Evidence of meeting #125 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was philippines.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
General Leslie, under the most severe circumstances, if Canada does not fill the blind spot with our satellites, install air defence in the far north or patrol the Arctic waterways, and if the U.S. feels threatened and exposed, what will the Americans do to protect our continent's northern flank?
As an Individual
There's an old saying, which is sometimes true, that sovereignty has to be seen to be effective. In our case, with our sovereign troops deployed in the Arctic, through no fault of their own, due to lack of equipment, lack of numbers, lack of training and lack of resources, which boils down to taxpayer money, it has resulted in, from a Canadian perspective, our Arctic being undefended.
The more the Americans get used to the idea that they have to secure and defend it for us, the more it's logical to assume that they may well look to some sort of economic compensation from the resources in the Arctic, which Canadians.... It's hard to find any Canadian who doesn't admire the beauty and the pristine nature of our Arctic, but we have to spend time, money and effort to make sure it remains ours, with our friends and allies.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Former NATO Parliamentary Assembly president and senior member of the armed services committee, now chair of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Congressman Mike Turner recently wrote an op-ed in Newsweek entitled “Trudeau—Not Trump—Is the Greatest Threat to NATO”.
Why does the DPU evoke such a sense of non-confidence from our greatest ally?
As an Individual
Canada spends a considerable amount on the bigger-picture defence issues. As you're well aware, in 2017, NATO changed the rules wherein a whole host of issues ancillary to the business of fighting and winning the nation's wars were counted as defence spending: veterans' pensions, some of the support agencies, and the list goes on.
What we have to do is question the output of the Canadian investment in defence. Output is a variety of many factors. It includes well-trained, fit, capable men and women who are willing to go overseas and do dangerous things on our behalf. They have to have the right equipment, the right facilities, the right training, infrastructure and the money to buy ammo.
By the way, how's that ammo contract going? I'm sorry. I'm asking you a question. That's unfair.
We are not getting the bang for our buck. Why is that? If you have a nation that spends more on professional services and consultants than it does on the army, navy and air force combined, if you have a nation that has increased its public servants by over 40% since 2015 at a now staggering cost, and if you have essentially a defence procurement system that is arguably among the very worst in the world for the purchase of big stuff like combat equipment, aircraft, ships and submarines.... By the way, the evidence is irrefutable. There is no evidence of the current government actually buying a large, complex modern weapons system in the last decade.
November 7th, 2024 / 9:30 a.m.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
On what programs and initiatives is the Liberal government trying to nickel-and-dime our CAF that are limiting its operational capability and effectiveness? I believe you referred to that in the National Post.
As an Individual
Essentially, the armed forces are short anywhere between 13,000 and 16,000 people. To address that shortfall, it would be at least an additional billion dollars per year just for the personnel costs.
On top of that, you have the basic and advanced training requirements. Due to the lack of progress on any of the major weapons systems needed to allow our people to survive contemporary warfare—especially since the warfare examples we have in Ukraine are showing that new technologies are required, plus a whole bunch of the older ones—our armed forces are woefully ill-equipped. That bow wave of equipment acquisition is what's causing the government to step back from announcing, for example, a contract for the ammunition systems for the ships, for the planes, for the tanks, and it goes on.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
You also said that about 72% of the army's vehicles and trailers are off-line. Do most of these vehicles need maintenance, or do they need to be replaced entirely?
As an Individual
It's both. A whole bunch of this stuff is old. That which is not necessarily old doesn't have the spare parts to make sure that it can run adequately, especially when you use it for advanced training, where vehicles tend to get beaten up a bit.
What is needed in this particular instance is a threefold increase. One is for additional mechanics and for people who can service those vehicles. The second is for the ammunition to actually allow the systems to train, and for the gas and the spare parts. The third is the people to actually man the equipment, because with more people, you reduce the individual stresses and workloads, which have contributed to a higher attrition rate.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Are the troops we have in Latvia properly equipped, with proper vehicles should that become a hot zone?
As an Individual
No, they're not properly equipped. They are doing the best with what they have. They have Leopard 2 tanks. They now have a nascent air defence system for short range, but none for medium or long. They don't have an exhaustive drone suite. They don't have the articulated and dispersed command and control architectures that a modern soldier needs to survive in the battlefield. I could go on.
The armed forces are doing the best with what they have, but there's a lack of defence acquisition or willingness of this government to spend money on the troops.
Conservative
Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON
Of the 72 vehicles that are off-line, can you break down which vehicle types are the most prevalent to be inoperable?
As an Individual
Currently, the vehicle types that are mostly broken are the ones you need the most when you go to war or when you want to deter Russians from advancing into Latvia. That's tanks, armoured personnel carriers, light armoured vehicles, artillery systems, mortar and target acquisition radars. Also, the command and control architecture is 25 years old.
Liberal
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to our witnesses.
General Leslie, I had the opportunity during the summer to visit the recruitment centre here in Ottawa. The staff there in the offices are doing a terrific job. The recruiters seem to be doing an amazing job as it relates to encouraging people to apply. It's been reported several times that we had nearly 70,000 applications in a calendar year, but only 5,000 people were making it through the process.
Can I get your thoughts in terms of how we break it down? I don't want to call it bureaucratic barriers, but how do we fix that problem, knowing that it's not for a lack of people showing interest?
There seem to be some internal issues related to processing those applications. The DPU speaks to that and highlights changes and recommendations that it is hoped will solve that in whole or in part. Can I get your thoughts on that issue, in particular?
As an Individual
Essentially, the recruiting issue.... It's a crisis, as has been well articulated by the chief of the defence staff. Your numbers are quite right: 70,000 showed up, and only 5,000 got through.
Let's not forget the issue of the increase in bureaucracy. Very often, when organizations are under stress, they try to centralize management. When they're under stress and try to get complicated things done to have an output, therein lie problems, because that massive degree of centralization stifles initiative and stifles the ability to move quickly. What we have here is a failure in process and a failure in management.
I would like to remind all of us that, according to the National Defence Act, the Minister of National Defence “holds office during pleasure” and has as a responsibility “the management and direction of the Canadian Forces”. This is a ministerial issue, and he should be personally accountable to Canada and to Canadians for its resolution in the immediate sense because of the looming threat and because our friend and ally down south is getting really tired of covering for us.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I had the opportunity to look at a couple of historical audits, and this issue goes back a number of years. Can I ask what steps were taken 10, 15, 20 years ago to resolve this issue? It's not a new issue, so do you have any experience in that regard in terms of some of the issues that you just raised?
As an Individual
I do, and I'd be willing to offer it. I may sound a bit old-fashioned when I do so, but when I first joined the Canadian Armed Forces, a long time ago, it took me about four to five days to do the paperwork. There were no hand-held social media devices then.
At the height of the Afghan war, we had, at peak, close to 5,000 troops deployed, with less money and a smaller force. We were buying new equipment left, right and centre. We decentralized recruiting essentially down to the reserve units so that they could do it themselves, because they live in the local environs much more so than the regular force. For the regular force, we got the battalions and regiments actively involved, and we were ruthless about accepting risk.
Do you have to be perfectly healthy to join the Canadian Armed Forces? The answer is no, but there are certain things that are showstoppers. What are they? Perhaps you can do a bit of training concurrently, accept the risk that you may have duplication, make sure no one's injured prior to graduation, and carry on. Background security checks are taking way too long. How much risk is there actually in terms of a private knowing x, y or z about a weapons system that is readily available in a variety of international bazaars?
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
I'll switch very quickly to Russia. Ukrainian Canadians, in particular those in my riding, are very nervous about what comes next with the U.S.'s support, or lack thereof, for the war in Ukraine.
I'm looking for your advice as it relates to how we deal with a person like Donald Trump, knowing that his goals and objectives related to the situation and the war in Ukraine are different from our own. I want to get your thoughts on how likely it is for Canada and its allies to succeed in assisting Ukraine in its efforts against Russia without support, in whole or in part, from the United States.
As an Individual
It's not my place to comment on the president-elect of the United States. That's his business, but I can give you lots of commentary about what Canada might and should consider in terms of the looming issues surrounding Russia's war in Ukraine.
Let's take a look at just Canada. We have 41 million people and a $2.4-trillion economy, and we've managed to scrape together four guns, eight tanks, a couple thousand rifles and a couple thousand rounds of ammunition. That is nothing to be proud of. It is abhorrent.
Where is that ammunition contract for the production of the 155-millimetre war shots that Ukraine has been desperately asking for, which some ill-advised people—I was going to use a much harsher word—cancelled a few short years ago? Why hasn't that been signed?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Monsieur Brunelle-Duceppe, I look forward to your six minutes on the DPU.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Welcome to the witnesses.
Dr. Lagassé, in 2023, you wrote an article entitled “Defence Policy and Procurement Costs: The Case for Pessimism Bias”.
That was a few months before the defence policy was released. You said that the department was rather optimistic when it prepared a budget, but that it perhaps had to, if you'll pardon the expression, set its sights on being more pessimistic.
When you saw the new policy, did you feel that the department had taken into account the article you had written a few months earlier?
Associate Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
I don't think so, and I'll give you an example.
We just learned from one of the officers of Parliament that even the projections for reaching the 2% of GDP goal for defence spending by 2032 are based on analyses that the Canadian economy will be in recession. That's another way of interpreting it. We're going to meet the target because we take certain things for granted economically and we don't take different scenarios into account. Unfortunately, I have to answer no to your question. We'll see what happens with the budget, for example, with respect to submarines, but I also think they will be quite optimistic.
This is part of a culture in which they always want to move forward and don't want to give direct and honest answers, especially at the Department of Finance. Finance always wants people to spend less, and the Department of National Defence always wants the government's approval and permission to initiate projects. This creates a scenario in which National Defence indicates that a project costs much less in order to get approval from the Department of Finance for a budget line. That creates scenarios, as the general was saying, where you end up with several projects when you simply don't have the budget to initiate them. In other words, there's a lack of funds. Even if the project is well designed and ready to go, they decide not to move forward, because they simply don't have the funds required to meet the needs.
Bloc
Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Bloc Lac-Saint-Jean, QC
Do you have a concrete example of a project that was recently budgeted with too much optimism?
Associate Professor, Carleton University, As an Individual
There's been a lot of talk about air defence for the land force. This project suffered an extraordinary delay because it was poorly funded. I don't want to give too much information about my role as an acquisitions adviser, but I can say that, when I reviewed this project within the department, it was extremely frustrating, because it was needed, but there was a lack of funding to move forward. That's one example.
Then there are trucks, which are a basic component. You've seen that a truck project is now being split in two, simply to make sure they move forward with the budget they have. They're setting aside the other part, which involves armoured vehicles, because they're still waiting for other funding before they move forward. Unfortunately, this is very common.