Evidence of meeting #51 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was objects.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
Given the angle of the member's question with regard to international affairs and the transparency of the department, I'll let General Prévost start. I may add to that afterward.
10:35 a.m.
MGen Paul Prévost
First, on the question of transparency, we're as transparent as we can be. Sometimes as these operations unfold, there's an element of operational security. You've seen this week that we've talked to you about the Russian incursions in the north. We started talking about the balloon when it started to be of concern to NORAD, the United States and Canada. We're committed to transparency.
On the issue of China, I think I've expressed it already. They are pushing the bubble. There's no doubt that this was a breach of sovereignty. Obviously we're going to try to have more discussions with China when we find out more about what exactly was on this balloon. We're committed to transparency with Canadians. We obviously will try to have discussions with China on that. Those discussions occur already. We saw that their answer was that it was non-hostile, but for sure there was a breach of sovereignty, and we needed to assert our sovereignty. I think that's what happened in both Canada and the U.S.
10:35 a.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
Good.
I'll add the element of NORAD headquarters engagement in transparency to both government and military apparatus in the U.S. and Canada. It's part of our inherent process that we exercise daily and weekly, not only at the tactical level but all the way up to me and the commander on activities such as Operation Noble Eagle following 9/11 and the like.
Those exercises are so that the passage of info is made as early as possible to the right level of government, so that we provide our decision-makers with key decision time to assess the situation and provide direction as required.
10:35 a.m.
NDP
Lindsay Mathyssen NDP London—Fanshawe, ON
You referenced that tolerance test for what we're willing to see or how we're willing to deal with these unknown objects.
In the press conference yesterday, I believe President Biden said that they are reviewing these processes. General Pelletier, you mentioned consistently reviewing the processes for how we deal with them going forward from the very first incident.
Biden suggested that potentially there are other avenues we could take. Could you explain a bit more? Is our only opportunity for stopping these unknown objects to shoot them down because of the threat and that level of risk? Are there alternatives?
I consider that in terms of the fact that when NORAD, or our allies, did shoot down the unknown object over Lake Huron, the first missile missed.
What are the other opportunities that we have to stop them?
10:40 a.m.
LGen Alain Pelletier
I can assure you that we look at the depth of the tool bag and assess what's possible all the way up, short of the kinetic response of the missile or gun employment. We're always trying to minimize the collateral damage, not only from the use of the weapon but also because of the follow-on impact of potential debris on the ground. That's part of our element.
We look in the tool bag. That may include non-kinetic capability. In this event, the best tool available to NORAD at the time was the use of fighters and of the specific AIM-9X missile.
We're not stopping short. We are going to continue to look at what else is required to carry out the mission.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Ms. Mathyssen.
On behalf of the committee, I want to thank you, General Pelletier and General Prévost, for your appearance before this committee and for the thoroughness of your answers within the limitations under which you operate. I particularly appreciate your putting facts into the public realm so that discourse in the public realm is informed by fact, as opposed to fantasy and conspiracy theories, etc. These two hours alone have been useful for informing public dialogue, and we appreciate it.
I anticipate that we will likely see you again before the committee, but, again, we can't thank you enough for your appearance here.
Colleagues, before we adjourn, we need to do a little bit of housekeeping. We need to pass the budget for the conspiracy theory—
10:40 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
No, I mean the study on cyber. I get all my news from a certain television station.
You've all received this electronically.
It's about $9,000. Is that correct?
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Okay.
For that study, I need a motion.
Thank you, Mr. May. I need a seconder.
Thank you, Mr. Kelly.
Is there any debate?
I see none, so the motion passes.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Thank you very much.
Colleagues, have a good two weeks. The meeting is adjourned.