National Defence Committee on Nov. 1st, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there.

The interpreters are having extreme difficulties with your system, General Pelletier. I know generals hate to delegate, but insofar as you are able, could you delegate to General Huddleston or Mr. Quinn, and then I will not receive the wrathful interpretation on the other line? It's unfortunate, but the interpreters are having difficulties.

Next up we have Madame Normandin for six minutes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, gentlemen, for being here. We always appreciate it.

My first question doesn't have to do with operations, but I'm going to try my luck. If you don't know the answer, just say so.

For comparison purposes, do you have an idea of Canada's financial and infrastructure contribution as a share of GDP in relation to the U.S.'s?

[LGen Alain Pelletier]

Can you answer?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Thank you to the honourable member for her question.

Unfortunately, I don't have those figures right now.

We can perhaps take that question on notice, if that works for the member.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, please. I would appreciate that.

My next question is the same one I asked the Canadian Armed Forces' leadership two weeks ago. If a missile were heading for Canadian territory, in the very near future, would the U.S. have to intercept and destroy the missile?

I don't mean a response under article 5 of the Washington treaty after the fact.

[LGen Alain Pelletier]

The U.S. does not have to intercept and destroy the missile because Canada chose not to sign the anti‑ballistic missile treaty—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I apologize, General Pelletier, but the interpreters have just informed us that the sound that is coming is not intelligible to them. I'm not quite sure how you're going to continue to participate if in fact the sound is not intelligible.

Is either of the other two witnesses able to answer the question?

[MGen Iain Huddleston]

I can try, Mr. Chair, but it's really a question for Lieutenant-General Pelletier.

As he mentioned, the U.S. does not have to defend Canada in that way. Nevertheless, we always work together on surveillance and detection for attacks of that nature, and, jointly, we do our best to defend against such attacks.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

It's very appreciated.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Excuse me, Madame Normandin. I have stopped the clock, by the way.

General Pelletier is an extremely important witness to us, and it is just a darn shame that we're losing him for this meeting. I wonder whether there's a workaround.

Is there a possibility that you could dial in on a cellphone and we could hear you that way? Before I suggest that, I just want to make sure that it's doable. Is it doable?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

My understanding, Mr. Chair, is that it's a health risk for the interpreters. In fact, there was an incident recently in the Senate: an interpreter had to be taken away in an ambulance because someone wasn't wearing an appropriate headset.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If he came in on a cellphone as opposed to—

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Wilson]

It's worse.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is it not going to work?

[The Clerk]

A wired connection is the only way. If he has an Ethernet cable, that's the only solution.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

I'm sorry about this, General Pelletier. It is what it is.

I will continue on with our time.

You have about three minutes, Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Tell us, if you would, about expanding NORAD's coverage. Currently, NORAD provides aerospace warning, aerospace control and maritime warning.

Some experts say that NORAD should expand its reach to include land and cyberspace coverage. Should those environments be part of NORAD's mandate, or should they be overseen by other authorities?

[Jonathan Quinn]

Thank you for your question.

It is a very good question. It was in fact one of the first questions that we tackled in collaboration with the U.S. as we got the NORAD modernization effort up and running—that is, how to define exactly what we meant by NORAD modernization. Based on mutual agreement between Canada and the U.S., we agreed that there was sufficient work to do to enhance NORAD's capabilities to fulfill its current mandate of aerospace warning and control and maritime warning, and not to even look at expanding the mandate of NORAD at this time. We finished this round of NORAD modernization, and in fact no commitment was made to look at it in the future.

I would just add that there are other mechanisms of bilateral collaboration between Canada and the U.S. We have what's called the “tri command” arrangement between the Canadian joint operations command, NORAD, and the U.S. where there's a venue to collaborate on land operations, and also through other mechanisms on cyber-defence as well. Above and beyond NORAD, there are lots of opportunities for collaboration.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

Originally, NORAD's mission focused on surveillance of long-range aircraft. Now we live in a world of hypersonic missiles and the response time is limited to a few minutes.

Do you think things will evolve to a point where efforts to detect and destroy hypersonic missiles will be futile because the necessary response time will be so minimal? Is that something to be concerned about in the future? Will we have to change our strategy completely in response to outside threats?

[MGen Iain Huddleston]

I can potentially replace General Pelletier on this question, Mr. Chair.

Our focus is on integrated deterrence. General VanHerck has described that as getting left of launch. So before the competitor chooses to fire a modern hypersonic missile at Canada, or at North America, we will have proven or demonstrated to them that the cost of doing so will be too high. The way we can achieve that is by improving our domain awareness, information dominance and decision superiority, and also engaging our other government departments, those here in Canada and in the U.S., to show a united front in terms of integrated deterrence.

You're correct that hypersonic missiles provide us with a significant challenge, but many of the capabilities that we're investing in with NORAD modernization will work away at that problem, and we're dedicated to doing so.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there, Madame Normandin.

It's been suggested to me, General Pelletier, that if you turn your camera off we might get a better reception. It's not that we don't want to see you, but whatever works works.

We now have Ms. Mathyssen for six minutes, and hopefully it will work.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The witnesses mentioned before—and I believe it was General Pelletier, so we'll see how this goes—in response to a question on infrastructure and the investments in the north, that there's a bit of concern—and I understand the difficulty in terms of Defence coming in and needing to put in what they need—that the needs of people on the ground will be an afterthought. We heard last week testimony from Dr. Lackenbauer talking about smart defence investments and expanding on that in terms of how we've done things in the past and doing things very differently.

Could you expand on those ideas, on how we're specifically dealing with the lack of infrastructure in terms of roads, the Internet, access to clean drinking water and housing, and how we're ensuring that we're doing things differently so that it's not so top-down?

[LGen Alain Pelletier]

I'm not sure if you can hear me better.

I'm not sure whether the interpreters can hear me clearly.

I will let Mr. Quinn answer the first part, and then I'll add what's specific to NORAD reform.

[Jonathan Quinn]

Some of the challenges the member just outlined—in terms of the Internet, clean drinking water, and housing—obviously go well above and beyond the defence mandate. There's lots of very good work going on in other government departments to get at those challenges. At the same time, we recognize that this is going to be a big investment and that there certainly will be opportunities to look for dual-use benefits across the board. We work very closely on a number of files with Dr. Lackenbauer, and I know he has lots of great ideas on this front as well.

I would say that at this point, as we're shifting into implementation for these kinds of defined, at least by location, infrastructure enhancements, we will be working very closely with northern communities again to assess their needs, let them know what our needs are, and specifically identify where those align and where we can maximize mutual benefit for these initiatives.

I would also add that the investments outlined in the NORAD modernization effort have been very specifically focused on aerospace threats to the continent, in keeping with NORAD's mandate. In budget 2022, the government also announced a plan to review our current policy. That will be an opportunity to look more broadly, beyond just the aerospace warning and control and maritime warning mission of NORAD, to other threats and opportunities that come in the Arctic, and make recommendations to government on potentially looking at other investments in the north where there would be additional benefits potentially for northern and urban communities.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm told that General Pelletier's sound has somewhat improved. Maybe we'll carry on the last 20 minutes with some participation on the part of General Pelletier.

Ms. Mathyssen, go ahead.