Study on Canada, NORAD, and Aerial Readiness in the Canadian NORAD Region: NDP Recommendations for the Report

It is with regret that New Democrats submit this dissenting opinion on Canada’s Aerial Readiness. We had hoped that the Defence Committee could arrive at consensus recommendations which would constitute a substantive contribution to the ongoing Defence Review on the basis of all party support. The Committee heard valuable evidence from a wide variety of witnesses and we thank them for their contribution.

Unfortunately this report does not represent a consensus of members from all parties on the Defence Committee. Instead at the 11^th hour, the Committee adopted the report without discussing proposed recommendations with all parties. In fact, some members chose to press their partisan advantage and proceeded to adopt the final report at a time when there were no opposition members present. This was possible only because of a dispute over the handling of an apparently deliberate violation of the confidentiality of the drafting process for partisan advantage by a Liberal MP. Worse still, in their haste to exploit the absence of Opposition members, the Committee adopted the report without even having a final text before it. And it now seems the Committee did all this under the direction of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence in direct contradiction of the Prime Minister’s promise to let committees operate independently.

In the end, New Democrats believe the majority report tabled does not do justice to the evidence heard by the Defence Committee. Instead, this report is primarily an attempt by the Liberals to reinforce the Government’s defence agenda. In particular, the Committee report marshals evidence to bolster the Liberal decision to sole-source the purchase of Super Hornets, their desire to reposition Canada’s current fighter jets, and their attempt to justify participation in the US missile defence program. New Democrats believe that a fair examination of the evidence would lead to three different conclusions, that Canada is in need of an open and transparent procurement process to acquire future aerial assets, that capital expenditures need to take into account the need to replace additional air assets in the medium term including refueling and search and rescue aircraft, and that participation in the ineffective US missile defence scheme would not only be financially costly but would also risk further promoting another round of an arms race focused on offensive ballistic missiles.

What was heard consistently from witnesses during the study was the need for new equipment so that the RCAF can maintain interoperability with our allies as well as meet Canada’s domestic and sovereignty requirements. Domestic requirements would include the ability to operate in the Arctic as climate change brings increased activity in the area. LGen Stephen Bowes indicated that "the Canadian Arctic is expected to experience an increase in overall activity in the coming years due to developments in areas such as natural resource exploitation, adventure actives, and maritime traffic."^[1] The increased activity in the Canadian Arctic from tourists and corporations alike will add an increased role for the Royal Canadian Air Force both in terms of defending Canadian sovereignty, environmental monitoring, and search and rescue operations.

With the vast geographic size of Canada and the Canadian Arctic in mind, the Committee heard testimony regarding both a single-engine and twin-engine aircraft to replace the CF-18. While Rear-Admiral Scott Bishop testified that engine technology has become increasingly more reliable and single-engine aircraft are less-expensive, other witnesses testified that the risk of potential engine failure outweighs the potential cost-benefits to single-engine aircraft. Dr. Michael Byers from the University of British Columbia's Political Science department stated in his presentation that "twin engine jets are still more reliable than single engine jets."^[2]

Any decision on which aircraft that will replace the CF-18s must be taken in an open and transparent manner. The sole-sourcing process adopted by the Conservatives to purchase the F-35 has proven so far to be costly and inefficient, and exactly how expensive the F-35s would be remains an open question. The plane also remains unproven in terms of performance and mechanical issues. The F-35 is a single-engine aircraft and given the testimony heard from several witnesses about the needs of Canada’s vast geography, the F-35 simply does not appear to meet our domestic requirements. However, an open, transparent process can meet the need to balance costs with finding the right aircraft for Canada. We still lack a clear statement of the capabilities required to meet the needs of Canada’s complex geography combined with interoperability with our allies. The procurement process must also allow for timely delivery of the aircraft to avoid the pending operational gaps.

Canada’s aerial readiness is not just a question of fighter jets. Dr. Byers produced an extensive procurement list for aerial readiness including the need to upgrade the fixed-wing search and rescue planes which are nearing 50 years old. Additionally he states that the Air Force only has 14 long-range search and rescue helicopters while "… the Royal Canadian Air Force, is on record as saying that they need at least 18 to do the job properly. "^[3]

Dr. Byers also stated that the Canadian Air Force should increase its capabilities in the Arctic. There are 14 Aurora maritime patrol aircraft currently undergoing a major refit process and he suggested that all 18 should undergo the process. Additionally, "Transport Canada has two Dash 8s, and one Dash 7. They overfly every foreign vessel visiting Canada's Arctic."^[4] An increase to this capability would significantly enhance Canada's Arctic surveillance capabilities. While RADARSAT-2 is the leader in Arctic surveillance, the RADARSAT Constellation is showing significant benefit for the first three satellites in the system and there is potential to increase the number of satellites to the originally proposed six. This list demonstrates that the decision on which aircraft to replace the CF-18s with must be balanced with the other capital investments the Royal Canadian Air Force requires.

While this study failed to focus on search and rescue as part of aerial readiness, it should be an important part of these discussions. Based on recommendation 7.100 of 2013 Auditor General report, a formal national Search and Rescue policy framework should be implemented. National Defence, in consultation with Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Transport Canada, and other federal departments, and the provinces and territories, should take steps to improve the governance structure, including developing objectives, performance indicators, and reporting that would enhance search and rescue service and coordination.

The terms of reference for the Liberal’s Defence Review re-opened the question of Canadian participation in the U.S. Ballistic Missile Program. While Canada made the decision not to take part in ballistic missile defence a decade ago, it is important to reiterate the reasons why that decision should stand. Peggy Mason, Canada’s former Ambassador for Disarmament to the United Nations, and former International Security Policy Advisor to Joe Clark during his time as Foreign Minister in the Mulroney government, and the current President of the Rideau Institute, has been working in the field of non-proliferation for many years. Her argument is that strategic BMD systems do not adequately defend against such attacks and are always outdated to the latest offensive technology. As she puts it, "it is infinitely cheaper to build more offensive systems."^[5] A decade later, the U.S. ballistic missile defence program has achieved a success rate of only 50% even in controlled conditions and, despite billions of dollars spent, the U.S. still has too few interceptors to be effective against Russian or Chinese attacks.

While the Americans have gone to great lengths to explain to countries like China and Russia that their BMD system is not aimed at them, Ms. Mason has asserted that "BMD is a spur for Russia and China to build ever more and better offensive systems in order to overwhelm these defences in case they should ever work and be directed at them."^[6] In addition to encouraging the further development of next-generation offensive ballistic missile technology, BMD also has the effect of promoting nuclear weapons modernization. The decision of the U.S. under George W Bush to move away from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty to pursue BMD development in the name of greater security, has actually led to greater destabilization of global security.

Some government witnesses claimed that Canada getting involved in ballistic missile defence now would yield economic opportunities for Canada, provide us with a place at the decision-table, and not cost any money to sign on to. However, several witnesses testified that none of these assertions are likely true. Ms. Mason testified that "there is very little likelihood that Canadian participation in ballistic missile defence would give Canada the much sought-after seat at the BMD table."^[7] U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence is under the U.S. NORTHCOM and not NORAD, meaning "participation would not provide Canada with any guarantee of a meaningful operational role in BMD, or even a guarantee that Canadian cities would be defended."^[8]

Dr. Byers was skeptical that Canada would be able to join BMD for free.

"We know how much the U.S. government Has spent on its mid course interceptor system here in North America: $40 billion U.S. We know how much they a re spending per year to maintain and grow that system: $1 billion U.S. You might imagine, and perhaps you might want to ask, whether the United States will let Canada join for free. I doubt it. If we say that perhaps they would want us to pay our share of the retrospective costs of building up the system, the Canadian population is one-tenth of the United States, so that's $4 billion."^[9]

A government witness that was in support of Canadian involvement in BMD, Dr. James Fergusson, even admitted that there would likely be no economic benefits for Canadian companies in regards to joining BMD.

"In terms of technologies, in terms of opportunities in the missile defence world, that train left the station two decades ago. Canada did not engage. The American research and development program is well advanced across the board in missile defence. The likelihood that there are any opportunities for Canadian firms or Canadian technology is extremely low."^[10]

Finally, when it comes to priorities for the Canadian Armed Forces, many witnesses agreed that BMD should not be a top priority. Dr. Adam Lajeunesse, agreed with Dr. Byers and Peggy Mason that there were simply more important procurement and recapitalization costs facing the Armed Forces that should take precedence over BMD.

"As Canada is facing the recapitalization of both its navy and its air force simultaneously, I do agree with Dr. Byers that in terms of priorities, which have to be set, missile defence - depending on the cost, which we do not know - will be toward the bottom end of that priority list."^[11]

We urge the new Liberal government to not get caught up in the headlines of ballistic missile defence and to instead focus on the important work of modernizing the Royal Canadian Air Force. It is clear that BMD is not effective, that the U.S. would in all likelihood keep the system under their own command and not make it a part of NORAD, and that the costs to join such a system this late would be astronomical, especially when considering Canada’s other recapitalization needs. Additionally, New Democrats recommend that Canada focus on its efforts to promote non-proliferation of ballistic missiles and not join a system that is likely to spur a new arms race in offensive missile technology.

Despite the major concerns already discussed, there are still some recommendations adopted by the Committee that New Democrats can support. We support the second recommendation requiring making pilot safety a key consideration for any CF-18 replacement. Recommendation 4 recognizing the importance of acquiring new air-to-air refueling planes is also consistent with witness testimony and reflective of the need to be mindful of the entirety of the air force’s recapitalization efforts.

Recommendation 12 which calls for the modernization of the North Warning System was emphasized by several key witnesses and New Democrats agree the system should be modernized or replaced with new capabilities. New Democrats are also supportive of recommendation 13 highlighting the need to protect Canada from cyber-attacks and the defence review should look at this as a key area of 21^st Century defence.

New Democrats remain concerned that the Committee approved the final report without having a finalized version of the text before it. This in turn required the preparation of our dissenting opinion also without seeing the final text. We continue to regret that the Liberal members of the Defence Committee abandoned the attempt to reach consensus on this important report.