National Defence Committee on Nov. 28th, 2024

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

It's for two reasons.

The first reason is that we needed those aircraft in the very short term. The only possible way to do that was to acquire them through Boeing. Otherwise, we would have been left with a lack of capability, one the armed forces judged to be very critical.

The second reason is that this type of procurement comes with industrial and technological benefits policy obligations. In the case of that particular procurement, there are approximately 3,000 jobs supported through the obligations that Boeing has towards the Canadian industry. It adds up to about $350 million of GDP output because of Boeing's obligations to Canadian workers and the Canadian industry. The ITB ensures that when we are obligated to work with foreign suppliers—as in this particular case—to support the needs of our armed forces, it comes with an obligation on the part of the company to support industry and workers through the ITB policy.

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

Bombardier was very clear with this committee that it knew it could meet those obligations just as quickly. It had everything in place, but it felt it was left out entirely and not communicated with, that this was looked at as a sole-source contract.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We're right where the time expires. If you can work your answer into some other response, do so.

Meanwhile, we'll move on to the next round.

Mr. Stewart, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, sir, for being here today.

I just want to get one thing on the record. I have an answer from Charles Sousa, your parliamentary secretary, showing that 199 citizens of China, 22 Russian citizens and four citizens of the Iranian regime were international students, temporary workers or visitors here, allowing them access to things like blueprints, diagrams and software on military jet engines, aircraft, FLIR, avionics, missile technology and electronic countermeasures equipment.

I can show it to you later, if you like, but I wanted to get that on the record, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Do you have a copy for the minister by any chance?

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

We can get one to him.

I was researching some procurement initiatives this morning. What is funny is that the first thing that popped up was an ad that said, “Discover the cure for Bad Service Management”. That led me down a bit of a rabbit hole. It got me thinking about the procurement times we have for some of our equipment for military use. It takes over seven years to buy tow trucks. That one caught my interest. It takes over 10 years to buy drones. Meanwhile, we've seen rising threats from China and Russia, which would suggest that the timelines for military procurement should be compressed to weigh against the threats.

I understand that in procurement there's an element of risk management, whether it's financial risk management or equipment risk management, but at the moment, the risks seem to be tilted towards the soldiers, air force members and sailors, because they're not getting the equipment they need in a timely manner. Can you explain to me how we can improve our procurement system such that our CAF members can get the equipment their lives depend on in a more timely manner?

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

You rightly said how important it is that we support our armed forces. However, I want to reiterate that you invested less than 1% of GDP in the armed forces before 2015. Therefore, we can talk all you want about the procurement process—

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

Minister, the question is not about levels of investment. I'll get this on the record as well: The GDP numbers of the government have been fudged. The DPU put forward numbers that were based not on the government's GDP forecast, but their own, which undershot to show that there was higher defence spending of 1.76%. If you back that out, it's well below 1.5%.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That was basically three minutes for Mr. Stewart's question. It seems only fair to allocate the balance of the time to however you wish to answer it.

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

Okay. There are two things.

First of all, we're talking about 2015 spending. We know what Canada's GDP was in 2015. The Conservatives invested less than 1% in the armed forces.

Second, you talk about risk management, and you're absolutely right: We have to manage risk to make sure that the CAF get the equipment they need. So we have to speed up the processes, and that's what we're doing. For example, I made an announcement last Monday with L3Harris, and it was very well received. We'll be making further announcements about this strategic partnership in the near future. It's getting results.

In the past two years alone, we've acquired 200 more new aircraft, which is more than we've seen in a number of years. I talked about the investments in the national shipbuilding strategy and the dozens of ships, including icebreakers, that are currently being used to protect our coasts. That's a huge step forward, but we can only do it if we have the funding needed.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have about a minute.

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

When we had General Leslie here a few weeks ago, he said that in 2023, Canada spent more money on consultants and professional services than it did on the army, the navy and the air force combined.

Would you agree that this was a misuse of money? Why are these funds not being directed towards our troops?

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

Again, we must look at the current numbers.

It was less than 1% in 2015, and we've now brought it up to 1.4%. We're going to be close to 1.8% in 2028, and then we'll reach 2% in 2032. Those are very clear numbers. They're obviously going up.

As we move forward with this bigger budget for the armed forces, we must ensure that we meet the CAF's needs and make the Canadian industry more resilient and competitive, so we can build a partnership with the U.S. industry, among other things. When I spoke earlier about the naval strategy, I gave the example of the Icebreaker Collaboration Effort, or ICE Pact, which works very well. We will be able to provide other regions of Canada with icebreakers, which other allied countries need as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Minister, and thank you, Mr. Stewart.

Mr. Collins, you have five minutes.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Minister, good morning. Welcome to the committee.

I want to talk about Ukraine. You'll recall that at this time last year, we had marathon votes in Parliament on the budget. You and your team were responsible for following through on our commitment to provide support for the Ukrainian people.

I'm going to ask you some questions that maybe the opposition should be asking. We know the Conservatives, since last year, when their leader advised caucus to vote against resources for Ukraine, don't ask questions on that anymore at this committee. Last year—

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order. Mr. Collins knows well that the Conservatives have lost confidence in this government for a long time. Those are confidence motions. We'll vote non-confidence in the Liberals every chance we get.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's not a point of order. That's a point of interruption.

[Emmanuella Lambropoulos, Liberal, Saint-Laurent, QC]

I suggest that we give him a chance to restart.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I don't mind entertaining points of order, but when they're simply points of interruption, they're not particularly useful.

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

I agree.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have four and a half minutes left.

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

Thank you.

Minister, last year when I raised this issue, after the Conservatives voted against all resources for Ukraine, they came to the committee with a procedural book. They went through some of the procedural items in the book that prohibited our members from highlighting that they voted against Ukraine. I say that only because I think it's important that we get on the record, since we're going into an election next year, that there are some pretty stark differences in the policies and positions that our government has in relation to the Conservatives.

We support Ukraine. You and your ministry play a key role in ensuring that the Ukrainian people receive the resources they need. Can you relay to the committee what role your ministry is playing? I know that you keep track of all those investments online. I look at them quite regularly. It looks like almost 90% or more of what we've committed has been delivered. Can you expand on that?

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

Thank you, Chad.

It is indeed not enjoyable for some MPs to hear things said clearly. Not only are Conservative MPs not wanting to speak about these things, but they are forced not to do so by their leader.

Now, that's their issue, perhaps, but the problem is that this brings up stark differences leading into the next election, as you were pointing to. They'll have to answer to Canadians on why they say so many good things about the armed forces but invested less than 1% of GDP on the armed forces prior to 2015. They'll have to explain why they voted against every possible investment we've made in support of Ukraine in the last year or two. They'll have to explain that. They'll have to explain why they voted against a free trade agreement to support Ukraine. They all voted against that. We know that many of them would have liked to vote in favour, but they were forced by the Conservative leader not to do so. That's for them to say.

What we can say, however, is that we have invested $4.5 billion in supporting Ukraine. We have trained and helped train F-16 pilots. We have helped support the Ukrainian maintenance workers who are so important for maintaining those F-16s. We have invested $650 million in advanced and highly needed armoured combat support vehicles.

These are all examples, along with many others, that unfortunately—we know they don't want to speak about it—Conservative MPs voted systematically against, not because they wanted to do so, perhaps, but because they were forced to.

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

Minister, I'll get to the 1% of GDP defence spending. You referenced the Conservatives, and that when we inherited the file as a government, it was around 0.9%.

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

It's 0.95% right now.