National Defence committee  For as long as NORAD has existed, there has always been a U.S. twin command. This has been beneficial for Canada in the sense that the U.S. has had the means and command to execute unilateral action without dragging Canada into their business. That is one clear benefit. We have

National Defence committee  I understand where you are coming from, Mr. Chair. We have to live within our fiscal capabilities. At the end of the day, commanders will do what they can with what they have. But this risk is a policy risk. It is not for the military to decide. It is for the Chief of the Defence

National Defence committee  Or something like NORAD.

National Defence committee  The perspective of a continental defence is what would probably surface nowadays. It's kind of a declaration of the fact that North America is a single security space. We can't detach ourselves from each other. Something happening in the U.S. will affect us; something happening h

National Defence committee  We have not experienced any hostile incursions. If we are talking about penetration of our air defence identification zone, we again have to specify that Russian aircraft are entitled to travel in international airspace. The identification zone allows for control of traffic ente

National Defence committee  Some do, under the Open Skies Treaty, for example, following a flight plan, but that happens only in that context.

National Defence committee  That is classified information, and so I cannot talk about it, unfortunately. I can tell you, however, that we have the number of planes we need.

National Defence committee  We have the number of planes we need to deal with all scenarios.

National Defence committee  No, sir, I think it's absolutely adequate in the sense that right now, as we sit here today in Ottawa, we have a certain threat level. The commander of the Canadian region has positioned his aircraft in a way that caters to that situation. If we have a warning, we have Canadian c

National Defence committee  Yes, that's very correct, sir.

National Defence committee  When I say we don't have access, we don't have Canadians sitting in the ballistic missile defence section. When you visit Colorado Springs, you will see that in the operations centre there is an air domain, a maritime domain, and the FAA is there, and so on and so forth. There i

National Defence committee  When we step back, you will see there is a command desk where I'm sitting here as a NORAD officer to characterize a threat, and to my right is going to be a NORTHCOM officer who will be charged with delivery of the mission. When I characterize a threat so I know there is a missi

National Defence committee  I don't think so because throughout the history.... It happened also in the United States with their own platforms. However, NORAD has always been protected in terms of what we needed for training our crews and the hours of flight time for whatever platforms to deliver the missio

National Defence committee  For the ballistic missile threat, it will fly through space as opposed to airspace, and there's a big difference. If the impact point is close enough to the Canadian border, there may be some portion that is within our airspace, so to speak. It is a space trajectory. From that pe

National Defence committee  A shopping list would be sensors and a means to track, detect, and engage a cruise missile. If we had a shopping list and unlimited resources, that also means point-defences, for example with a ground-based defence system that would protect our most important sites within the Can