National Defence Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, and I thank members for the indulgence of letting me do this again.

Mr. Chair, I think everyone has a copy of the motion that I circulated regarding a study of space and the role in national defence.

I believe that a study on the industry of space defence is pertinent to many of the issues that our committee has within its purview and mandate right now, specifically and in particular around national security, sovereignty and the international dynamics of defence.

I was reflecting back to a comment made last year at the Halifax International Security Forum, or HFX, where one of the panellists very astutely pointed out, I thought, that the future of security was in fact in space. For instance, new capabilities in space represent the next frontier in how we protect ourselves from new and emerging threats. He said at that time that satellites are the future.

It's my hope that this study will illuminate the committee, and therefore government and Canadians, on what the major issues are in space defence and how we're prepared to deal with them—for instance, how we protect our satellites from space debris or anti-satellite weapons and cyber-attacks or how we use those satellites for climate monitoring activities at a time when climate monitoring is increasingly important to our security here on earth.

I also hope that this study will give us and Canadians a better understanding of how an increased focus on space defence will inform our international partnerships, including through NORAD.

I would also hope that we would learn from this study about Canada's space defence policies and our space capabilities and programs, including those of our armed forces and the 3 Canadian Space Division.

I also hope that the committee will hear from industry. This is another opportunity for Canada to be a leader in an emerging industry that can create good jobs for tomorrow with the right kind of support from this committee.

The motion is as follows:

That pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the committee undertake a study on space defense that includes but is not limited to: The current state of Canadian space defense capabilities and programs; international agreements and partnerships related to space defense, including continental defense and space diplomacy; and the impact of advancements in space on Canada's sovereignty and national security;

That the committee hold a minimum of four meetings and that the committee invite representatives of the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, the 3 Canadian Space Division, Canadian NORAD Region, the Canadian Space Agency, Space Canada, and the private and academic sectors;

That the committee report its recommendations to the House and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a detailed response to the report.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there debate?

Go ahead, James.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I would say that it is an area of interest. To me, it's not a high priority, looking at the existential threats that are before us and also how recently the Canadian Armed Forces have become involved in space so far with the space command. My understanding is that they have only one defence satellite up as of today.

I would think that we could do this in fewer than four meetings. Most of the witnesses named in the motion are Department of National Defence agencies. We could probably do them in one panel. I would also suggest that the Canadian Space Agency would be a panel. That's one hour. Space Canada and the private sector would appear for an hour, and then your academics and other interested parties could appear in the final panel.

I would suggest the following amendment.

First is the correction in the spelling of “defense” to put it into Canadian English. Then I would suggest that the committee hold a minimum of two meetings.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

With regard to that amendment, we just passed a motion about looking at the budgetary cuts and reductions in budget 2023, which are a billion dollars. We're looking at the contracting services that are currently done by Canadian Armed Forces. We will look at the impacts of both of those issues as they surround the recruitment and retention crisis that we have in the Canadian Armed Forces and the existential threats that Canada faces. We've only assigned two meetings to that study. To me, that is much more relevant and important.

I would say that if you're comparing apples to apples, motions to motions, for those reasons, two meetings would suffice.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you.

The conversation is on the amendment.

It's Mr. Fillmore and then Madame Normandin and then....

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bezan acknowledged the existential threats that Canada is facing. The solution to many or most of those is going to have an impact on exactly what this study is pertaining to.

In the development of the motion, I did pretty extensive outreach to the stakeholders I've listed in the motion. There is a long list of people who are very eager to have a say on this and to get what they have to say out into the world so that we can better support the work we're doing in space, in DND and in the 3 Canadian Space Division as well.

To compress that into two meetings.... I mean, this isn't a perfunctory study; this is a substantial study. I actually brought it back from what I thought was going to be six meetings to four. This is an extremely meaty topic, and I believe, Mr. Bezan, you'll be at the Halifax International Security Forum in a couple of weeks and we will be hearing about space probably every single day, multiple times a day. I can hardly imagine a more important topic for a timely and substantive study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Normandin, go ahead.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

Without going back to the substance of the study, because I know we're looking at Mrs. Lalonde's amendment, this study remains particularly interesting. However, I feel that we've already covered a certain part of this issue. I'm thinking in particular of the fact that we've conducted specific studies on the issue of spy balloons, which indirectly touched on the aerospace industry. We've also carried out general studies on threats to Canada, where we looked at the aerospace issue.

I find it a little disappointing that we weren't able to discuss the schedule before we got into the motions. In any case, as long as we're looking at at least two meetings, it would seem to me that reducing the number of meetings and not having at least four is a good idea. Two meetings doesn't seem like a lot to me, but I'd be comfortable with three. At the very least, that's a minimum. We'll be able to adjust in due course. However, I still have the impression that some of the discussions will overlap with some of the work and studies we've already done.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fisher, go ahead.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I don't support the amendment to move it to two meetings. I think it's much more important than some of the things we've done on single motions.

This motion hadn't occurred to me. I remember Ms. Gallant and I were at the Pentagon, I think it was, and we were in the gift shop of the U.S. Space Foundation and I thought, “Wow, that's really, truly the next frontier.”

I think this is the future of defence and I think four meetings actually makes a lot of sense, so I support the original motion.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

That was Colorado Springs.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Kelly, go ahead.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Notwithstanding Mr. Fisher's shopping experience—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

—at the Pentagon, we on many occasions will go with a minimum number, and we sometimes find that the subject matter and the availability of witnesses and the quality of the testimony we get demands that we have...or causes interest in the committee having additional meetings.

I am not opposed to four meetings; I am opposed to “a minimum” of four meetings.

We've done this before: We have planned on having a number of meetings and have found that we couldn't get the witnesses we needed and/or there have been other priorities. I think it would be more flexible on the committee's part, given the competing priorities, to have a minimum of two meetings. That doesn't preclude us from having four meetings and it doesn't preclude us from having six meetings, but if we're going to set a minimum that we're compelled to have under a motion, it ought to be a lower number. I would say two as a minimum, and we'll see where the study takes us.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are there any other conversations on the amendment?

Go ahead, Andy.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

Of course, the worry then is that committee shenanigans take over and we truncate a study that's really taking off after two meetings, and that's untenable.

Mr. Chair, I wonder if I could invite my colleagues across the way to make a friendly amendment to their amendment to make it a minimum of three, and then I think we could rely on the good faith of members if more meetings are required, as Mr. Kelly has suggested we could do.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I see collegial harmony breaking out here.

[An hon. member]

I'm not sure about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Cheryl.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Would we be able to travel to U.S. Space Command to get the real story on what's going on? We won't find out anything from our own people.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You can put that in, I suppose, in the request for travel.

Go ahead, Marie-France.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Actually, I think here in Ottawa, you may be very surprised to know that there is a very important organization that I'm sure would be of value to visit, which is a walking distance. I think we possibly would add this little thing, hopefully.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay. Before we go sideways here with all this harmony stuff, can I assume that the motion as framed by Mr. Fillmore for a minimum of three meetings is acceptable?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])