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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Charles Doran  Professor of International Relations (Andrew W. Mellon), Johns Hopkins University, As an Individual
Christopher Sands  Director, Center for Canadian Studies, Johns Hopkins University, As an Individual
Joel Sokolsky  Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual
Andrea Charron  Deputy Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual

10:30 a.m.

Professor, Department of Political Science, Royal Military College of Canada, As an Individual

Dr. Joel Sokolsky

I would agree that, in fact, if we were to redo this, we would come up with something like NORAD.

I emphasize that—and I'm sure the committee members will remember this—NORAD was not an American idea. It came from both countries. In fact, the U.S. joint chiefs of staff were a little uneasy about creating a binational command. They preferred the prior air defence co-operation. NORAD has to be seen as something that Canadians wanted as well, which Americans eventually supported.

It has worked well. I think that for the committee, the question that also needs to be asked is where NORAD and NORTHCOM sit in American strategic priorities now. In general, I think you'll get the answer, “It's working well, and we see, basically, no need to fundamentally change it.”

It's not something that Americans asked Canadians to do. It's something that both countries have agreed to do.

10:30 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Stephen Fuhr

Thank you very much, Dr. Charron and Professor Sokolsky.

We're going to suspend now to let our local guests depart and then return in camera to discuss our trip to NORAD in two weeks.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]