National Defence Committee on Oct. 30th, 2025

[Andrea Charron]

Because Canada has the second-largest Arctic and the largest coastline in the world, if Canada has a better picture and understanding of what's happening in our Arctic, that information and intelligence is absolutely vital for our allies. What we don't want is to be seen as a weak link, so that adversaries can exploit us in the Arctic and then we are held hostage. That's what it does. The rangers, of course, are a big part of that. We cannot underestimate that their eyes and ears are essential. However, it is going to be these new technologies, these space-based systems.... I would add to Mr. Bates's comments that Canada has space-based expertise, and allies really want more of it. I would lean into that.

We still have what we call the “tyranny of distance”. Anything we can do to make it easier for the Canadian Armed Forces to get into the Arctic as quickly as possible is going to be really helpful. That's where, of course, the Coast Guard's moving to the DND is going to be helpful, too, because now they can collect security-based information.

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Dr. Charron, I appreciate the recommendations you provided to the committee this morning.

From your research on NORAD and continental defence, how does Canada's current modernization agenda position the binational command to address evolving threats across new domains such as space and cyber, in addition to traditional air and maritime environments?

[Andrea Charron]

Well, it is going to be a help, but we have to remember that NORAD has responsibility right now for just one and a half domains: the aerospace warning control and only maritime warning.

That being said, things like the Arctic over-the-horizon radar system are going to be essential, not only for NORAD but also for civilian agencies, to give us a better understanding of what's happening.

What we really want to do is to make sure that we are able to link the systems and also that other government agencies can maximize their operations via the use of this information. That means we really all have to be on the same page. We have to push and pull intelligence and data, and we have to be able to produce a common operating picture. We do that reasonably well in a maritime sense, but we're going to have to get into the habit of making it all domains and everybody instantaneously.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Ms. Charron.

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to thank both witnesses for their presentations.

Mr. Bates, you described Canada as being extremely vulnerable. In concrete terms, what are the main shortcomings of NORAD at present that could compromise the defence of North America?

[Peter Bates]

NORAD's current shortcomings affect three areas.

Those are lack of munitions, lack of platforms, lack of infrastructure and aging sensors. A lot of work has been done in NORAD with regard to improving the sensors so that they can actually detect some of the current threats. It's not perfect. There are vulnerabilities.

Many of the munitions that the United States and Canada have purchased over the last 20 years have been in what I call “boutique lots”. If we found ourselves in an aerial campaign similar to what is currently being conducted over Ukraine and Russia, we would run out of munitions very quickly.

As I've said before, the CF-18 may be an excellent platform, and the F-35 could be a great aircraft, but as Stalin noted, “Quantity has a quality all its own.” No matter how good your platform is, the same platform can't be in two or three places at the same time.

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

You said that the Canadian government was basically just checking the modernization box and saying that it was done. That's what you said.

What follow-up and accountability measures would you tend to recommend now to prevent modernization from being just a kind of public relations exercise?

[Peter Bates]

As I suggested in my remarks, the Canadian government must accept and inform the Canadian public that NORAD has a real combat role. It's not just a symbol of our partnership with the United States. It's not just about controlling civilian aircraft and preventing them from being hijacked.

In the context of war, as is the case today, NORAD plays a key role.

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

The pan-domain command and control concept is a purely American doctrine. There's no authenticity in just following that path. There's no sovereignty over data or anything else.

[Peter Bates]

The U.S. version of all-domain command and control has been taken up by virtually all of our allies, NATO and otherwise, although we use different words. Some refer to “pan-domain” as if that makes it more sovereign and independent.

It reflects the fact that in the current combat situations that we will find ourselves in, air, land, sea, cyber and space will all be intimately entwined. The digital gives us the capacity to combine the information and to advance the control and planning of all of those in all of those domains.

Yes, there is a need for all-domain, pan-domain and joint and combined domain, but it has to be balanced with the individual sovereign needs, sovereign capabilities and legal limits of our various partners.

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

Could you also comment on the fact that Canada lifted restrictions on missile defence activities?

[Peter Bates]

When the Reagan administration introduced the idea of a strategic defence initiative dubbed “Star Wars”, Canada was invited to participate but declined. Afterwards, there were issues with NORAD. Some doors were completely closed, and we continued to suffer the impacts for decades.

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

There have been impacts, but the various versions of this program, dubbed “Star Wars” under Reagan and later called a missile defence shield under George W. Bush, have all been proposed at contentious times. For example, under George W. Bush, Iraq had just been invaded and we had no desire to join in. We said it was just more American imperialism. There were, however, reasonable grounds.

Why do you think it would be perfectly legitimate to join today?

[Peter Bates]

I think it's absolutely necessary today, but, as I said, it doesn't necessarily have to be done through Mr. Trump's golden dome.

However, General Guillot has tried to make a purse out of that particular sow's ear.

We were right to say no to missile defence when we did. In the current circumstances, it is not correct for us to stay out of missile defence today, because of the prevalence not of nuclear missiles but of conventional ballistic missiles, conventional cruise missiles and conventional drones. We need to have a roof over our heads that is able to deal with all of those, and we need to do it between ourselves and the United States.

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

Now let's talk about hypersonic missiles. Should we develop our own capabilities or leave it entirely up to the United States? I imagine your answer will be that we need to develop our skills, but how could Canada better align its innovation policies with the development of hypersonic infrastructure?

For example, experts in the field told us that they would have the expertise to do this at Valcartier.

[Peter Bates]

We absolutely need to have sovereign capabilities when it comes to missile defence. I noticed that, in the Department of National Defence's planning for NORAD modernization, it talks about the

GBAD, or ground-based air defence.

We should lose the previous allergy to ballistic missile defence. It doesn't matter whether it's ballistic, cruise, drone or whatever. We should be dealing with an integrated missile defence system, and we in Canada should possess capabilities of our own, both for our forces abroad—forward and in Latvia—and for defending our critical infrastructure and critical needs here in Canada, and that should include the capability to engage all missile threats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Bates.

For the second round, it's over to you, Mr. Anderson. You have five minutes.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Bates, you mentioned Ukraine. Can you explain, for the benefit of Canadians, what that conflict has to do with Canada? There seems to be a tendency among some people to view them, to paraphrase Chamberlain, as people far away about whom we know nothing.

[Peter Bates]

Meanwhile, we are in our “fireproof house”.

When I was at NORAD, I thought one of the most important things I wrote for the commander was after the 2014 invasion of Donetsk and Luhansk. Throughout his career, President Putin has accelerated and escalated, starting, frankly, with the war in Chechnya, the war against Georgia, his invasion of Crimea and his seizure of Donetsk. Inevitably, in his own mind and as he has made clear in statements, he intends to go to war in a full-on conventional conflict with NATO.

If Ukraine is not successful in its defence, and if we foolishly permit some kind of ceasefire that allows Russia to hold on to what it has taken, he will continue his preparation. He has not remanaged the entire Russian economy on a wartime footing solely to conquer Ukraine. His intention is to beat us.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Okay.

Dr. Charron, would you agree with that assessment?

[Andrea Charron]

Yes, I would. The reason the world is so tenuous these days is that we have not one but two peer competitors. At the same time as we're worrying about this proximate, persistent threat that is Russia, we've also got what the U.S. calls the pacing threat that is China.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Thank you very much.

At a very high level, in terms of air warfare, what did we learn from that conflict, from the Ukrainian conflict?

[Peter Bates]

We learned that drones are incredibly difficult to deal with, and that you really do need a multilayered system. As my boss at NORAD used to say, using a million-dollar missile to shoot down a $50,000 incoming drone is not a good use of money, a good use of time or a good use of effort.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

In terms of the ability of Canada's CF-18 fighter fleet, how are they able to defend in the north? How effective are they?

[Peter Bates]

They will be able to defend in the north with great difficulty.