Evidence of meeting #8 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 threat.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
General, I am going to come back to more practical considerations: the hostile incursions that Canada has experienced in the last five years, whether military or civilian. The word "hostile" may be a little strong when we talk about the civilian element, so we will instead say unannounced incursions.
Can you provide us with some figures in that regard?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
We have not experienced any hostile incursions.
If we are talking about penetration of our air defence identification zone, we again have to specify that Russian aircraft are entitled to travel in international airspace. The identification zone allows for control of traffic entering North America. That is what we ask. Those planes, which are government-owned, are not required to provide us with flight plans.
It might be interesting to visit the Canadian Air Defence Sector in North Bay. You will see on the scope that all aircraft entering North America have flight plans, with the exception of one or two planes that come from the northwest Arctic or the Alaska North Slope. Those are the cases when the planes have to be identified, and it is that need to identify them that requires that we still do immediate takeoffs.
In short, there have been no hostile incursions in the last five years.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Military planes have no flight plans, but does it happen often that Russian military aircraft overfly Canada?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
Some do, under the Open Skies Treaty, for example, following a flight plan, but that happens only in that context.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Right.
You spoke briefly about our air fleet. I would like to know how many jets we need just to meet minimum NORAD standards.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
That is classified information, and so I cannot talk about it, unfortunately. I can tell you, however, that we have the number of planes we need.
Conservative
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
We have the number of planes we need to deal with all scenarios.
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
I imagine the answer to my third question will also be classified information.
Because I was part of the military system for 22 years, I understand your position. When you are in the military, you always wait for the government's decision. We here try to assess the real needs.
If you were to put aside the fact that you are a lieutenant-general and consider the question based on your experience, what would your wish list be? What essential resources would you like the government to give you, in the short term?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
In terms of NORAD?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
We are talking about the number of planes, of radar equipment?
Conservative
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
What would you like the government to give you, in the short term?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
There's no commander in the world that's satisfied with all the resources he has. That's all I can say. We mitigate as much as we can. We make plans.
We do not ask ourselves that question.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
We'll go back to this side of the table, but I want to ask a question, and then, depending on how long the answer is, I can split my time with somebody else. Then we'll go back to my left side, and then down to Mr. Garrison, if he has a question.
There's only one mission in this country that has a higher priority than NORAD and that's our own sovereignty. A lot of time there's a line blending between our Canadian sovereignty with NORAD, and that mission kind of merges together. Then, of course, we move to NATO and coalition operations. We have a budget and a certain infrastructure in place right now, and I understand our need to be interoperable with the U.S. It's critical in maintaining NORAD. However, given the fiscal and infrastructure limitations we face, we can slip very quickly from being interoperable to being dependent, depending on how we manage ourselves and our budget and our infrastructure. We could focus too much on the second line, which is NORAD, and not make careful decisions moving. How concerned are you about our ability to do our number-one job, which is sovereignty, independent of the United States?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
This goes to the binationality of the command. Canadians are integrated into the command decisions with respect to the execution of the NORAD mission. Whether it's in Alaska, in Canada, or the United States, there is a Canadian general officer who is a part of the command, if he or she is not the commander per se—just as in Canada.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Say we want to conduct Canadian-only operations, and we don't want to rely on the U.S. for anything. We might have an operation we want to do in our Arctic and we don't want to have to depend on the U.S. for anything.
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
For as long as NORAD has existed, there has always been a U.S. twin command. This has been beneficial for Canada in the sense that the U.S. has had the means and command to execute unilateral action without dragging Canada into their business. That is one clear benefit.
We have the 1 Canadian Air Division, which is double-hatted at a minimum with the Canadian regions. There is a chain that exists in NORAD. But the officer in command is also the joint forces air component commander for CJOC. So he has the ability to conduct unilateral, national sovereignty operations without reliance on others, without seeking authority from anyone, other than the Canadian chain of command.
On the Canadian side, the JFAC concept is new. It comes back to the CJOC formation and Canada Command formation. But on the NORAD side, the U.S. twin has been there from the outset. It was not called USNORTHCOM at that time. It was Continental Air Defence Command, CONAD, in 1957-58, but it's always been there. So we have means to detach ourselves to do our own thing.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
On the command and control side, that was what I understood to be the case. But at the end of that command and control comes the teeth, and we're going to need equipment to exercise our own will within our borders. If we run down the road of upgrading a whole host of things for NORAD, and we don't make careful decisions based on our budget and infrastructure, at the end of that command and control chain, which I understood had a separate parallel path to being sovereign in our own nation, could we end up in a situation where we buy things that we may not be able to operate within our own borders?
Take air-to-air refuelling. Right now we can do that. In the future, depending on what we purchase, we may not be able to do it. Given the size of the country and that air-to-air refuelling is an incredibly large-force multiplier, what are your thoughts on that?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
I understand where you are coming from, Mr. Chair. We have to live within our fiscal capabilities. At the end of the day, commanders will do what they can with what they have. But this risk is a policy risk. It is not for the military to decide. It is for the Chief of the Defence Staff, perhaps, to render military advice, but in the end it's the government that decides the risks to be taken in those matters.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
Okay, thank you for that.
We will move over to Mr. Bezan. Did you have a question?
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I want to follow up on that discussion on where we're at, especially on fighter jets and the infrastructure to support them. The CF-18s are going to be around until 2025. When is the expected end-of-date service for the Polaris?
Deputy Commander, North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), Department of National Defence
I think the precise answer would be better delivered by General Hood who has the control and the full visibility on that, but I think it's about the same time. That is a good thing in the sense that to replace our Airbus, for example, we first need to know what the next fighter is going to be. I don't see those numbers; that is not a CF matter.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
To look at where the U.S. is heading, they're going with an F-35 fleet, including in Alaska. I understand that two squadrons of F-35s will be stationed up there. When we are doing northern surveillance now are we only using Canadian air refuelling, or are we also using American air-to-air capability?