Article content continued

“We have NORAD obligations and we have NATO obligations in terms of our commitments,” he told reporters after appearing before the House of Commons defence committee.

“And to meet those minimum obligations, we do not, right now, have enough operational aircraft to meet those simultaneously if called upon.”

We apologize, but this video has failed to load.

tap here to see other videos from our team. Try refreshing your browser, or

He also raised the spectre of another 9/11 or similar “unforeseen situation.”

But the now-deleted Defence Research and Development Canada report came out strongly against buying a “bridging,” aircraft to fill the type of “capability gap” described by the government.

“The costs involved with bridging options make them unsuitable for filling capability gaps in the short term,” reads the report, which The Canadian Press downloaded before it was removed from the website.

Critics and experts have questioned the government’s assertion that it will take five years to replace the CF-18s.

The report also appears to contradict the minister by saying that Canada does not have a “hard minimum requirement for the NATO commitment.”

That suggests the only actual requirement Canada must meet in terms of providing fighter jets is its obligation to defend North America along with the U.S., and anything beyond that is voluntary.

The report said a maximum of 36 aircraft are required to be operational at any time to help defend North America and “anything beyond this number is in excess of the current requirement.”

Those planes don’t all have to be on high alert waiting for an attack, the report said, but can be involved in training or NATO operations and called back if needed.