National Defence Committee on Oct. 10th, 2024

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm just answering your question, but if you'd like to pass it before I complete my answer, that's up to the chair.

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

You've answered my question.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have a minute and a half, Mr. Stewart.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Thank you.

Sir, are you okay with Iran developing nuclear weapons?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Okay, because earlier you said you were just concerned about it. That's a much better answer.

I have something a little more basic to talk about. It's again about ammunition for our reserve forces. Reports that I've heard indicate that there's not enough nine-millimetre ammunition for our reserve soldiers to get certified on the new nine-millimetre pistols. I'm just wondering if there's any plan in place to accelerate that.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

We're spending about $200 million on munitions currently. That's our current expenditure. It has not been reported to me by CAF or by any indication that the reserves don't have adequate munitions to train, but I don't have the information that you referenced.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

The other report I had was that half the army's equipment is unserviceable. There's a $150-million shortfall due to government budget cuts. I just want to understand what that says about the Liberal government's commitment to our armed forces.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You're conflating two very significant issues.

There is a real challenge with the maintenance of our equipment. A lot of it's old.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

I see the brand new LAVs at Denison sitting there for weeks on end and not moving.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm glad you saw them, because we're delivering new vehicles. We've entered into contracts to deliver 1,500 new light and heavy trucks for the Canadian Armed Forces. We've also invested very significantly in new LAVs that are being delivered.

We're doing the work that previous governments neglected, in order to give our people what they need. We are investing in the maintenance of existing equipment, but replacing it is also a very important priority.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have to leave the answer there, however satisfactory or unsatisfactory it may be.

Mr. Powlowski, you have five minutes.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Mr. Minister, you talked about learning a lot from the war in Ukraine.

Certainly, one of the things we've learned is this: There seems to be a worldwide shortage of ammunition. The Ukrainians don't have enough 155-millimetre shells. Madame Normandin asked about the production of more shells and your response was, “well, there is a company that is going to provide them, but they doubled the price. Then, when we agreed to that, they doubled the price again.”

I'm not sure how many companies there are making 155-millimetre shells, but it seems to me from your response that the problem is that we don't have enough companies making that form of ammunition, or, from a previous question, nine-millimetre ammunition. There seems to be, perhaps, a market failure. In normal times, there isn't enough demand for 155-millimetre shells, but now there is. It would be nice to think that, perhaps, in six months or a year, the war in Ukraine will be over and there may not be a demand. However, this would seem to me to be the kind of market failure that requires government intervention to support companies starting to produce 155-millimetre shells and other forms of ammunition.

Has there been any effort on the part of the government to give incentives to companies to start the production of ammunition?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Yes, thank you very much, Marcus. This is a good opportunity for me to clarify my remarks.

I went to the industry, when I first came into this job, and told them they needed to increase their production, particularly around munitions, but not just munitions. We need a significant increase in military production right across this country. Our industries are very strong and capable, but for a very long time, there was a significant underinvestment. We went to them, and they said they needed to open new production lines. They needed new supply chains. This would require two things: an investment from government, and the security and certainty that long-term contracts provide.

That's one of the reasons why we brought forward, in our new defence policy update, significant new investment in both industry and those long-term contracts. What you have suggested is exactly what we're proposing to do. At the same time, this requires that we work very carefully with industry. They have told us that, even if we make investments in their production capability.... You know, we already buy ammunition from them. We buy a lot of ammunition from them, but we need more. We're going to invest in those industries and offer them long-term contracts, but we also have an interim problem, because the Canadian Armed Forces need ammunition now, as do our Ukrainian friends.

That's one of the reasons why we entered into an agreement with the Czech Republic. We have been buying 155-millimetre ammunition for Ukraine through that Czech initiative because they're able to buy it on the market. We're funnelling money through those coalitions—as part of our NATO partnership—in order to acquire those munitions.

I am also prepared to purchase those on the international market for the Canadian Armed Forces, until the Canadian industry is capable of meeting our requirements. A number of lines of effort need to happen concurrently. We need to invest in Canadian industry. We need to work on those contracts with them. We need to build up their production. At the same time, we need the immediacy of responding, first of all, to the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. That's my first priority. A very close second priority is making sure we're able to provide Ukraine with what it needs.

[Marcus Powlowski, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Rainy River, ON]

Another thing that the war in Ukraine has taught us is the growing importance of drones. We've purchased F-35s, but if you look at what's happening in Ukraine, you'll see that Ukrainians have managed to do very well with some very cheap drones—sometimes costing hundreds of dollars—destroying much more expensive weaponry on the Russian side. This would certainly seem to be the way that warfare is going.

What are we doing specifically in terms of research to develop new and better drones, cheaper ways of producing drones, producing those drones and having those drones in our military?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's a pretty important question, but you've left him very little time to answer it.

You have 30 seconds or a little bit better.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I 100% agree.

Canada has a very robust capability to build drones. We're investing in research and development. We're also looking at anti-drone technologies, and we've been testing those in Canada as well, along with our allies. It's important work.

Canada has also invested in Ukrainian production of its own drones, and that has been very helpful to Ukraine. We're investing in building some of those cheaper drones that they use so effectively. It also gives Canadian industry an opportunity to learn from the experience of the Ukrainians and to add that to our research and development. It's very much a partnership that is being developed.

We're also working very collaboratively because Canada is part of the drone coalition for NATO. Our industries and our government are working very closely with all of our allies. We see this as a new frontier for both defensive and offensive operations. I think that Canada has great capabilities, but we can do better and do more.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Powlowski.

On behalf of the committee, Minister, I'd like to thank you for your appearance here today.

I'm going to suspend for a minute or two while the minister leaves and the balance of the team remains in place. We'll then continue our rounds of questions.

With that, we're suspended.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Colleagues, we're well past the two-minute break.

Mr. Stewart, you have six minutes, please.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Recently, there were 90 light tactical vehicles that were purchased by the DND for $36 million. When you look at a picture of these, you'll see that there's no ballistic protection. They're like open-air dune buggies. I want to find out a bit more about that.

In testing, U.S. troops have actually ditched some of the vehicles and have chosen to finish their training missions on foot. I'm wondering why we would look at spending $36 million on these vehicles that didn't pass testing with flying colours.

[Lieutenant-General Stephen Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence]

The procurement of those vehicles was based on what the army had asked for: mobility for light forces. Quite rightly, it's been pointed out that it's not the vehicle for highly protected or high-end combat operations.

It's not to say that, through tactics and training, the vehicle could not be employed. In this case, it still has its purpose. They're being fielded in Latvia, as is known, and there is training value that happens from those systems. Ideally, in close combat operations, it's a very different force, a different set of equipment, but in this case, for the specific role that the army requested for those light forces, it is satisfied with this vehicle.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Is there a condition when we make purchases like this?

The purchase was made through GM Defense in Oshawa, my hometown, but the vehicles are made in the U.S. Is this just something off the shelf? Is this the way it happens in NATO, or is there a consideration given to a supply chain coming from Canada when we're spending money?

[LGen Stephen Kelsey]

I don't know the specifics, but perhaps our colleague would.

When we do those acquisitions, ideally we want a competitive bid so that we get best dollar for value. It's all so much the better if it's from an Oshawa company, in this case. However, because of the nature of that specific vehicle, many of the parts are made in Canada, assembled in the United States and then brought back into Canada.

[Don Stewart, Conservative, Toronto—St. Paul's, ON]

Can I go back to the question about the nine-millimetre ammunition?

I'm just wondering about the supply chain there. Is there a reason that the shelves would essentially be bare for training missions for some of our reserve units?

[LGen Stephen Kelsey]

Again, Nancy might know the specifics of our munition supply program and the way in which industry manufactures those. It's not a singular line for a nine-millimetre. It's a line that produces various natures. It's unfortunate that from time to time there's a shortage, perhaps based on training implications—