National Defence Committee on Dec. 4th, 2014

[Tarik Brahmi, NDP, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Professor Sands, thank you for raising a point in your opening remarks that I find rather interesting and concerns me in particular.

You listed threats to the security of North America. You mentioned home-grown terrorism. I am the MP for the riding where a member of the Canadian Forces was attacked and killed by a person in a car. I am therefore directly concerned by home-grown terrorism as a threat to North American security, which is what we are studying today.

This raises a question that many of my constituents often ask me. At what point can we label an attack against a member of the Canadian Forces as a terrorist attack?

You gave the example of the Ottawa attack, but, in the attack I am referring to, the person had a knife and was driving a Nissan 2000. That was all the equipment he had. He had no training.

You are experts in security, but not in propaganda. As experts in security, would you place the attack against the World Trade Center and individual attacks on the same level? The attack against the World Trade Center required organized international cooperation where people were sent to a country to receive pilot training. The other attack was committed by an individual who had access to terrorist rhetoric on the Internet, but was a lone wolf, isolated, and, because of mental health issues, could not have relationships with his neighbours or family members.

Can those two attacks be treated in the same way? What is your assessment of those two events?

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

It is a very sensitive situation. I would respond first with some sympathy for your constituency and the people in Canada who are dealing with this. It is very tough.

In some ways it doesn't matter whether the motivation is political or whether the motivation may come from mental instability. We have had horrible incidents of family shootings and other things that have happened because young men, and sometimes young women, but often young men, commit a violent act for whatever reason—they're frustrated. From the security point of view, the first thing is to prevent those things from happening, to try to catch them before an individual does harm to himself or others. It doesn't matter what the motivation is, we want to keep people safe. Whether it's in a school shooting, the shooting in Montreal at the engineering school, or something of this order, we have to try to keep people safe.

Then always, inevitably and very humanly we turn to the question: Why? Was there anything we could have done? Would we have been able to do more if we had known more? This is why I raise the question of intelligence in the very local sense. What the U.S. has found in the vast majority of terrorist activities it has been able to stop, and even in the school shootings and individual acts of non-political violence that it has been able to stop, is that the intelligence that saved the day was from members of the community who knew a young individual or individuals and told law enforcement they were worried, and from law enforcement that listened, officers who said they heard what the people were saying and who worked with them to try to protect the individual from harming himself or others.

We saw that in Buffalo with the Lackawanna group. We saw it in Detroit. We have seen it in many incidents. I think we have to build trust among our law enforcement communities, our parents, our professionals working with kids in schools and the officials who are there to keep us safe. Worry less about motive. Focus on helping people and keeping people safe.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

We are out of time. Thank you, Mr. Brahmi.

Next is Mr. James Bezan on behalf of the Conservative Party.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I want to thank both witnesses for appearing today. I've been interested in your comments.

I want to come back quickly to BMD. In Canada, although we have not supported North American ballistic missile defence, we have been supportive of BMD that has been instituted in Europe as part of NATO. I am sure you are aware that the Senate has done a study on BMD, which we're considering quite closely.

With the rhetoric coming from Russia right now, everybody is extremely concerned with the seeming sabre-rattling every time Putin speaks, but we all know that BMD would never defend against a missile attack from Russia. However, let's talk about some of the other state and non-state players out there and the danger they represent.

From your two perspectives, how are we right now with the North Koreans? How are we with the Iranians' aspirations for nuclear warheads? We have already talked about the use of drones and the proliferation of cruise missiles to state and non-state players in recent years and about how they also present a major threat to North American security. Could you both comment on that?

[Charles Doran]

Let me agree with you first of all that these are all very serious issues. For me, the matter of proliferation of weapons of potentially mass destruction, as difficult as it is to defend against, is most serious in the Middle East, and that's why the Iranian negotiations are so crucial. We have to make them succeed. The alternative is going to be probably some kind of use of force, which will not, I think, be any kind of permanent solution and will be very difficult, especially in the context of other things on the ground taking place there at this point.

Why do I say proliferation is so problematic there? If the Iranians acquire these weapons of mass destruction, there will be a kind of effect that will spread and other governments in the area beyond Israel—Israel already has those weapons—will be acquiring the weapons.

The problem there is that these are small urban populations. The time required to attack is very short, and there is a history of surprise attack in the area. This combination is a recipe for very serious problems. Therefore, to the extent that the defensive technologies are going to be able to help us in this area, we have to exploit them, but I think we also have to rely seriously on the success of negotiations at this point.

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

Sir, the only thing I'd add, and I don't want to take up much of your time, is that there are two issues. One is the vehicle for delivering an attack, and the other is what you attack with, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and so on.

Non-proliferation efforts dealing with ordnance are very important to try to stop people from using those weapons, biological and other. The missile technology or drone technology can be picked up at Walmart or Canadian Tire. It's becoming so cheap and so easy. We have a little bit of benefit with the North Koreans that they are not very good at hitting their target, but that won't last. They will get better at it.

The idea of missiles is out there. We have to do what we can to make sure they are not containing anything that is truly a weapon of mass destruction, and that may be the best we can do.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

I want to comment on what Mr. McCallum said. He made the comment that we like to have the same equipment that Americans run on, and if you look at our Canadian army and our Canadian navy, they run quite different operations and platforms than their American counterparts run.

However, when we're talking about replacement of our CF-18s—and you mentioned the importance of stealth, but maybe not necessarily in the domestic context—wouldn't you consider stealth as being a very strong deterrent for policing in our airspace, especially in the Arctic where we see so many Russian Bears coming across? Would they not want to approach NORAD airspace, if they did not know whether or not we were up there with stealth aircraft?

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

The difference between the various degrees of stealth is such that what we're really doing in the Arctic is letting them know that we know they are there and that we want them to turn around, so stealth is not as critical in that context. I know what you're saying; you never know where the attack might come from, but it's not an invisible plane. It's a question of being able to sneak up on people, and what we want in the Arctic is for the Russians to know we are coming, and to know that we know they are there.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

As a final comment, I want—

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Actually, your time is up.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Are you sure, Mr. Chair?

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

I hate to do this to you, Mr. Bezan, but it's now 5:09 and we can't let you start a question at the end of the five minutes. Thank you very much. You may get another round.

Next is Madam Michaud, for the New Democratic Party.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

In relation to NORAD, I would like to delve a little more into the issue of cyberspace, which I think is quite important.

In addition to defending its own networks, does NORAD play a role in cyberspace or more specifically in North American cybersecurity and alerts?

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

Well, the United States has put its cyber-defence within the context of strategic command. Northern command is the home for NORAD, but even though we have organized it that way, we're trying to provide protection for not only military but also civilian services.

I think, though, the fact that the U.S. has shifted the primary responsibility to a different command, it will make NORAD a follower and not a leader. It has to protect its own systems, but it's unlikely to be the first tip of the spear in terms of our cyber-defences. That said, if Canada were interested in investing in cyber-defence capabilities inside the context of NORAD, that is something that I think the U.S. would be interested in talking about.

[Charles Doran]

I would agree with this. Cyber is so complex, so expensive, so rapidly moving, that one is not likely to find a particular institutional framework for it at this point inside NORAD, but to the extent that there are real breakthroughs that are lasting and that can be put into place, NORAD certainly is a good place to find such a home. But it's not going to be a place to innovate with any of this technology.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

At one of our previous meetings, we heard from a retired major general who talked about the use of drones mainly for monitoring and other types of activities in the Arctic. In his view, drones could be a solution suited to Arctic surveillance as such.

What are your comments on that?

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

I would agree. I think drones are very useful. They are lower cost than the operation of a fighter aircraft, or another aircraft that might be going to check out what could be triggering a threat but could actually be something less than a threat, for example, perhaps a flock of birds or something is showing up on radar and you need to identify and verify whether it is or isn't a threat. That can be done by drones.

They are cheaper, lighter, easier to upgrade, and they give you great range. Canada has a tremendous coastline and an enormous amount of territory to cover, so for the dollar a fleet of drones could do more than the cost of a single fighter aircraft. In that sense, it could be a very promising technology.

[Charles Doran]

Yes. I think the drones are really an interesting new area for a lot of further exploration and investment. They certainly are very good for monitoring, and they certainly can do this rather more cheaply than other techniques.

But that doesn't mean, at this point, that our fighter planes, for example, are being made obsolete. The great advantage they have is their clear deterrent value. That deterrent value is what we really expect from them when the Bears come over the horizon and are expected to return back home. We have to have some kind of capability that is convincing, and fighter planes certainly have that at this point.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

You have about a minute left now.

[Élaine Michaud, NDP, Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, QC]

Okay.

In terms of the defence of North America, in the Arctic and in general, what level of cooperation do you think we could expect between Canada and the U.S. in drone-related activities? Please give me a brief answer.

[Dr. Christopher Sands]

I don't think very much.... The technology is something we'd be pleased to share. I think we already do share it. NORAD is already set up to take telemetry from satellites and from other radar stations and it could include data coming from planes and drones. I don't think very much would be required. It would be very doable.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Mr. Doran, you're invited to respond.

[Charles Doran]

I certainly agree with this. I think what is important is that those who, in fact, know how to operate these new techniques and these new instruments be very familiar with this. This is an area where the technology is moving very, very fast.

What we probably are talking about is not just a question of acquiring technology. It's a question of training. It's a question of coordinating how these would be used under various circumstances and how they fit with the present technology we have that is based, essentially, on the use of fighter planes.

[The Vice-Chair, NDP, Jack Harris]

Thank you very much, sir.

Now we have Mr. Chisu for five minutes once again.

[Corneliu Chisu, Conservative, Pickering—Scarborough East, ON]

Dr. Doran, you mentioned that you are a great supporter of the maritime NORAD.