National Defence Committee on April 1st, 2009

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

Thank you, Mr. Chair

Thanks, General, for availing yourself to the committee this afternoon. We appreciate the time you're giving us.

From your presentation, we're aware of eleven intercepts and thirty different flights in the past year and a half.

[MGen M. Duval]

They did it in 2008.

[Ray Boughen, Conservative, Palliser, SK]

It seems to me that this is definitely a training pattern. I mean, it's happening over and over again.

Is this enough that we should say, as a country, to Russia that you're going to have to file flight plans? “We're concerned about your number of flights. We're concerned about what you're doing in the airspace around our country. We request that you file flight plans, and we in turn will file plans with you if our aircraft are going toward Russia.”

With the number, mathematically I'm thinking sooner or later we have a chance for a real foul-up here. If it's one kind of flight, who's going to worry. But in thirty different flights, somebody might not get the message that this is a training exercise.

It's not necessary to get too aggressive, as you said, but some young hot-blood is in that cockpit and decides this is serious stuff, and now we have an international incident.

I'm thinking that if everyone is aware that an aircraft is in the vicinity, then you lessen the probability of accidents occurring.

I have one other question for the General, Mr. Chair.

From what I heard you say, sir, we really have very limited information from the Russians in terms of their coming toward our airspace. We have limited notification. It seems we have to notify them to tell them they're on our border. They're not saying they're in this airspace, or they're close to our border, or asking whether they are approved to go ahead. We're instigating the questions.

[MGen M. Duval]

Yes, this is a fair statement.

As I said earlier, we have three documented cases of flight plans being submitted in the last few years, and if I take it to 2007-08, we're talking about some 70 events, so that's not a lot.

Contrary to perhaps what was mentioned in a previous session of this committee, and I referred to it in my opening comments, you can claim the START treaty is sufficient warning, but that is not a warning. As I've said, it's after the fact. And it has nothing to do with the bilateral agreement that we have in NORAD. This is a Russian Federation and U.S. treaty. And as I've said, it's not before, it's after the fact. This is not to be considered notification, from a NORAD perspective.

[The Chair, Conservative, Maxime Bernier]

We don't have enough time, so thank you for your answer.

I will give the floor, for five minutes, to Mr. Bagnell.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Thank you.

Thank you for coming, General. I'm a great supporter of the military.

You don't have to comment on this, because it's not your area, but you said in your paper:

This requires a range of capabilities to enable detection, tracking, interception, identification, shadowing, and, in the extreme, diversion or destruction of manned or unmanned air vehicles that are assessed to pose a threat to North America.

It's too bad that there's nothing the least bit similar that we've heard related to submarines. So it depends what vehicle they come in.

In response to Mr. Coderre, you said you didn't have the figures with you about the distances of the flights. I wonder if you could get that to the committee clerk later. Of those eleven occurrences, could you tell us how close they came, and whether there was any other military plane within that time from another country that came closer than any of those eleven flights?

[MGen M. Duval]

Yes, that's being done, sir.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Great, thank you.

I have a question. You talked about CADIZ, and you said on page 3: “The exception to this is in the Arctic Archipelago, where the outer boundary of the CADIZ follows the 72nd parallel and thus positions the CADIZ entirely within sovereign airspace.” So in the archipelago, then, they're all within 12 miles, because that's our sovereign airspace. That's according to that statement.

Then you go to the top of page 5, and they said the aircraft entered CADIZ. But if all the airspace in the archipelago is within 12 miles, as per page 3, the 41 nautical miles would not be in there, as it says at the top of page 5. I don't understand that.

[MGen M. Duval]

Let me explain.

You're very familiar with the shape of Canada. At the top of the archipelago, it's in a triangle shape, and you've got coastlines on either side. So our CADIZ, if I can draw it beyond our territorial waters in Canada, from the U.S. border it will go completely outside of the land mass to the northwest, outside of the land mass as well. It's over the water, and a portion of it is also outside of the land mass on the east coast. When it gets to the triangle, then it follows the parallel. So it's the top part of our country that's beyond the CADIZ. In this particular incident, we're saying it happened where our CADIZ is beyond our land mass. In no case—

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

It's always 12 miles beyond, but it's farther than that.

[MGen M. Duval]

No. The territorial waters are from the coast line to 12 miles out. The CADIZ is beyond that into international airspace.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

How far beyond that was where the plane came?

[MGen M. Duval]

How far beyond that did the plane come?

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Where the plane came, how far beyond the CADIZ...? Is the CADIZ boundary beyond our territorial water mark?

[MGen M. Duval]

Yes, it is.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

How far, though?

[MGen M. Duval]

I think, if I understand you correctly, the two Russian Bears penetrated the CADIZ from the north. At that point, they were 41 nautical miles.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Oh, at the point they entered the CADIZ?

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

From the land mass or from the 12-mile limit?

[MGen M. Duval]

They were 41 miles from the land mass.

[A witness]

That was the closest approach. They entered at the CADIZ, which is the 72nd parallel, which is farther than 42 miles away. So that was the point of entry, which I would estimate off the top of my head is approximately 180 nautical miles away from our land.

[MGen M. Duval]

So the penetration was much higher up, but the closest point they came was 41 miles.

[Larry Bagnell, Liberal, Yukon, YT]

Sir, I have a short question, but I just want to make a comment. It does seem a little absurd that when we're in these tight timelines—you said three minutes—and we've got our planes way down south, they have to come all the way from Cold Lake in the middle of the country.

I'm going to share my time with Ms. Neville, so go ahead.

[Anita Neville, Liberal, Winnipeg South Centre, MB]

I don't understand the timelines you're referencing in terms of the response time, the fighters getting up there. Just explain the timelines for me. I came in late and maybe I missed it, but I don't think so.

[MGen M. Duval]

Our airplanes were already at the forward operating locations. They originated in Cold Lake, but they had been deployed to the forward operating locations, which we do on a regular basis for training or for this purpose. From that point on, they're not very far away, and at the speed they can operate, they're not very far away from where the Russian Bears were coming in.