National Defence Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Bezan, points of interruption, whether they go on the record or off the record, are still points of interruption. I haven't heard many interruptions from this side. I expect no interruptions from that side.

Mr. Collins, you have 30 seconds.

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

You mentioned the pathway to 2%. Do you want to provide more information on how we correct the budget situation the Conservatives left our government with back in 2015?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

It's a fact that it was less than 1% in 2015. It's part of the public accounts. There is nothing to hide. We know it's uncomfortable for some Conservative MPs to speak about that, but it's a fact. It's written in the public accounts.

As we move forward, we know we'll be achieving 1.4% in 2026, about 1.7% or a bit beyond that in 2028 and 2% in 2032. The numbers matter, but the impact for our armed forces is even more important.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have an apparent point of order. I'll be interested in this one.

Yes, Mr. Stewart.

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

The 1.76% is already disputed. It doesn't follow the government's current numbers.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's a point of debate, not a point of order.

Please continue, Minister.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

We all feel a lack of comfort around those numbers, but when things are true, it's important to state them.

Canadians will have to make a choice in the next election about whether they want to believe fake news and fake numbers around investments in the armed forces in 2015, or make progress towards the achievement of the 2% NATO target, for which we have a path and for which we have demonstrated success in recent years.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister. That was a very long five minutes.

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

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

I don't want to add fuel to the fire, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer has reassessed the numbers.

That said, I'd like to hear your opinion on the industrial policy we're expecting in the defence sector, among other things, because there are complaints from the industry that it's hard to communicate with the various departments. We're also hearing that there seems to be a tendency to constantly choose the lowest bidder, without taking into account, for example, Canadian companies' ability to provide services or foreign companies' ability to provide services through local production.

Can you tell us whether you're considering reviewing procurement systems to award companies a different score when they want to set up shop in Canada, even if that costs more, and so the systems won't necessarily be considering the lowest bidder?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Thank you. Again, that's a very good question.

We have strategic considerations that are increasingly important. The one you're referring to is the resilience of our Canadian industry, which obviously includes the Quebec industry. We need our industry to be more resilient and agile in the coming years, because there will be additional needs owing to the complex geopolitical environment that's on the horizon. These additional requirements for the Canadian industry will have to support evolving needs in terms of our armed forces' technologies, among other things.

As I mentioned a little earlier, many of our allies will also have to rely on Canada even more to support their own needs and their ability to deploy to critical regions around the world. The Canadian government must therefore be more cognizant of these resilience and construction criteria for our Canadian industry.

Let's take the example of last Monday's announcement about L3Harris MAS, which is based in Mirabel but also works with hundreds of other businesses across Canada. Here we have an example of a strategic choice, because we believe it offers the best value, if I can put it that way, in terms of investment. Not only do we think that's true, but we also feel that investing in this company will help us achieve the objectives for the Canadian industry that you summed up so well earlier.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin. You were 0.02 seconds over two minutes and 30 seconds.

You have two and a half minutes, Ms. Mathyssen.

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

During our study on procurement, we heard a lot about the problematic relationship between transparency and federal government procurement, in that it's overreliant on the national security exception to skip through a combination of valid checks and balances that are seen as potential bureaucratic steps.

If the system for procurement is broken and requires an exception to get to procurement decisions, why can't the government reform the process in a way that retains transparency in an open process instead of continuing to file national security exception?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

There is an obvious link here to national security, about which there is a ton of things to say. I think Simon is the person in the best position to speak about how those security clearances are granted.

I was in Washington with other colleagues in May. I spoke directly with the U.S. administration about the importance of Canadian industry working in a secure manner with the American government so the Canadian industry can quickly access, in a secure manner, the information they need and can access outside contracts.

Simon, would you like to expand a bit on that?

[Simon Page]

I thank the member for her question, Mr. Chair.

I can add bit more to what my minister just said.

The national security exception is a provision found in most of Canada's domestic and international trade agreements. It allows us to exclude some procurements from the obligations we would find in these trade agreements.

The Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces must only invoke the national security exception if compliance with a trade agreement can be expected to pose a risk. Many of the procurements facing us at the moment are overlapping with that risk. We value them and evaluate them, and case by case, we provide an agreement or support for the national security exception.

I personally review them all for all the defence and marine procurements. They are well justified. If you look at today's world and today's environments, you will see there are a lot of risks out there, so it makes sense in many of our procurements to apply it.

I have two more things. The application of the national security exception—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sorry. Madam Mathyssen has run out of time, but those probably are two important things.

Madam Gallant, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Germany is considering invoking NATO's article 5. You won't have our submarines operational for another 13 years if all goes well.

In five years, our Conservative government bought five C-17 Globemasters; 17 C-130J Hercules; 15 Chinook helicopters, which had been cancelled by the Liberals previously and ended up costing many lives on the ground in Afghanistan; 100 Leopard tanks; modernized drones; modernized Auroras; and frigates. We don't have 13 years; we're on, potentially, the brink of war.

What can you do to speed up the process now so that we can get the equipment in our military's hands, equipment they need right now on the front lines?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

First, I have a long list of investments we've made in just the last few years. I can speak to the future fighter capability project, the Canadian multi-mission aircraft project, the Arctic and offshore patrol ships, the armoured combat support vehicles, the logistics vehicle modernization project, the strategic tanker transport capability project, the remotely piloted aircraft system—I could go on and on. However, one thing I could summarize in just one number is the less than 1% the Conservative government invested in 2015. We've reached 1.4%, and we'll achieve the 2% NATO target in 2032.

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

In 2032, the NATO target could be 3%. In fact, it's looking at raising the base, the floor, to 2.5%, so already you're more than a decade behind.

Over Thanksgiving, I met with several local manufacturers of military kit. I asked how quickly they could ramp up if we needed to. They said U.S. defence contractors had just been there asking them the same question. What they told me is that all they need are the contracts.

What volumes of artillery shells, ammunition and missiles have contracts actually been signed for? What can you tell me is on order to be ready should the worst happen?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

Thank you.

Again, it was less than 1% in 2015.

On the issue of ammunition, in the new defence policy announced just a few months ago, a budget of $9.5 billion was earmarked for new production capabilities in Canada. The CAF will not only use ammunition produced in Canada, but a significant amount will come from Canada. We know that in Repentigny, Saint‑Augustin‑de‑Desmaures and Valleyfield, Quebec; in Winnipeg, Manitoba; in Kitchener, Ontario, and in many other places—I'm thinking of the Magellan company—we have ammunition production capabilities that are currently underutilized. We're going to further develop those capabilities to protect Canada from the threats you've correctly identified and that we could face in the future.

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

Capacities exist, but they're not going to tool up and get ready until the contracts are in place. We have to be ready for when they need it. You've talked a lot about the investments you've made, but they haven't been delivered, and there's no sign that they're going to be delivered anytime soon.

We have troops in Latvia right now. Half of their vehicles don't work. They don't have the parts. They don't have the mechanics. They have no air defence. What has been done on the part of your ministry with regard to procuring air defence that we can get on the ground for Canada, not borrow from someone else?

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec, QC]

I'm going to make a few corrections.

First, Canada's defence industry is doing well and getting better. Thanks to our significant investments, approximately 81,000 jobs are being created annually in Canada.

Second, Canada is in Latvia to defend Ukraine. I know you don't like to hear what I'm going to say, but it's the reality: Unfortunately, you've voted against all the investments we've made to defend Ukraine over the past few months. We regret that you don't want to hear it, but that's the reality.

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

In response to my last question, I guess the answer is that there are no contracts for artillery shells or ammunition under way and in place so that we can get the forces in good order.

How are you going to provide enough funding, get the equipment necessary and cut through the red tape so that our cyber command has the necessary tools and latest technology to keep up with the bad actors who are constantly attacking our infrastructure from the cyber angle?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't know why members run questions right up to three seconds left.

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

It's because he drones on.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If you can answer in three seconds, you're welcome to, but I'm happy to move on as well.