National Defence Committee on Nov. 21st, 2024

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

Let's talk about misinformation—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Gentlemen, that is not a point of order; that is a point of debate. I've stopped the clock.

Mr. Collins, you have three and a half minutes.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

The minister has the question in his hands.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you very much.

One of my reasons for coming to this committee is that this is an all-party committee. I believe that everybody at this table understands the importance of supporting the Canadian Armed Forces, but also understands the importance of supporting Ukraine. I think there are circumstances where standing up for Ukraine may require that you have to stand up to your leader to do what is right.

I'm hopeful that I'm able to make the case about the urgency of the supports to Ukraine so that perhaps, through the members of this committee, they can go back and have that conversation with their political leadership in order to ensure that all parties do what is necessary and do the right thing.

I think we unfortunately saw last year a lack of support for those measures, and there may have been many other reasons or excuses for that. I'm really hopeful this time, given this urgent situation that exists in Ukraine.... I believe Canada and Canadians are unwavering in their support for Ukraine. We recognize the urgency of continuing to provide them with supports. I just remain hopeful—perhaps that's naive, but I remain hopeful—that perhaps we can put partisan political interests aside and do the right thing for the people of Ukraine.

[Chad Collins, Liberal, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

That's agreed and very well said.

Minister, I'll move on to misinformation and disinformation. Part of Russia's campaign includes trying to convince not just Canadians but people across the world that supporting Ukraine is something that isn't important. Unfortunately, those efforts have paid dividends both in the United States and here in Canada. We increasingly see chatter on social media, speaking to the Russian talking points they're pushing. They've also paid social media influencers in the U.S., and that certainly is in the public realm now, and there are charges pending, I think, south of the border. That has bled here into Canada as well in terms of some of the social media influencers you'll see parroting the same talking points.

You mentioned in your opening a cyber-domain investment. I think that will probably go a long way to addressing some of these issues, but can you expand upon that investment and what it means to combat Russian disinformation both here in Canada and in other parts of North America?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

There is currently also legislation before the House that speaks to this. I think it's important legislation, because I think Parliament has a responsibility to take the steps necessary to protect our national interests and protect Canadians from the onslaught of misinformation, as you say.

Respectfully, I don't want to get too deeply into some of the intelligence that we are aware of, because this isn't the appropriate forum for that discussion. I'll just simply share with you that I'm, on behalf of the government, the person who makes most of the public announcements about the investments and supports that we're providing to Ukraine. They used to be the most popular things that I ever put out on social media, and it crossed all party lines. For all Canadians, there was overwhelming support. Now I'm inundated with misinformation, attacks by bots and right-wing bots—some of them south of the border, some of them obviously Russian-influenced. Some of them are just people getting caught up in that misinformation campaign. It's a little bit disappointing to see the wavering of some support. That's the intent.

I would also point out some of the sabre-rattling that we're now seeing from Russia. Bullies do not like it when their victims can hit back. They complain bitterly about that. They're the ones who are attacking people and infrastructure.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Collins.

You have two and a half minutes, Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, I want to revisit production capacity as it relates to the 155‑millimetre projectiles. You were asked about it a few times, about a year ago. On December 7, 2023, you promised to increase production capacity by four times, from 5,000 to 20,000 per month. A few months ago, you said you were waiting for the results of a manufacturer study on how to increase production.

Shortly after, you were asked about it again. You said that the manufacturers were perhaps taking advantage of the situation to raise the price tag, and you wanted to make sure Canadians were getting the most bang for their buck. You never gave us a number, however.

It is now a year later, and I'd like to hear your answer. What is Canada's monthly production capacity currently?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you.

I just received information from officials, so it will be accurate, that right now the monthly production is 5,000 rounds of 155-millimetre ammunition that we're acquiring. However, we believe that has to increase in order to meet the requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces, and not just domestically but in our international obligations as well. I think the target we're aiming for is about 12,000 rounds.

[A voice]

Yes, it's 12,000.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Thank you. I got that right—that's always encouraging—about 12,000 rounds.

There are contract negotiations taking place right now with those companies. It involves not just the signing of long-term contracts—which the companies have said they require from us for that certainty that business requires—but also investment in their production and the security of their supply chains. Those negotiations are taking place right now. Frankly, our department officials are involved in those negotiations, and it would be inappropriate for me to discuss the state of those while we're in this state. I want to assure you that I share your urgency in delivering on this.

We're also concerned because it'll take some time for those new production lines to be initiated, so we're also looking at, as an interim measure, alternative ways to acquire the required munitions in a more timely way.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Mathyssen, you have two and a half minutes.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

When your predecessor appeared at this committee last, I tried to ask questions about the civilian Afghanistan language and cultural advisers. He wouldn't answer those questions, so I'm hoping that you will. They served side by side with the Canadian Armed Forces. They were on patrols, in uniform and armed. Some served for two years straight, and they're being treated as though they were this external group.

Yesterday you told reporters that you are looking to provide the same protections for these workers as public servants. Can you confirm today what existing long-term income replacement programs you are claiming they qualify for, and explain why they haven't been approved to date?

Can you also say why the supplementary estimates didn't include that immediate funding for income replacement? You don't have to create a new program. You could do some income replacement.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

If I may, first of all, let me acknowledge the valuable contribution of those linguistic and cultural advisers. They did serve side by side. Many of them went outside the wire. They put themselves at risk and experienced, obviously, many of the same challenges that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces dealt with.

I think it's important to also clarify that they were not members of the Canadian Armed Forces; they were under contract. We made a decision not to treat them as separate contract employees and say, “This is the responsibility of the direct employer with whom we had the contract,” but rather that they're public service employees. We made that decision because we believe that we have an obligation to them, and as public service employees they are going through a process to determine their eligibility for health supports and income replacement.

I believe that 23 of the 26—I'm hoping to make sure this is all accurate, and that's why I'm looking over my shoulder—already had their issues on health support services adjudicated by the WSIB, and the rest of that work is proceeding. There were also cases about income replacement that went through the WSIB. I believe at least one of them was resolved to about half a million dollars. That work is ongoing. We are following the appropriate processes.

I understand that there is some frustration. Quite understandably, they are seeking to be treated exactly as members of the Canadian Armed Forces. The Canadian Armed Forces benefits are well-defined in legislation and contract. These are not members of the Canadian Armed Forces, but we made a decision to treat them as public service employees and we're following exactly the same processes of adjudicating their claims. Contrary to what you suggested, I'd not suggest that they're all entitled to income replacement supports. That will be determined by the WSIB.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're going to have to leave it there. Thank you.

Mr. Stewart, you have the floor for five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister.

I want to clarify a couple of things here before we start. Conservative support for Ukraine is not contingent on support for this Liberal government. The people of Ukraine know where we stand. I spoke to them on Sunday at the Ukraine Consulate, and it's very clear.

Second is, if you read The Globe and Mail this week, you would see that, in their view and in many people's view, the seizure of Parliament is squarely at the feet of the Liberal government, so let's be clear on that. It is not the Conservative Party holding up Parliament.

Third, I'd like to point out for the minister that GDP is a standard calculation across the world, including NATO, that represents the entire value of goods and services produced in a country minus imports. That's also the definition that NATO uses, so we would love to see an update on our military spend versus the standard definition of GDP that coincides with that from the finance department.

Sir, are the cuts to the military being driven by the PMO?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm sorry...?

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

The cut to the military, the $2.7 billion, is that being driven by the PMO?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

No. Again, I'm going to have to clarify that, because you have made a blanket statement that is completely inaccurate. We've been asked to do in every department.... The government has been asked to do a funding refocus to make sure that spending—

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

Why would we not shift that spending versus cut it from the military and shift it to where it's needed?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

The decision is being made.... As I've already indicated, we were asked to do a funding refocus, and we did. It was necessary because, quite frankly, when we spend money, we have to make sure that it contributes to capability for the Canadian Armed Forces and support for the members of the Canadian Armed Forces.

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

My question is, sir—

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That's what we're supposed to be doing.

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

If we are refocusing the spending, why is it not refocused within the military so that we get support for the troops who need it to increase their capabilities here?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

It's because we've learned the lessons of the past. I remember too vividly, and I know the Canadian Armed Forces does as well, 2013, when a previous government cut $2.5 billion from the defence budget. It was a broad axe slash at defence, and it reduced defence spending to less than 1% of GDP.