National Defence Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Andrea Charron]

At the moment, we do have integrated command and control. The concern, for example, is that right now, if we can't push and pull air-tasking orders into the CANR command, that's going to limit us. The building there was purpose-built in the 1990s, and we're now dealing with new generations of technologies, which is why it's slated to be rebuilt.

In Canada, we tend to be one and done: We've modernized. That's it—we're done. We have to think about this as a continual upgrade and be able to change things as technology changes as well.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Thank you very much, Dr. Charron.

Mr. Bates, some of your testimony this morning has been a little stark—some might say bleak—for instance, in your assessment of NORAD being a quaint organization in the eyes of our American friends. How would you see, then, that we move forward without...? Are you recommending that we try to fly under the radar of President Trump and Pete Hegseth in order to achieve anything in this atmosphere? I'm trying to puzzle out where you would have us go forward.

[Peter Bates]

That was the question I had when I put my presentation together. One, NORAD requires modernization and refit, and two, how do we do it with the United States, which is the partnership we have today?

I think that many parts of the modernization plan of DND are absolutely appropriate and should go ahead: the munitions, the air-to-air missiles, the domain awareness and the command and control. We should continue those, and we should work, as I suggested in my notes, with those on the American side who, frankly, are in our corner, and I would include the current commander of NORAD and the folks in the headquarters.

A lot of the modernization stuff will never get to the political level until you get to the point where it's $50 billion, and that will, in fact, attract the attention of the secretary of defense and the President of the United States.

There are a lot of things that we can do on our own. There are a lot of improvements we can make: a new fighter aircraft, airborne early warning and control aircraft for Canada, additional tankers for Canada and a ground-based air defence system. These are all things we can do that will contribute to NORAD modernization. The new radars that we've put in place in Canada will contribute to NORAD modernization.

The more we can do on our own, the better off we will be, because we'll then be able to provide those capabilities to our American partners, particularly those who appreciate them.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

Further to that, Mr. Bates, you suggest, then, that we compile a cumulative list, if you will, of some of those points, so that we can counter, I guess, whenever a threat comes to us in the form of that big bill that perhaps Mr. Trump might present going forward. Do you think it's sufficient, what we're planning and what we've already started down the road with?

[Peter Bates]

I don't think it's sufficient to mollify the concerns that President Trump has with regard to this country, and I think it would simply attract his attention. I'm afraid that for DND.... Particularly in the time that I was in NORAD, there was very much a sense that if we do certain things, if we spend certain money on NORAD modernization, we can mollify the Americans with regard to our defence spending overall.

I think the addition of things like the pay increase for the Canadian Forces and gathering the Coast Guard into DND were basically accounting tricks, so that we can move forward and say that we are spending more of our GDP. I am less interested in how much of our GDP we spend on defence than on the actual military capabilities that come out at the other end, which are what we need to be able to defend ourselves.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Bates.

[Chris Malette, Liberal, Bay of Quinte, ON]

If I might sum up, I share your concern. I certainly hope that the cooler heads you're speaking about can prevail, but unfortunately, as we've seen with Mr. Trump and Mr. Hegseth, sometimes the cooler heads get lopped off in the equation.

Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Dr. Charron, you talk about a gap where we're vulnerable. I'm sure you want to talk about a potentially difficult transition that could reveal some fragility. When will we be at the critical period between the time we abandon aging systems and the imminent introduction of new capabilities?

[Andrea Charron]

Thank you.

We're vulnerable now. We're at risk now. Anything we can do to get these systems online is essential.

We shouldn't forget that we have a lot of Canadian companies, such as GSTS, that have purpose-built platforms that might help us integrate some of the information. They are collecting information: satellite-based information, AIS, etc. We should be leveraging that as well.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

I understand that there is a clear shortage of qualified personnel, which you think is slowing down modernization.

Issues also include equipment problems and organizational and cognitive architecture, as you've said several times.

Institutionally, what changes should we be making?

[Andrea Charron]

I just want to clarify: I'm not saying that our personnel aren't highly qualified, but new technologies are sometimes coming online faster than the training cycles can catch up with.

I think we have really excellent commanders who understand what has to be done. It's often, though, that the desire of the CAF versus the rest of government that has to make it happen is lagging, so anything we can do to get all of the government and all of the various agencies and federal departments online as quickly as possible, understanding that what they do is also part of our defence and security architecture, is essential.

We don't have an integrated defence strategy like that of the U.K. I'm suggesting that's maybe something we need to do to make sure that every agency understands its role in defending Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

It's now over to Mr. Kibble. You have five minutes.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Mr. Bates, you mentioned “accounting tricks”. Do you see the Coast Guard as bringing capability to the defence of Canada and contributing to NORAD?

[Peter Bates]

Absolutely, I do.

As the deputy commissioners made clear, the Coast Guard has capabilities with regard to surveillance and maritime awareness and on things like infrastructure, for example. We've seen efforts by the Russian shadow fleet to destroy subsea infrastructure in the Baltic Sea. We can expect to see those kinds of attempts if the conflict continues in the wider Atlantic and possibly even in our own waters.

The Coast Guard brings real capability with regard to surveillance of that infrastructure. It brings real capability in its ability to transport Canadian Forces members as necessary.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

You mentioned lack of munitions and supporting NORAD, and you also mentioned fighter aircraft. Do you feel that NORAD needs the support of more than 16 F-35s?

[Peter Bates]

I think that NORAD needs more than 16 fighter aircraft.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

How many fighter aircraft, without referring to a specific type, do you suggest that they would need to do their job properly?

[Peter Bates]

I would suggest that 88, which has been posited as the number for the future fighter fleet is, quite frankly, the minimum that we will need. If we find ourselves in a full-out kinetic conflict with Russia, we will need many more.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Thank you.

To do that job properly, would you, with your expertise, recommend a fourth- or a fifth-generation type of aircraft to achieve that mission?

[Peter Bates]

My complaint has always been that the United States spends more on defence than the rest of us combined, and they spend it on stuff they can barely afford. Then they make us buy the same thing.

Fourth- and fifth-generation aircraft are a great selling point if you're Lockheed Martin. They do not necessarily provide the capabilities that we will require for the defence of Canada.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

During your time at NORAD, you were having conversations about the system and the forthcoming upgrades that would be necessary. When did those conversations start?

[Peter Bates]

I was in NORAD, as I said, from 2014. The conversations had begun even before I was there, but they ramped up leading to the 2017 defence statement.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

We understand that the north warning system, as we've heard in earlier testimony, is effectively becoming obsolete, if it's not already, and RADARSAT will also be obsolete in the very near future.

Do you think that the golden dome will bring the end of NORAD? You said that the Americans are not showing much interest in NORAD. Is that a possibility that should be considered?

[Peter Bates]

I honestly don't believe that the golden dome will be achieved in President Trump's term.