we receive, it is not enough, given the number of missiles that could be directed at the United States. So, by investing billions of dollars, we end up with a few more, or we improve the technology. How can we be sure that the Americans are also going to use them in order to defend Canada too?

In the case of Europe, we understand that, because of the distance, their only possible choice is to use them to defend themselves.

Given the strategic priority based on the adversary’s targets, what guarantees do we have that the missiles we deploy will also be used to defend what I consider important targets in Canada?

[LGen George Macdonald]

Certainly the ground-based midcourse ballistic missile defence system that the Americans have developed is a developmental program, and a number of fairly high-profile failures have occurred.

One fundamental premise, though, is that there will never be enough interceptors to defend against a prominent actor, Russia or China, in the ballistic missile environment. You are only dealing with onesies and twosies from a North Korea.

When I was deputy commander of NORAD, admittedly this was 13 years ago, I participated directly in a number of ballistic missile defence exercises in Colorado Springs, because it was assumed at that time by the Americans that we would participate, so they included Canadians in everything.

I was the acting commander in chief for a number of those exercises. I made the decisions about what targets would be engaged and how many missiles would be launched. I briefed the exercise president on what was happening. I got information from a Canadian missile warning officer to tell me about missile warning. I liaised with the American ballistic missile defence system stakeholders, and we addressed the challenges of the exercise through that.

The reality is that we will never be guaranteed that Canadian territory will be defended by the eventual system unless we are part of the equation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Peter Kent]

Thank you, General.

That is your time, Mr. Larose.

Mr. Harris, please; you have five minutes.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I'd like to talk a little bit about the Arctic. It's a vast territory.

We've had some evidence before our committee from—I don't know whether these are your direct colleagues—the Conference of Defence Associations Institute; Mr. Petrolekas and Ferry de Kerckhove both testified that they did not think there was a military threat in the Arctic; American diplomats have also told me that they don't want to see the Arctic militarized.

Do we see the Arctic, aside from the aerospace aspect of it, as an area that we need to be concerned about from a military point of view?

We're talking about the defence of North America in general now.

[LGen George Macdonald]

I don't consider it a defence issue per se, from the point of view of.... I think our geography will protect us against a land- or sea-based attack.

I see it as a sovereignty issue: protection, as mentioned, of the areas of vast resource wealth, of free navigation throughout the Northwest Passage, and of people who live in the Arctic and who operate in the Arctic. I see it as a natural sovereignty issue, as sovereignty applies to the rest of Canada.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Would the threats be in the nature of maintaining sovereignty, pollution control, search and rescue, and those types of things?

[LGen George Macdonald]

Yes.

[Brian Bow]

I would agree with that. My short answer to that question would be that there isn't a defence problem in the Arctic, but there are many problems in the Arctic that might call for the use of defence resources to respond to them.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Absolutely. It's pretty hard to do search and rescue without military assets, as we've seen already in one or two instances.

In that context, is this the way you would see the AOPS, for example? Would that be part of the defence of North America, or of the exercise of sovereignty, as you've talked about it?

[LGen George Macdonald]

In my view, yes. Of course, it will be an armed vessel operated by the navy.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

I think we're talking about a 50-millimetre gun.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Something like that, but the reality is that often it's a presence to monitor the navigation through those waterways to monitor pollution, as you have suggested, to avoid environmental issues, or to participate in search and rescue.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Yes, and you may need arms for the interdiction of people who are there who shouldn't be there, for example.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Having an armed vessel provides a deterrent, but I think it's also appropriate for us to be able to have that capability, even if we're just protecting our sovereignty, just as we would have an armed F-18 patrolling the north.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

We've had armed vessels for fisheries patrols as well.

[LGen George Macdonald]

Exactly.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

You mentioned the Northwest Passage. Let me ask you both this question then, because this is one of the areas where we disagree with our best friend and neighbour on the status of the Northwest Passage.

Do you see that as an issue in terms of the defence of North America, in terms of our knowledge of underwater submarine activity, etc.? Is that something that concerns either of you? I'd like to hear from both of you.

[LGen George Macdonald]

I'll speak first quickly, and I would say that the answer is no.

I think that practically, on a day-to-day basis, we are able to set aside our diplomatic differences for the sake of cooperating and coordinating, not just with the Americans, but with our other Arctic national partners, in exercising the necessary actions to protect the environment, to protect the sovereignty, and to preserve the north.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

If I could add on to that, we know that the Americans disagree on that. What about internationally, other nations of the world? Do they accept our position, or are they following the American position because it may suit them?

[Brian Bow]

I think there are lots of countries that don't necessarily accept our position on the Arctic, mostly because they interpret differently the rules on what counts as an international strait. You can disagree with a legal position and choose not to challenge it, and I think that's the main thing we're seeing. There are very few countries that have any interest in challenging the position directly.

[Jack Harris, NDP, St. John's East, NL]

Do you think it's very unlikely that any other country would challenge Canada's position on that?

[Brian Bow]

I don't see it happening in the foreseeable future, but as the Arctic rapidly evolves, there may be situations where we may assert a rule, for example, on pollution control, and some countries may chose to challenge that rule, but I don't see any immediate urgency. I don't see any countries with a strong motive to challenge the position right now.