National Defence Committee on April 19th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

I'll tell you what we'll do. We'll go to Mr. Gerretsen, and you can split your time if you want. Then we'll go over to Mr. Garrison, and we'll come back to your side, if that works for you guys—Mr. Paul-Hus, in this regard.

Mr. Gerretsen, you have the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Going back to a discussion that you were having with Randall, we talked about threats versus non-threats. Without getting too philosophical, there is something to say about the fact that having the proper equipment or proper defence in place is in itself a deterrent to threat, correct? I want to get you on the record as either agreeing or disagreeing.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

I totally agree, sir.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay, good.

Going back to my earlier question about the bases and their current locations, if we were to become aware of a threat on the west coast, for example, what would be involved in our response to that? How long would it take? Where would be the jets be scrambled from? Can you give some clarity on that? Is it sufficient?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

With some warning, or without warning?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

With some warning.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

With some warning, the Canadian commander of the Canadian region would relocate F-18 forces, possibly to Comox, in that case.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Oh, sorry, my apologies. When I said “with warning”, I meant “limited warning”, so in that regard, it's without warning.

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

In that regard, what would happen is that we would have a detection, and we would receive in Colorado Springs and in Winnipeg, which again is Canadian region headquarters for NORAD, the information that there is a problem.

Given that we would not have the time to relocate Canadian assets.... The primary reaction is always to ask if have the time to take our F-18s wherever they are located, because they are not always in one location. We rotate them. We train on different bases. We go to Comox regularly to train the folks there.

Depending on where the forces are, there would be a determination of whether or not these aircraft are in position to react. If they are not, the commander of NORAD, in concert with the commander of the Canadian region NORAD, would determine the best assets—where they would come from in the least amount of time. Again, it really depends on where that threat would manifest itself. So I can't pinpoint a base or anything like that for you. We would commit the best assets possible for that particular threat to address whatever problem needs to be addressed.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

In that regard, do you feel as though we are able to exercise our sovereignty, in the sense that if a threat came without warning, we could respond to it? Or are we depending too much on the American side of things?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

No, sir, I think it's absolutely adequate in the sense that right now, as we sit here today in Ottawa, we have a certain threat level. The commander of the Canadian region has positioned his aircraft in a way that caters to that situation. If we have a warning, we have Canadian commanders in command.

As I mentioned earlier, there is a deputy commander in the continental region in Tyndall who is a Canadian one-star general. More often than not, this commander is in charge of all of the U.S. forces south of the border. He commands those forces.

He would commit the U.S. forces across the border and the Canadian commander of Winnipeg, and Winnipeg would take command of those forces, and although the platforms would be American, the mission would be delivered by Canadian authorities. So for me, that tells me we're in good shape from that point of view.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have one last question in regard to ballistic missile defence. My understanding, and correct me if I'm wrong, is that we have access in the sense of understanding and knowing about the threat, but not with respect to what the recourse is.

Is that correct?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

Yes, that's very correct, sir.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Why don't we have access to that one screen then?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

When I say we don't have access, we don't have Canadians sitting in the ballistic missile defence section.

When you visit Colorado Springs, you will see that in the operations centre there is an air domain, a maritime domain, and the FAA is there, and so on and so forth. There is a ballistic missile defence domain, and you will see that there are no Canadians there. There are no Canadians sitting in that row.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

So how do we become aware?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

When we step back, you will see there is a command desk where I'm sitting here as a NORAD officer to characterize a threat, and to my right is going to be a NORTHCOM officer who will be charged with delivery of the mission.

When I characterize a threat so I know there is a missile coming in, there is a conference that is called. The CJOC, the commander here in Star Top, is a part of that conference, and this is how the information will come to Canada. There is something coming in; there is an attack on North America and Canada will be advised.

With respect to the defence itself, we'll know there is going to be an action taken, because we're sitting in a room, but it's just because we're there. We're a silent observer, if you will, just because we have a mission that will pick up after the engagement if there is anything that falls towards North America. It's a bit complicated, and this is why I think it's so good that the committee will come to Colorado Springs to see and experience all of this.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much for those answers, and thanks for coming today. I found your testimony to be extremely candid, and I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Stephen Fuhr]

Very good.

I'm going to give the floor to Mr. Garrison. You have five minutes.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I want to echo those comments. I do appreciate your contributions today.

In your presentation you mentioned that the choreography of resources, as I guess I would call it, is really something that NORAD is concerned with. We're now facing a situation where we had the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force here saying that for the Aurora long-range planes, they would now have to limit hours to extend their life, and we may be facing that same problem of limiting the hours of flight of F-18s in order to extend their life until we get a replacement aircraft.

Is that kind of factor going to limit the capacities of NORAD as we move along here?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

I don't think so because throughout the history.... It happened also in the United States with their own platforms. However, NORAD has always been protected in terms of what we needed for training our crews and the hours of flight time for whatever platforms to deliver the mission. It is a priority.

I think General Hood would have told you that search and rescue in NORAD is the first priority and it is the way that is executed, so I am not concerned.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

I'm going to ask a more speculative question now. You referred to the fact that NORAD is 58 years old, which is a time when a lot of people begin to think about whether retiring is a good idea, and that NORAD was created for a different threat environment.

If we didn't have NORAD now, would we think NORAD is the solution to the current threats we face? I I have my doubts that we would

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

Or something like NORAD.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Or something like NORAD, and what is that capacity that we're gaining out of this? What's the gain, given the threats we face now?

[LGen Pierre St-Amand]

The perspective of a continental defence is what would probably surface nowadays. It's kind of a declaration of the fact that North America is a single security space. We can't detach ourselves from each other. Something happening in the U.S. will affect us; something happening here will affect them.

In this continental defence perspective, as opposed to a national defence perspective, the current debate is in what domains it makes sense. It is evolving as a result of evolving capabilities. I'm reminded of the Battle of Britain which took place 75 years ago and we celebrated last year. In the years prior to the start of World War II, Great Britain discovered that the English Channel was no longer the longest tank ditch in the world, in the sense that for years, they were immune to invasion. Then air power started and we saw the Battle of Britain, and we know what history brought.

In many ways in North America, we are finding ourselves now facing threats, ballistic missiles, of course, but long range cruise missiles as well. This means that the Arctic, the Atlantic, and the Pacific may no longer be sufficient. They are still formidable barriers, but as far as a nation out there that would like to cause us harm, we are now facing something new from different domains, cyber being one of those, which the oceans do nothing in stopping that nefarious activity.

If NORAD did not exist, we wouldn't be having this debate now. You're right, maybe it would be too expensive. Maybe we couldn't afford it, but since we have it and can [Inaudible--Editor].