Evidence of meeting #11 for National Defence in the 45th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was arctic.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
That's fair.
You don't see that NORAD would be absorbed in or be part of the golden dome.
As an Individual
If the golden dome goes in the direction that General Guillot has indicated, then NORAD needs to be involved, but I wouldn't want to put it under the context of the golden dome.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
It would be “involved with” but not “part of”.
As an Individual
No, NORAD is essential for the combined aerospace defence of North America.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
That's fair. Thank you.
Dr. Charron, you mentioned that the Arctic over-the-horizon radar system continues to see delays. Do you think this system will be sufficient to track all the types of threats that we've discussed, including non-ICBM threats?
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
The Arctic over-the-horizon radar system is going to allow us to see a bit further into our Arctic, but we won't be able to see, again, the full extent with just that radar system. There's technology we've yet to develop to make the polar over-the-horizon radar system function, so we are going to be continuously looking for land-based and space-based systems that can give us that domain awareness.
Of course, we can't necessarily anticipate what new technologies might be coming at us as a threat and whether or not these systems can keep up with them. The north warning system, as we've known for a long time, really struggles with both the low-and-slow and high-and-fast problems.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you.
It seems like we should be able to have a system that deals with all of these threats or problems, as you describe them. Would you agree?
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Ideally, but it won't be one exquisite system. There's no system that can handle all of those. That's why we always talk about a system of systems. It's going to have to be many different ones that are linked together so we can queue the system that can handle a drone and then the one for a hypersonic and then the one for a ballistic missile.
Conservative
Jeff Kibble Conservative Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC
Thank you. I absolutely agree that it should be a system of systems. I appreciate that.
The golden dome is being pushed as a new solution. What benefits and shortcomings do you see with that proposed program?
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I think we have to put aside the golden dome and start talking about integrated air and missile defence, because that is what the golden dome is actually trying to achieve. It won't be achieved overnight. It's going to happen slowly but surely.
For example, we are going to be hosting FIFA, one of the largest international events in the world. Right now, we have no ground-based anti-aircraft missile systems. That worries me. We need to make sure we have a way to protect our critical infrastructure—what we call our defended asset list, which is the critical infrastructure and key defence systems—so that if we were ever attacked, we could continue to fight and not be held hostage.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you, Ms. Charron.
Thank you, Mr. Kibble.
Mr. Watchorn, you have five minutes.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Bates, as my colleague Mr. Malette said, you painted a rather bleak picture of the future of the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. I would point to the fact that the Government of Canada has invested significantly in NORAD modernization, to the tune of $40 billion. I will ask you again: If you were the boss and you had $40 billion or more to modernize NORAD, what would be your first three positive measures for Canada?
As an Individual
First, I would invest in actual capabilities, not just maritime domain awareness or command and control. In other words, invest in platforms, invest in ammunition and invest in people. The $40 billion allocated over 20 years, I guess, is not a lot.
October 30th, 2025 / 10:10 a.m.
As an Individual
Even though planes cost about $200 million each, it is not enough. We need to invest more in Canada's defence to be able to protect ourselves.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
I assume you support the Canadian submarine patrol program to defend Canada's three coasts.
How could these submarines be integrated into NORAD's defence system?
As an Individual
Allow me to answer in English.
NORAD has, as Dr. Charron indicated, the maritime domain awareness issue. One of the issues we have is that the Russians and the Chinese have submarines carrying ballistic and cruise missiles. The submarines we intend to purchase for their ability to work under the ice will be capable of dealing with those types of platforms before they can pose a threat to North America.
One of the biggest problems NORAD faced when I was there was that we spent a lot of time chasing arrows but were unable to get to the archers. The submarines will give us the capability in wartime to deal with the archers, presumably and hopefully before they even let go the arrows. That's a huge capability.
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you very much, Mr. Bates.
I'm going to finish my round of questions with you, Dr. Charron. You wrote an article, “North America's Imperative: Strengthening Deterrence by Denial”.
I would like you to summarize the findings of your report, please.
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
Thanks very much.
Essentially, what my colleague, Jim Fergusson, and I were saying was that we cannot depend on defence by punishment—that the threat of a U.S. nuclear retaliation is going to prevent adversaries from attacking us—and that's why it's essential that we have these new systems, so we can see far out and away from North America and that, as General Guillot says, he has the time to take decisions and it doesn't always have to be a kinetic response.
Because we cannot see the full extent of our Arctic territory, that's why deterrence by denial is so important: It's all about being able to see what the adversary might be thinking about doing, and then calling them out so that we can hold them at risk and say, “Here are the consequences if you continue down this path.”
Liberal
Tim Watchorn Liberal Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC
Thank you very much.
You also talked about a czar you'd like to see lobby the United States to promote our defence resources.
Can you tell us a bit about what their role would be?
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I think it's to raise awareness of the importance of NORAD in the United States. Many people in the United States don't understand what NORAD is. One of the problems is that we don't actually refer to it as a combatant command, so it's completely out of sight and out of mind, yet it is essential to the defence of the United States.
It's also really important to draw to attention the capabilities and the role that Canada plays. My real concern was that when the Chinese balloon came over in 2023, rather than saying, “Look at what NORAD is doing,” the U.S. was saying, “Why is Canada involved?” Likewise, in Canada, we were saying, “Why are U.S. aircraft in Canadian airspace?” This is as per the NORAD agreement. This is the beauty of it.
Clearly, there's a lack of education, and because the Permanent Joint Board on Defense is all but moribund.... We don't have that Prime Minister and president whisperer to help get rid of challenges or irritants before they're widely in the public, and that's what we need right now, a whisperer.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Charles Sousa
Thank you to all of you for participating today.
I have a question with regard to NORAD's system of defence for North America and our Arctic. We also are heavily involved, steadfast, with the Ukrainian war, and $4.5 billion has been provided in support of supplies and the training of 46,000 Ukrainian troops.
More importantly, we're doing quite a bit as Canada to support that Baltic state and that area. My question, then, is on the depletion of resources and assets by Russia in this effort and how that is being affected in the region here in the north. Do we have time? That is what I'm getting at. Do we have sufficient opportunity, given Russia's lack of ability to manage both fronts, let's call it?
I'll put it over to you first, Andrea.
Director, Centre for Defence and Security Studies, University of Manitoba, As an Individual
I think Russia can manage both fronts very well.
Because they can hold us at risk, they can escalate to de-escalate, and that's always been the plan in the books, that they would lob something into the North American Arctic, where it wouldn't necessarily hit anybody but would certainly make everybody else potentially back off from what's happening in the Baltics and eastern Europe, giving Russia carte blanche to do what they want.
We cannot think about defending North America and Europe separately. We have to be integrated. We have to see that the defence of North America is the defence of Europe and vice versa.
As an Individual
I would say that all the western support for Ukraine has been designed to prevent Ukraine from losing, and so far it's been insufficient to assist Ukraine in winning.
The Ukrainian people and the Ukrainian military have done a tremendous job in attriting Russian conventional capabilities.
At the same time, the Russians are recapitalizing those capabilities from their factories, with their people, in order to pursue a wider war. We need to provide Ukraine with the weapons she needs to defeat Russia.
Putin's Russia needs to lose. In every case historically, when the Russians have lost—even, often, when they have won a war—it has led to fundamental political and domestic social change. Sadly, in the past, those changes were not always positive and didn't turn out well, but I remain optimistic. My first foreign posting was in Russia. I like the Russian people, but I cannot stand their government.