National Defence committee  I think it should be re-evaluated, because if you want to move to a North American defence command, you have to have one with a partner that doesn't have a caveat. Right now we have the caveat that we will not defend against ballistic missiles. Therefore, that makes us not part of a full partnership.

National Defence committee  My idea is that you equip yourself so that nobody wants to attempt to go weapon on weapon on the ship. It's about deterrence. The best deterrence in the north would be an undersea-capable submarine, and hopefully a nuclear submarine that could stay there. If a submarine is there and it's known, nobody will come forward.

National Defence committee  Is that to defend against what's coming at us?

National Defence committee  For what's coming at us, you need an integrated air defence system. It's layered. You can have an initial fence of an anti-missile system and you can have interceptors, but in the end, and where we are in Canada, you actually need a point defence, which is a ground-based air defence system that protects your critical infrastructure, protects your command and control nodes and protects your government from an explosion on our soil.

National Defence committee  The ballistic missile defence system is a U.S. system only. It was not built to go against Russia or China. It was built to go against the terrorist threat of North Korea, mainly. It has missile fields. It has radar. Right now, it launches and hits a bullet with a bullet. The system works, and in anger, it could also defend against an attack from Russia, obviously, because a missile is a missile.

National Defence committee  Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you for the invitation and the opportunity I have been given to contribute to your work. Let us think back to November 24, 1987. The U.S. and the Soviet Union agreed to scrap short- and medium-range missiles. It was the first superpower treaty to eliminate an entire class of nuclear weapons.