National Defence committee  Yes.

National Defence committee  Well, I think it is a more uncertain world. As to whether or not it's a more dangerous one than the time we were threatened with nuclear annihilation because of the crisis in Europe, I would say, no, it's not as dangerous, but it's more uncertain. But even in a benign strategic e

National Defence committee  Yes. I think Russia still certainly remains a threat. It's an emerging threat. It's a particular threat in the waters around Europe, where we've been traditionally...looking for. It may well be a new threat in terms of North American defence. NATO is looking toward NORAD...look

National Defence committee  I don't think you're going to see navy-to-navy on the high seas. The U.S. focus is on undoing or meeting what it calls Chinese “anti-access” capabilities. They have come up with a new capability, called “anti anti-access”. This means getting access to the very waters that China i

National Defence committee  Unless one believes, then, that the defence review is going to significantly alter the traditional Canadian roles of NATO, contributing to international coalitions, domestic operations, and North American security, we will simply fit the navy we have into those obligations and ma

National Defence committee  I was not.

National Defence committee  It's adjusting the commitments. If we're not going to have the navy that some others think we need, then perhaps we should reduce our commitments. The Chinese navy has grown. There's no doubt about it. But there are large navies in east Asia that are aligned with us: Japan, Korea

National Defence committee  Can you hear me?

National Defence committee  What I'm going to talk about, overall, is the need for sea-power, which is simply an ability to use or deny the seas for your national purposes. Even though Canada has strong national economic interest in seaborne trade, and new threats have arisen in the form of piracy, when we

National Defence committee  I would agree that, in fact, if we were to redo this, we would come up with something like NORAD. I emphasize that—and I'm sure the committee members will remember this—NORAD was not an American idea. It came from both countries. In fact, the U.S. joint chiefs of staff were a li

National Defence committee  As Dr. Joseph Jockel and I suggested, if the U.S. does go forward with some sort of east coast system, this provides the opportunity for Canada to jump in and say, “Well, we're willing to participate in this system, either by putting sensors in Canada, or by helping financially a

National Defence committee  I think it's a question that you need to ask the RCAF and NORAD. I don't know if the committee has been to Washington, but what's the assessment there? Does the United States deliberately keep aircraft close? We do. They know we keep them to the national capital area. There, of

National Defence committee  I would agree, because NORAD already protects Canadian sovereign airspace, whatever the status of the Northwest Passage. I would say, though, that there was the view at the time that it would be in U.S. national security interest to regard it as internal Canadian waters, thereby

National Defence committee  Since 2005, NORAD has already adjusted to Canada's position on ballistic missile defence. The information is already going to the ballistic missile defence organization, and Canada is just not involved in that aspect of ballistic missile defence that would release the interceptor

National Defence committee  I was talking about civil organizations, police forces, the relations between the RCMP and American security agencies; between agencies such as, on the American side, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, and the border security agencies. It would also include, as is the case