National Defence Committee on May 2nd, 2023

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

Can I confirm that at the Montreal ammo plant they can build the 155-millimetre rounds?

[Bill Matthews]

There are different variants there. I see the chief and Mr. Crosby both want to jump in.

Go ahead, Chief.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I had the opportunity to visit that ammunition plant, and also the one in Valleyfield, back in the fall. That plant produces the M107 variant, which has a shorter range than what we would like them to produce, which is the M795 variant. Work is ongoing for that.

[Troy Crosby]

I would add that we are in conversation with our colleagues in the U.S. to ensure that our investments and their investments are aligned. It is quite an integrated supply chain.

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

Can we build the leading-edge technology that's required on the ammo that is requested by the Americans, our NATO allies and Ukraine?

[Bill Matthews]

Canadian industry can, with some investment. You can view—

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

Can you view the investment in the estimates?

[Bill Matthews]

You can view investment as long-term contracts or direct investment. Those discussions are under way. We would like them to produce that ammunition, and we would like them to produce it quickly. Time is not our friend on this one.

I think the other one I would flag for you, Mr. Chair, is to keep watch for a “future ideas” challenge on ammunition. The speed to scale up industry and replenish ammunition stocks is something Canada and all of our allies are worried about.

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

We need the ammo now. It's getting burnt through pretty quickly in the war on Ukraine.

In the budget there was very little in here for Ukraine, especially from a defence standpoint. There was $200 million in the budget for, I guess, paying National Defence back for the eight Leopard tanks that were already donated.

How is that $200 million going to get used? Are we going to buy new tanks to replace the eight that we donated? Are we going to invest them back into the existing fleet? Are we going to get the 70 or so other tanks, which are right now sitting and waiting for maintenance and overhaul, up to operational capability?

[Bill Matthews]

The money referenced in the budget was a catch-up adjustment because of the capital cost of those things that were donated.

In terms of how to best ensure that the tank fleet is maintained, really interesting discussions are happening with the manufacturers on spare parts. Spare parts and an ability to access those is a real challenge, both for the tanks that we own and also for the ones donated to Ukraine. Those discussions are ongoing.

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

We have definitely learned from the war in Ukraine that it is a tank war.

Is there any discussion around investing in a new fleet of tanks for our Canadian Armed Forces?

[Bill Matthews]

There are indeed discussions. I'll turn to the chief, because he's an army guy who can probably give you a better answer than I could.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, many, at the beginning of this second round of the invasion of Ukraine, said the era of the tank was over. I think it's instructive to see arguably the most successful and most experienced army in conventional war in the 21st century asking for tanks. The era of the tank is not over. It's fundamental to close combat. It's fundamental to provide the shock action through fire power, manoeuver and protection. So yes, we need to continue to invest in this capability, until there's something else that provides that shock action.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We have Mr. Fisher for five minutes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to you and your team for being here for the second hour.

General Eyre, you may not remember this, because it probably wasn't a highlight for you, but you and I had a conversation during the Halifax International Security Forum with the NATO supreme allied commander. We were talking about the incredible opportunity for Halifax with DIANA. He was there to announce it the day before with the minister. We talked about Canada's contribution to NATO being the sixth largest of all NATO nations.

I think it speaks to Canada's place in NATO and its level of importance in NATO. I remember the conversation being very positive, being very pro Canada. I don't think many people, and maybe even some of the people on this committee, know much about DIANA and what an opportunity it is, and what exactly it is.

I thought maybe I would ask if you could describe what DIANA is. Perhaps you feel that it's the deputy minister's spot to do so.

What does it say about Canada's place in NATO to be chosen for DIANA? I'm thinking about Nova Scotia a little bit, and how important it is for Halifax to have DIANA.

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, I'll say a few words and then turn it over to the deputy minister for the real answer.

I remember that conversation well. It was with Admiral Rob Bauer, the chair of the military committee for NATO.

The importance of this speaks to the changes we see in the security environment. We're seeing technological acceleration like we haven't seen in human history. Our adversaries are putting tremendous investments into these game-changing technologies, including artificial intelligence, robotics, hypersonics, quantum computing, human machine interface. To remain competitive, we have to stay abreast of these developments and be armed with the latest. I firmly believe Canada has a place to do this

[Bill Matthews]

I have a couple of points here, Mr. Chair.

Number one, just to build on the chief's answer, NATO leadership recognizes the need to maintain a technological advantage; hence, the DIANA initiative. There is a European headquarters to this in London, U.K., and in Estonia. The North American headquarters will be in Halifax—although that still has to be officially blessed through NATO governance. This really provides an opportunity for Canadian industry to step up and play a role in cutting-edge research.

The idea here is to engage industry in research and also to provide access to accelerators and test centres and really engage the full power of departmental scientists, NATO researchers, etc., with industry and universities to make sure that the cutting-edge technological advantage is maintained by the West and its allies.

There's more to come on this one, but it presents a really great opportunity not just for Canada but for Halifax in particular to be the centre, and there will be benefits for all of Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You have two minutes.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Oftentimes on this side of the room, we have a different perspective on being kind, a different perspective from what we might have from our Conservative colleagues.

Ms. Gallant talked about a reliance on the U.S. during the passage of the Chinese weather balloon. I see it a little bit differently, and I think the minister touched on it very quickly. It seems to me—I'd be looking for your thoughts on this—that it was exactly what NORAD was supposed to do and that the co-operation between Canada and the United States was seamless.

I'm interested in your thoughts on that. Could you describe to the committee that it worked how it's supposed to work in this incredible and very important relationship that we have?

[Gen Wayne D. Eyre]

Mr. Chair, this unfolded exactly the way we trained for it. We train often for cross-border use of each other's assets, so, as this incident unfolded, I was in close communication with the commander at NORAD. I talked to the U.S. chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We briefed the Prime Minister, and the decision-making process was validated. It validated the process that we have in place for making these decisions, so we are very happy with the way it occurred.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Mr. Fisher.

With that, I want to thank General Eyre, Deputy Minister Matthews and your colleagues for your presence here today. It was very helpful.

Before I adjourn, colleagues, we have votes. Shall the following votes carry?

COMMUNICATIONS SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$906,759,081 (Vote 1 agreed to)

DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL DEFENCE Vote 1—Operating expenditures..........$17,912,761,663 Vote 5—Capital expenditures...........$6,076,583,477 Vote 10—Grants and contributions..........$319,808,513 Vote 15—Payments in Respect of the Long-Term Disability and Life Insurance Plan for Members of the Canadian Forces..........$446,727,532 (Votes 1, 5, 10 and 15 agreed to)

MILITARY GRIEVANCES EXTERNAL REVIEW COMMITTEE Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$6,430,370 (Vote 1 agreed to ) MILITARY POLICE COMPLAINTS COMMISSION Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$4,408,587 (Vote 1 agreed to)

OFFICE OF THE INTELLIGENCE COMMISSIONER Vote 1—Program expenditures..........$2,384,034 (Vote 1 agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Shall I report these votes to the House?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

That's on division, I should imagine. Okay. All I was hearing was silence.