National Defence committee  I was just going to share an anecdote. I was at a conference talking about energy and Ukraine, and one of the gentlemen in the room raised the question, what would Eisenhower do? He speculated that if Eisenhower were president he would build a liquefied natural gas export facility at Naval Station Norfolk with no permitting, just moving very quickly.

National Defence committee  Absolutely. One of the things that we've seen over the history of NORAD is Canada's ability to say no. We saw it with regard to missile defence, which was discussed earlier. Canada chose not to incorporate that. Many people, including many people we both know, said it might be the death of NORAD if Canada didn't participate in ballistic missile defence.

National Defence committee  Yes, absolutely, sir. I think one challenge is really bringing in the more civilian side of the security apparatus. That's where the intelligence may be. That's where the need for action may be. There has always been a cultural difference between military and civilian law enforcement.

National Defence committee  Well, the United States has put its cyber-defence within the context of strategic command. Northern command is the home for NORAD, but even though we have organized it that way, we're trying to provide protection for not only military but also civilian services. I think, though, the fact that the U.S. has shifted the primary responsibility to a different command, it will make NORAD a follower and not a leader.

National Defence committee  I would agree. I think drones are very useful. They are lower cost than the operation of a fighter aircraft, or another aircraft that might be going to check out what could be triggering a threat but could actually be something less than a threat, for example, perhaps a flock of birds or something is showing up on radar and you need to identify and verify whether it is or isn't a threat.

National Defence committee  I don't think very much.... The technology is something we'd be pleased to share. I think we already do share it. NORAD is already set up to take telemetry from satellites and from other radar stations and it could include data coming from planes and drones. I don't think very much would be required.

National Defence committee  Sir, the only thing I'd add, and I don't want to take up much of your time, is that there are two issues. One is the vehicle for delivering an attack, and the other is what you attack with, chemical weapons, nuclear weapons, and so on. Non-proliferation efforts dealing with ordnance are very important to try to stop people from using those weapons, biological and other.

National Defence committee  The difference between the various degrees of stealth is such that what we're really doing in the Arctic is letting them know that we know they are there and that we want them to turn around, so stealth is not as critical in that context. I know what you're saying; you never know where the attack might come from, but it's not an invisible plane.

National Defence committee  It is a very sensitive situation. I would respond first with some sympathy for your constituency and the people in Canada who are dealing with this. It is very tough. In some ways it doesn't matter whether the motivation is political or whether the motivation may come from mental instability.

National Defence committee  Mr. Williamson, if I could just quickly add, one of the things that I think has been lost in the debate is the way in which Congress set up the sequestration mechanism. It redefined the national defence portion of the budget, and then there was a budget that was sort of the domestic entitlement spending.

National Defence committee  Briefly, I think there is going to be an attempt to do both. One of the things about the next couple of years is there will have to be compromises between the White House and the Republican Congress if anything is going to be done. With the power, the veto, plus the ability to divide even a united Republican caucus, there are lots of members you could peel off on spending issues, so I think it's going to be a struggle and we'll be able to move forward only by compromise.

National Defence committee  I would just say, sir, that I think you're on to something. I don't think Canada has to have identical equipment. What we find in the field is that often Canada is there, especially outside of North America, in small enough numbers that it needs to work within a larger American or British command.

National Defence committee  Thank you very much for the question. I'll take the first hit at that. I think we have spent a lot of time as friends—despite all of our differences in the Arctic, Canada and the U.S. are fundamentally friends—talking about this problem but not actually resolving it. It's amazing that we're still disputing the boundary in the Beaufort, not because it isn't a legitimate dispute but because we've talked, mapped, and debated this thing for a long time.

National Defence committee  Yes, with one caveat. I think that as we get into these areas it's extremely important, because we are democracies, that we have the protection of oversight. That could be legislative oversight. That could be administrative oversight through judicial forums or committees. Our public has a right to be protected, and that may require that our governments monitor communications that are sensitive, but it also has a right not to have that information abused or used in a political or personal fashion.

National Defence committee  If I can quickly respond, and very briefly, one of the stealth capabilities' big advantages is in more of a battlefield area. They're very important in areas like the Middle East, but in defence of the continent you don't need to be stealthy because you just need to be able to track down your opponent, so NORAD will be able to operate with fifth generation, even fourth generation planes in the air for some time while those capabilities are developed for much more hostile-fire situations where our presence would be more likely to be detected and counterbanded by forces on the ground.