Evidence of meeting #58 for National Defence in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was sanctions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Yves Robillard Liberal Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC
Mr. St-Amand, in your remarks about the ballistic missile defence system, you said that Canada's role stops when it comes to targeting and engagement. You said that we become observers.
Could you elaborate on that?
11:40 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
Yes, of course.
Let me start by describing the sequence of events.
As I already described, when we detect ballistic missile activity, we have to determine whether the activity constitutes an attack against North America. At that point, our aerospace warning mission continues. It is not over. There could actually be something else. If we consider that one vehicle or missile constitutes an attack, there may be others. We remain in front of our screens to continue our mission.
When I say that we are observers, I mean that we are physically in the room. The people from the U.S. Northern Command and NORAD are together in the same room. However, we do not take part in the discussions related to targeting and engagement. That's all; it's as simple as that.
If another missile is directed at North America, once again, we have to assess the situation and make a decision. Once again, the responsibilities are transferred from NORAD to the U.S. Northern Command, and the mission continues. That's the process. Physically, we are in the same room.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Well, then let's move to.... Does anybody on this side want it? There is a good portion of three minutes left.
Mr. Gerretsen.
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you very much.
I want to touch on NORAD headquarters for a second. The committee had the opportunity to go to Colorado Springs. One of the things that I will say I was impressed with right from the beginning was the way the Canadians and the Americans work side by side to the point that they are saluting each other, and you can tell there's genuine appreciation of the input from both sides. I cannot think of another alliance that could be stronger than what we witnessed there.
General St-Amand, you talked in follow-up to Mr. Robillard's question about the atmosphere in the room. Most people don't get to be inside there to see it, do draw us a picture. You have this big room. You have these screens where they are monitoring the threats. Decisions are being made in which Americans and Canadians are participating jointly as if they were one entity doing that.
When all of a sudden a threat is detected, what happens physically in the room? Is there another table that people go to, that they sit around, and Canadians aren't invited? Is it sectioned off? What does that look like?
11:40 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
I'll ask the members to be very visual here in my attempt to explain.
We have a large room, an operating centre, that is divided into domains. There is a land domain, which is mainly the U.S. Northern Command's concern. There is an aerospace domain. There is a missile domain as well. There is an intelligence section. Canadians and Americans are manning consoles at all times, 24-7. There is not one minute when these consoles will not be manned. If something happens, there is an immediate warning, and people will get to work. That is the front of the room.
In the middle of the room you have the command element, which we call the command centre, with the director and his staff. His job is to coordinate, to orchestrate the activities of the different domains of these people who will man these consoles that will provide the information. We have Canadians who will be operating in those positions as well.
Then you have the assessors and the authorities, who are usually in the back when they are present in the room. Those are the authorities that have to do with assessment and the authorities that have to do with engagement, not only from a ballistic missile point of view but also under the context of Operation Noble Eagle and the 9/11 scenario. We also have engagement authority in the air domain that is being exercised.
The CCD, which is the command centre director and the authorities, is a conduit through which we talk back and forth. Decisions have to be made really quickly in all instances. The dynamic is very smooth. As you said, we work hand in hand together.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'm sure you share my enthusiasm for how much light blue we have here this morning. Thank you very much.
General, how many Canadians work within NORAD in Colorado Springs and throughout?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
Throughout the United States we have 300 members, more or less, in uniform. In Colorado Springs per se we have 145 or 147—so it varies—along with their families.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Please thank all the men and women who work as part of that, because we're all very appreciative of their efforts.
I have two specific questions.
NORAD was developed in the late 1950s concurrent with Russia's ability to develop an ICBM threat. The primary goal in the NORAD treaty is aerospace warning. The aerospace warning is to detect and defend against an airborne threat. That threat now exists in the hands of other state actors. NORAD looks for all state actors, not at its historic roots. Is that fair to say?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
That is fair to say, sir.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
In the future there may be more countries adverse to Canada with this same capability that a country like North Korea possesses.
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
That is fair to say.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
In the many years of NORAD's existence, it has been updated multiple times, including in 2006 for the maritime threat as well.
Do the Americans view ballistic missile defence as an update to NORAD?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
I don't know, because we have not engaged in those discussions. As you know, the policy is set and we're not a part of BMD, so I cannot comment on that.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
They have to counter the airborne threat, the traditional Russian bear coming and probing our airspace, right through to the extraordinary development of ICBM technology over the years since the late 1950s to today, and the BMD portion of a North American defence is purely a defensive one. Mr. Garrison suggests that it would start an arms race, but there's only a defensive aspect to BMD. Is that correct?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
That's right.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
In your opinion, would that defensive capability create some arms race in a way that the mutually assured destruction and the strategic capability of the U.S. did?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
Sir, I'm not qualified to answer that question. It's way above my lane....
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Okay.
In the time I have left, I'll say that I was struck by the way you described Canada as a proud partner in NORAD. NORAD participates as a partner in BMD, but we're observers when it comes to decisions relating to BMD. We're a partner in a partnership, and that partnership is a partner in BMD, but we're an observer on this one component. Does that mean, going back to the question of my colleague James Bezan, that we're not a true partner in NORAD?
11:45 a.m.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
I don't think so, sir. Again, it goes back to the long history of NORAD. The aerospace warning mission long predates BMD. We've always done that. The architecture, the sensors, and the command-and-control arrangements that surround aerospace warning are distinct from the area sensors and command-and-control architecture that surround BMD. Those were added later on.
When you think of the segments that lead the U.S. to decide whether or not to defend, we are participants, because they use some of the information that we use as a result of having area sensors that are just for NORAD. It would be—
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Erin O'Toole Conservative Durham, ON
Let me stop you there, General, with respect. You described that earlier as the “heat of the moment decision”—which I found is a very apt phrase—on a response to an airborne threat for which the Americans would have to decide, if that threat was going to hit Canada, whether to deploy a defensive measure. If we were not an observer, if we were a partner, would Canada be involved in that “heat of the moment decision”?