National Defence Committee on March 7th, 2023

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

It is more than half the territory.

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

Thank you very much.

I have already discussed this next topic with the minister, but I would like to know if there are any aspects of communication with the public that you think could have been improved, particularly on what was in the airspace. Perhaps there was a gap on the National Defence side.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

There is always room for improvement. That's why we have a process that allows us, after every incident or operation, to look at what was done, what happened and what needs to be improved.

In this case, in my opinion, we can improve our communications, but it must be said that this was the first time we faced such a situation. So we have a lot to learn.

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

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Ms. Normandin. Your timing is amazing.

Ms. Mathyssen, you have six minutes, please.

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

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.

One of the questions that Mr. Sousa asked was, why these balloons? What's the purpose? With all the technology and advancements, why the balloons?

You have this slow-moving balloon. A later question was responded to by Major General Molstad that the CF-18s were more than capable of shooting this down, but I think you said, General Eyre, that there was freezing rain and there was a delay. It was the first best shot.

I refer back to what the minister said. I want clarification. When I was asking about the information that we share and the relationship in terms of NORAD, she said that when objects are in U.S. airspace, it's for them to determine how they deal with them. When objects are in Canadian airspace, it is for us to determine how we deal with them. However, we work with NORAD to take them down, as opposed to the U.S., which takes them down itself.

Am I understanding that correctly, or have I misunderstood?

If we are more than capable.... Yes, there's the first best shot, but if the Americans and all of that data.... We don't listen to it; we don't take their information; we don't allow their inter-agency processes and changes, if they're not being taken into account in terms of that NORAD relationship or if we are....

I want clarification on what was said in the previous panel in your calculation, because I ran out of time in my questions.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I think these incidents have showcased the importance of NORAD for the defence of our continent.

The information that was going back and forth was just as we practised and just as we trained. There was the consultation going back and forth and the sharing of awareness as to where certain objects were. For us, it proved the criticality of NORAD in terms of understanding what was approaching our airspace.

In all cases, they went through American airspace first, so if we had not had those linkages—if we had not had those relationships and if we had not had this binational command—we could very easily have been surprised with something popping up in our airspace.

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

If the first best shot had been that our Canadian air force could get to an American site first, would we have taken the first shot? Would that have happened?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

To be clear—and the minister alluded to this in her remarks—the engagement authority in Canada is the Prime Minister. The engagement authority in U.S. airspace is the President, regardless of whose aircraft are there. That's why we practise this. It's to be able to use another nation's aircraft in another country's airspace.

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

That's not necessarily the question.

I'll move on.

You said “the first best shot”. Just out of curiosity, over Lake Huron, it was actually the second shot that hit. It wasn't the first best shot.

Could you explain that incident, why it was missed the first time and the considerations that were taken into account over Lake Huron?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, let me characterize that the first best shot direction I gave was related to who would take the shot. In terms of incident number four over Lake Huron and why it took two missiles...well, the first one missed.

I will ask General Molstad, from a fighter pilot perspective, if he'd like to add anything.

[MGen Darcy Molstad]

Mr. Chair, obviously I can't speculate on why it missed. There could be a multitude of reasons that I'm not privy to, based on what the pilot was seeing in the cockpit, the type of missile shot that he was taking and the quality of that missile shot.

That being said, missiles don't always hit their targets. That's why you always take a shot; you analyze, and then you take a shot again. However, clearly we're seeing that the infrared missiles that are being used have a high probability of success against these targets.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, if I could jump in....

General Molstad, it's probably worth explaining that the first best shot is not just about whether you can successfully hit the target. It's about where the object is, where it would come down and what would happen if it missed.

[MGen Darcy Molstad]

Absolutely, Mr. Chair.

There are a number of factors that are considered. As the deputy minister mentioned, where it's located and whether there are any collateral risks on the ground.... Is it an area where you can engage with an air-to-air missile that is going to be safe if it doesn't hit the target?

All those factors are considered in the whole decision-making process.

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

I find it a bit concerning that we spend a great deal of money on very fancy equipment—maybe it's getting fancier as we procure more—and yet we missed the first time. That's concerning. It was a slow-moving balloon.

I'll move on. For this slow-moving balloon, it was stated that you weren't really sure why it was chosen. Now, is it possible that China would use this surveillance equipment because we would underestimate it and because there have been 336 similar aerial objects?

We discussed this in the last committee, and I think we actually discussed this with the minister earlier. There was an understanding that we didn't want to infer what China was watching and if they were watching our reaction to it and how they were monitoring that. They responded quite angrily when all four of those surveillance balloons were shot down, and there was an inference of some bad blood on our part, I guess you could say. Is that being considered as part of all this? Are we looking at why they chose those specific balloons?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Unfortunately, Ms. Mathyssen is out of time—way out of time—although I am sure that General Eyre and his colleagues would love to answer that speculative question.

With that, I am going to ask Mrs. Kramp-Neuman to go for the next five minutes.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you. I'll start with General Eyre.

On October 18, when you were here, I asked you if we should be experts in Arctic readiness. You indicated that readiness has four components: the people, the equipment, the training and the sustainment. We need to focus on all four of those to be able to conduct operations in the Arctic.

Here's my question. Is Canada currently holding up its end of the bargain with NORAD? We don't have enough people; we don't have enough modern equipment, and we have insufficient training. As a result, sustainability is in question, so where are we?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, there's a lot to that question.

In terms of holding up our part of the bargain with NORAD, remember that the role of NORAD is airspace domain awareness and control. That's why NORAD modernization is so important, with the radar, with weapons systems for the fighters, with the tankers and with the infrastructure to be able to put our fighters further up in the north and have them pre-positioned. That group of projects is us holding up our end of the bargain.

Now, if we were to look at continental defence and Arctic security writ large, there are many other capabilities that we need to continue to develop to make sure that in the years and decades ahead we are in position.

That being said, we continue to exercise in the north and, as we speak, one of the subcomponents of exercise in Nunavut is ongoing. General Molstad can explain that in much more detail if you wish.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Perhaps General Molstad could also talk to us in his answer about how long it takes to train for new fighter jets. Also, with regard to the Aussie F-18s, do we know how many are operational and how many F-18s were cannibalized for parts?

[MGen Darcy Molstad]

Obviously, as we are procuring the F-35s, the specifics of the course that will be required to train our pilots are going to be developed. We'll learn a lot from our allies and partners that have already trained their pilots on this platform, so we're not necessarily going to reinvent the wheel, but we don't expect it to take any longer than it takes to train a current CF-18 pilot. In fact, it'll probably take less, because the aircraft has so many more modern capabilities. Much of the training will be done in simulation, obviously, as there are no two-seat F-35s, so it's simulation and then you jump into the aircraft.

As for the number of F-18s from Australia that are being used, I can't give you the answer specifically right now, but we can take that question on notice and provide that to you.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Please do. Thank you.

Next, has the reconstitution affected our ability to react to threats in Canadian airspace? For example, did the shortage of personnel or equipment factor into the decision to allow the Americans the opportunity to shoot down the Lake Huron and Yukon objects over Canadian airspace?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

No, Mr. Chair, absolutely not. Our F-18s on standby remain on standby, and reconstitution has not affected our ability to continue to have those F-18s on alert.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That's perfect.

At this point, I am going to pass it over to James Bezan.

Thank you.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thanks, Shelby, for sharing.

When we are doing aerospace domain awareness under NORAD, of course, there is constant communication between Canada and the United States through the embedded personnel in our operations right across North America. Maritime domain awareness now also falls under NORAD responsibility.

When the Chinese Communist Party's buoys were discovered in the Arctic, were they reported to NORAD as well?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I do not have the answer for that.