National Defence Committee on May 5th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Please be as brief as possible.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Ms. Mason, I'd like to know, have you ever visited NORAD-NORTHCOM Command Center in Colorado Springs?

[Peggy Mason]

No, I have not.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

You mentioned the “NORAD in Perpetuity?” report. One of the authors, Dr. Joel Sokolsky, was here on April 21. He said, “Canada should become directly involved in missile defence to protect itself.”

We have visited this facility and have received threat assessments from many other witnesses, who have said that Iran and North Korea are increasingly showing their capability and their intent to use ballistic missile defence.

Could you comment, please?

[Peggy Mason]

Of course, there were many authors of that report. I would just refer to the report and what it says, with respect.

They weren't talking about the level of the threat, in the report. They were talking about the seat at the table, the fact that NORTHCOM has the command, and why there's a “double-hatted” factor at the operational level. Canada can't participate in that. Therefore, if we did get into missile defence, we might get “double-hatted”, and we could participate in that as well. However, they go on to say in the report that we shouldn't interpret that to mean that it would necessarily be a meaningful role.

Really getting down to brass tacks, if a missile, an intercontinental ballistic missile, were launched towards North America, we are talking about a very short period of time and the United States' making decisions on its most vital interests. I suggest to you that there is no indication in the history of how the United States responds to these things that they would enable someone else to weigh in, in a way that would prevent them from acting the way they deemed they had to act. We would be lucky to be advised.

That's where I'm coming from on that point.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

I'm pretty confident that if Canada did choose to join ballistic missile defence, in its negotiations it would ask for a seat at the table. At the moment, NORAD has confirmed that it has no obligation to defend Canada against a ballistic missiles, because NORTHCOM would, in fact. That's at the commander's discretion. I'm pretty confident that Canada would have a seat at the table if it were to choose.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'm going to give the floor to Ms. Gallant for her final questions.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

My first question goes to Ms. Mason. Does the Rideau Institute receive funding from any non-Canadian entities, either directly or indirectly?

[Peggy Mason]

No, it does not. We receive all of our money from small donors across Canada. The only money that doesn't come from small donors across Canada is—I guess you could say—an indirect subsidy. In the summer, we get one intern under the Canada student employment program, which subsidizes the salary of that individual. In that way, we receive an indirect sum of money from the Government of Canada. Otherwise, it's entirely—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Thank you. I was asking about non-Canadian entities. The reason I asked is that when I go to your website, I see that Rideau Institute receives its funding through Tides Canada. We all know very well that Tides Canada receives its funding from Tides in the United States, which has a multitude of American interests.

When I go to your donation page, I see that among the different places from which an individual can donate are Russia, Iran, and North Korea. I really have to question whether or not the Rideau Institute is looking after Canada's national interests.

My next question goes to Mr. Perry. Under what circumstances would North Korea, Iran, or Russia, for that matter, actually fire a missile against North America?

[David Perry]

I don't know the specific terms. I'm not that familiar with their strategic thinking.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

What is North American missile defence defending against other than the state actors of North Korea and Iran?

[David Perry]

Other than those two countries, it's a wide series of strategic nuclear arrangements in principle. The American nuclear deterrent that we live under—

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

But nothing exists, in terms of ballistic missile defence.

How can Canada best contribute to the defence of North America with respect to cruise missiles?

[David Perry]

I think the best way to respond against them is by participating fully and upgrading the north warning system to enhance our ability to project further north into our Arctic with our intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance assets, and to acquire some new ones to give us a better picture. We must make sure that we move forward quickly with acquiring a new fighter aircraft that has the capabilities to respond to Russian aircraft that can fire cruise missiles towards Canada from greater distances than the current set of arrangements were designed to defend against.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Thank you very much for those questions.

Thank you very much for your presence here at committee today.

I will just suspend for two minutes. I will ask everyone who's not able to stay here for two minutes of in camera committee business to quickly exit.

Thank you so much.

[Proceedings continue in camera]