National Defence committee  Okay. I can give you an example. The TIC3 Air project, which I just mentioned, involves new radios with the capacity to do what we call— beyond-line-of-sight, data link passage. We could put that across the entire country: north, south, east, and west. That would be very expensive.

National Defence committee  In correction, Mr. Chair, to your last point, the newest fifth-generation aircraft has only one engine on it. The facts state themselves. Since 1991, the U.S. has not had engine failure on a single-engine F-16. The technology of where we're at... It's our considered opinion, notwithstanding your comments, that the decision to deploy the F-18s in NORAD had nothing to do with one or two engines, I suspect, but I could perhaps look and get that answer to you.

National Defence committee  Yes, I'm not familiar with the reasons behind the one or two engines that they've chosen. In fact, Chinese mostly use Russian technology in their engines. It's not an independent capability that they've been very successful at, but I suspect that's only a matter of time. Why they chose the two-engine aircraft over one is immaterial to our decision moving forward, quite frankly.

National Defence committee  I am not really in a position to reply about terrorist factors in the country, except in terms of support for the movement of personnel and the army. The most important thing, as we have mentioned previously, is Operation Noble Eagle. This is a mission where we imagine dealing with a terrorist in an aircraft, a scenario like the events of September 11.

National Defence committee  No, not completely. I was using the example that on a NORAD standby posture right now there's always a couple of U.S....quite often we have a tanker, a C-130, out of Winnipeg that's available. To get to your point, interoperability is important, and with the U.S. in particular, because of our NORAD role, which is pre-eminent, in my view.

National Defence committee  I think that if there were a uniquely Canadian view on a threat to Canadian sovereignty, it would be up to Canada to decide how it would be addressed. Let's talk about a navigable Northwest Passage, for example, which the Americans don't recognize. How are we going to posture uniquely to surveil and to act?

National Defence committee  With respect to air forces, there are very few air forces that have all the capabilities you would need to prosecute very complex scenarios. That's why we're so embedded with our closest allies, the Five Eyes, which I know you're familiar with. For Canada—and this has been since the beginning of NORAD—being interoperable with the U.S.

National Defence committee  I don't know the source of your information on directed landing, but I can tell you there was one case with a Korean airliner on April 11, 2012, where there was a bomb threat on board that aircraft. That aircraft was met by a NORAD response, which happened to be U.S. F-15s out of Washington state.

National Defence committee  I think within the armed forces, we have an agreement on the future security environment. How threats are seen through lenses is essentially a government decision that comes through. I gave you my view of how I saw the threats. If you were to have the national security adviser here, or the Minister of Public Safety, you would perhaps have a different view of that threat than I do, but we all contribute.

National Defence committee  I think so, but it's not limitless, as you point out. If we got to a situation where we would want F-18 CAPs flying over one of our major cities, that would take a much larger investment in the RCAF than presently exists.

National Defence committee  No. I mean that's a Canadian sovereign issue to deal with undoubtedly. That's not part of NORAD's mandate right now. NORAD has maritime warning and North American aerospace defence. Those are some sovereign issues. What we have to think about when we're buying platforms, or configuring the armed forces, is that it's not worth just thinking about the threats of today.

National Defence committee  There's no preferred replacement. We have a statement of requirements. We've looked at the strategic environment. We've anticipated the threats. What we aspire to have is an operational advantage. It's pointless to buy anything new if it's not going to give you an operational advantage.

National Defence committee  The project, as it stands right now, is this government has committed to an open and transparent competition, and potential bidders will be assessed against the statement of requirements, they'll be scored against them, and a decision will be made. I'm confident that there are platforms out there that will meet the requirements of Canada.

National Defence committee  We brought back the F-18 commitment from operations, Op Impact, in Iraq, so it's returned to its regular posture, our standing commitment to NORAD. We have fighters on standby in Bagotville and Cold Lake on very short leashes. We have a standing commitment to NATO, which is typically six aircraft ready to go in a certain number of days, if called upon by NATO.

National Defence committee  Well, it would be a lot easier if they just filed flight plans and told us they were coming, because then we wouldn't have to go up there and see them, and we've asked them to do that. In fact, the commander of NORAD has asked them, “Why don't you just file a flight plan and we'll come by”, because it's international airspace outside of our ADIZ.