National Defence Committee on March 7th, 2023

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

We are definitely dealing with a more aggressive and provocative posture by the People's Liberation Army and the PRC. Have Canada and the United States made reports of these activities to other international organizations we belong to, in order to file complaints or provide military awareness briefings to other partners and allies?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, before I turn this over, perhaps, to the deputy minister or Mr. Quinn, I will say that we value our Five Eyes intelligence-sharing arrangement. We share intelligence back and forth all the time, and likewise with NATO. These relationships, from a defensive security perspective, are vital for Canada.

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, I will be very brief.

I echo the chief's comments, except to say that the relationship extends to the civilian side as well. We engage our civilian counterparts to talk about threat environments, various opportunities and what's changing. The dialogue is open, and we share the information we have with key allies.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Bezan.

I'll note, colleagues, that we are wandering far away from the motion, but I concede that I opened that door. That's because we have such quality witnesses here. It's a privilege to ask them these questions, but it is also our responsibility.

Go ahead, Madam O'Connell, for five minutes, please.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you again, witnesses, for appearing.

In the earlier panel with the minister, I asked about the rationale, or the damage this capability could do. I asked whether there were specific commercial kinds of interruptions, or whether the balloons could actually interrupt military operations. I know we are limited on time, so I want to ask, additionally, for more information on that.

Why now? Was something triggered, in the sense that...? We saw media reporting that there were some.... The first balloon was quite large. We saw pictures on social media that regular people posted, asking, “What is this?” I can understand why that got attention, but it seemed that once some sensitivities were changed in terms of monitoring, that's when other objects were picked up.

Is that accurate? Can I get a little more detail in terms of the kinds of interruptions the technology could have impacted on military capabilities? I understand about commercial flights, but were there any impacts on military capabilities?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, with respect to the first high-altitude balloon, we monitored it as it traversed Canadian airspace, in order to get an awareness of what infrastructure it went over. When it was first detected, intercepted and characterized by NORAD over Alaska, the assessment from the commander of NORAD was that it did not pose a kinetic threat to North America.

This is new territory for NORAD. You need to understand that NORAD was designed for fast-moving aircraft—for intercepting those. Slow-moving balloons that don't present a kinetic physical threat to North America, or more of a threat to our sovereignty and, perhaps, intelligence gathering.... This is new space for us. Now, given that it was much slower, it gave us decision space to characterize it in more detail and deliberate about what to do with it. Those deliberations carried on as it crossed into American airspace. Ultimately, the President of the United States made the decision to take it down.

In terms of posing a military threat to us, as it transited Canadian airspace, no, it didn't. Could it have? Well, the exploitation of the debris will determine that.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Following up on—

[Bill Matthews]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to add one more quick comment.

Just to elaborate on the chief's comments about the speed of the balloon versus more traditional objects, it's easier, not with perfection, to forecast where it's going. From a monitoring perspective, it's not like a traditional airplane.

[Jennifer O'Connell, Liberal, Pickering—Uxbridge, ON]

Thank you.

Even with some of the information that, again, was kind of determined at committee, and with subsequent reporting, the regular person watching and following this was kind of surprised, asking, “Why not just shoot it down the second you see it, or the second you're able to?”

It was that ability to understand. Like I said, I was kind of surprised to hear of the scaffolding. There were even photos to that effect, released by the U.S. That makes a lot of sense in terms of why you would be very precise on where you're going to shoot it down and where you would like to then collect that. That makes sense, and I'm also glad we've had some of that information shared with us.

This might be too hypothetical, but I'm going to ask it anyway, just because I'm curious. Some of it was also touched upon by my colleagues. With all the advanced technology, drones, the thing I would have been more worried about, especially when you can attach weapons to drones, etc.... It's kind of an interesting take to choose a balloon, of all the technology in the world.

Would it be a fair assumption, based on some of the commentary, that this might have been precisely why a balloon would be chosen, because we are watching for this new emerging technology, and something slow moving may not be picked up by regular radar, so to speak, or it could be confused with a weather balloon, which would be quite normal, or a regular research balloon?

Again, this might be hypothetical and trying to get into the mind of another nation, but are we now really thinking about how advancing technology also means a bit of reliance on old-school techniques to literally fly under the radar?

Sorry, if that's too long.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The member has invited you into a highly speculative realm, and she has not given you any time to answer the question. In the event that you have an opportunity to go back into that highly speculative realm, you're more than welcome to do so.

Mr. Desilets, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Greetings to all of our guests.

General Eyre, you said that the percentage of coverage of Canadian territory is currently less than 50%. Am I mistaken?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Yes, that is my understanding of the situation.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

I see.

What part is not currently covered and is most at risk?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

The Far North.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

So, the Yukon and all the territories in the Far North. I see. Should we be worried in the short term?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Yes, that's why we're modernizing NORAD, including equipping it with OTHR radar. Of all the NORAD modernization projects, I think that one is the most important.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

After the modernization you alluded to earlier, will 100% of the Canadian territory be covered?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

I don't know all the details of the project. Perhaps Mr. Quinn would have something to add.

[Jonathan Quinn, Director General, Continental Defence Policy, Department of National Defence]

Thank you for the question.

In this case, we're working closely with the United States to pull together a layered system of surveillance systems with over-the-horizon radar stationed in Canada and the U.S. I don't want to say with certainty that it would be 100% of our territory, but the combined effect would be a vast improvement over what we have today.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

When can we expect this modernization to be completed?

[Jonathan Quinn]

As the minister said earlier today, it's a 20-year program of investments. We're moving as urgently as possible, as quickly as possible, sorting out details for the first highest-priority investments, as we speak, in close collaboration with the U.S.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madam Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

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

With my presumptive questions, Ms. O'Connell's presumptive questions and the long preamble.... I know you were about to answer, Mr. Matthews. Maybe we could go into what you were going to say to both, as they were related.

[Bill Matthews]

Certainly I'll start. If the chief wishes to add anything, he can do so.

I think it's important to draw a distinction between the first object that was shot down off the coast of the U.S. versus the others. The first one was bigger, but it was also confirmed that it came from China. On the other three, as the minister said, it's not yet known, or not known is a better way to say it.

When we think about the reaction of China, it was around the first one. Yes, absolutely there is lots of speculation on where the other three came from and what their purpose might be, but at this stage, it is speculation.