Evidence of meeting #9 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 norad.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:15 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Mr. Chair, now that we are at the third round, I would agree to the parliamentary secretary.
10:15 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
They apparently didn't appreciate the exchange yesterday.
I wanted to pick up on one of Mr. Garrison's questions in an earlier round. It had to do with where we and the United States disagree, which is with respect to the Arctic, whether the Northwest Passage is a domestic or an international waterway.
If, in fact, by some diplomatic arrangement, the United States was to agree that this was in fact a domestic waterway, would that have any significant impact on NORAD arrangements, particularly the requirement of notification of overflies and ships entering and leaving domestic waterways, things of that nature? The simple question is, if in fact that dispute was resolved, with the result that it is regarded as a domestic waterway, would that make any impact on our NORAD arrangements?
10:20 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Probably very little, but I can't see the U.S. capitulating—nor should they, necessarily, because of the reverberations for other important international straits in the rest of the world.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
10:20 a.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I would agree, because NORAD already protects Canadian sovereign airspace, whatever the status of the Northwest Passage. I would say, though, that there was the view at the time that it would be in U.S. national security interest to regard it as internal Canadian waters, thereby providing greater rationale for Canada to know what is going on there, and as internal waters, you wouldn't have the status of transit passage in the area.
As Dr. Charron pointed out, there are reverberations to other international straits. The Canadian position is not supported by other allies, but strictly speaking, from a defence standpoint, I think it would be in the U.S. interest to recognize it as internal Canadian waters.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
That's kind of what I was driving at. Sometimes decisions get made in international relations which have, maybe, not much to do with the legal merits, but have much more to do with each nation's interests. The real question here is whether it is in the United States' interest to recognize the Northwest Passage as a domestic waterway.
10:20 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
The question we never ask is what the effect is if it is an international strait. Does Canada change? If we're all about trade then having an international strait makes sense. Nobody disputes that it's Canadian. That's never been at stake, and the U.S. has gone out of its way not to press that issue. As Canadians, if we want to make the Arctic a viable part of Canada rather than a buffer zone or something separate and apart, what are the implications for Canada if, in fact, it is an international strait?
Right now we don't have lots of ships coming through, and if you ask shipping captains, they're not planning on coming through because it's not charted properly. We don't have the bathymetry. Because of the Beaufort Gyre, we get all of the growlers and ice that breaks off. It gets jammed back up into the Northwest Passage. We have no ports up there. The way to make money is through just-in-time dependable shipping, and making sure you have ports along the way to load and unload. That's not the scenario right now.
That may be the question we should be asking. Rather than telling the U.S., “Think this way”, we really need to think about what we want.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I suppose I could reverse that and say, well, if in fact it is still an international waterway, there's much less incentive on the part of the Canadian government to put in the assets that are very much needed.
10:20 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I would disagree. It's like Russia. Do you want the shipping to come? Maybe you want to charge some money for it. We have the international Polar Code, which will be mandatory. There are lots of international laws out there to protect these Arctic systems. Transport Canada is already looking at a highway system. That's all possible.
10:20 a.m.
Liberal
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
I just want to come back quickly to ballistic missile defence. It's my understanding that the Atlantic side of North America is virtually naked other than the JLENS, and that there aren't any interceptors there and not much of an early warning system, unlike what we see in the U.S., because of Alaska, because of their assets on the Pacific coast, Hawaii, and even what they have floating around out in the Pacific.
Can you speak to that to some degree?
10:20 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Only to say that the JLENS is for cruise missiles, not ballistic missiles.
In our report, which Joel was a part of as well, entitled “NORAD in Perpetuity? Challenges and Opportunities for Canada”, we have many pages on ballistic missile defence by James Ferguson, who's really the expert on this. He talks about the three new sites that are being proposed on the east coast; I think Maine is one of them. There are some ideas here in the report, which is available in French and English. I would encourage everybody to have a look at it.
10:20 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Actually, if you look at the Pacific region, Canada is very well protected because of the interceptors located in Alaska and in the area down below Vancouver.
10:25 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
That ballistic missile defence is for Iran and North Korea, and it's geographically located in certain locations.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
We'll never stop a Russian or Chinese attack.
Iran, in my understanding, is getting more and more capable in their ballistic missile defence for intercontinental watch. They may not come to the Atlantic side if they see a weakness. They have the option of coming over Europe and through the Atlantic Ocean.
Canadian participation may mean having interceptors in Atlantic Canada as a potential trade-off for our participation.
10:25 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
That, I can't speak to.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Okay.
Dr. Sokolsky, do you have any comment on that?
10:25 a.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
As Dr. Joseph Jockel and I suggested, if the U.S. does go forward with some sort of east coast system, this provides the opportunity for Canada to jump in and say, “Well, we're willing to participate in this system, either by putting sensors in Canada, or by helping financially and with staffing on those systems.” It's a non-technological opening, but if the U.S. were to move forward with an east coast system, as former secretary Hagel has suggested, this would then provide the opportunity for Canada to step in and contribute. It really depends on what they're going to do.
10:25 a.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Right. We've heard from Liberal members here a concern—and I'm starting to think an obsession—with whether or not our CF-18s are properly located in western Canada, and the suggestion that we need to move the assets into the Vancouver region rather than their current location in Cold Lake. I'm wondering whether or not having two main operating bases for our CF-18s is sustainable as we look at potentially going to a smaller fleet. Whatever the next fighter jet happens to be—talk has been of 65 F-35s, Super Hornets, or Rafales—can we still operate out of two locations, from the standpoint of being affordable? Is Bagotville the right location in the case that Cold Lake doesn't work?
10:25 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
The CF-18s are not just for NORAD; they're for other missions. It's not that we park all our CF-18s at one or two bases and wait for calls. They're constantly moving and can take off and land at other bases. I really can't give you an answer right now about an exact number.
10:25 a.m.
Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
I think it's a question that you need to ask the RCAF and NORAD.
I don't know if the committee has been to Washington, but what's the assessment there? Does the United States deliberately keep aircraft close? We do. They know we keep them to the national capital area. There, of course, it's an Air National Guard role, so there are more bases, but it is a question that needs to be asked.
As Dr. Charron says, the planes can move around. On the other hand, from the American standpoint, does air sovereignty, which is now looking internally, want to keep planes on alert closer to major urban areas?
10:25 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr
That's the end of your time, Mr. Bezan.
Mr. Garrison, you get the last word. You have four minutes.
April 21st, 2016 / 10:25 a.m.
NDP
Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC
Thank you. I'm going to give that to the witnesses, of course.
I was going to ask about the Arctic, but the parliamentary secretary asked my question, although from a different perspective. I think there's some concern about a more adventurist administration in the United States, perhaps creating further hostilities or differences in the Arctic. I'm going to skip over that since it's essentially been asked, and ask a question I've asked other witnesses, which I like to ask.
Given that NORAD was created at the height of the Cold War, when it was perceived that Canada and the U.S. faced similar threats and had similar interests, if we were starting from scratch, would we create something like NORAD now? In other words, would that be something we would invest in at this point?
I'll start with Dr. Charron, and if there's time, Dr. Sokolsky.
10:25 a.m.
Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Well, I think so, for the reason that NORAD is charged with defending North America as opposed to Canada or the U.S.
With the way threats are evolving and changing, this gives us more advance warning. It gives us an intelligence multiplier. It gives us more time to think and react.
The real beauty of NORAD is that because it has a global area of operations, it's tracking things way out in North Korea, the Philippines, or west Africa with the ebola virus. It has North America in mind, not just Florida or Vancouver.
Yes, we would need something, I think, like NORAD, with the ability of one person able to access both levels of government at the highest levels.