National Defence Committee on April 15th, 2024

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

You're very welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Normandin, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for making yourself available to answer our questions.

I'd like you to talk to us about the short term. The plan deals with what's going to happen in 5 or 20 years' time, but I'd like you to give us some details about what's going to happen between now and the end of the current Parliament, because there's a lot of uncertainty about what's going to happen next.

I'd like to do a little math. Last September, defence cuts were announced. For the 2024–2025 financial year, there will be a reduction of $810 million, while for the 2025–2026 financial year, there will be a reduction of $851 million. Total cuts will therefore amount to $1.661 billion over the next two years.

The updated policy announces new funding of $612 million for the 2024–2025 financial year and another $1.118 billion for the following year, for a total of $1.73 billion in new funding. The difference between the new funds and the cuts is equivalent to an increase of just $69 million over two years, which doesn't even cover inflation.

I'd like to hear your views on a comment we heard following the policy update that defence reinvestments were being “shovelled into the backyard” of the next government.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That's incorrect.

If I may, I think you made a mistake in your math by only comparing the Treasury Board refocus of spending on the new plan that was put forward. In fact, there is already, first of all, a very substantial existing defence budget being increased as a result of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”. Right through 2026, what you're going to see is a very strong upward trajectory of defence spending from the previous defence policy. That didn't go away. Those investments are committed and are still going to be made.

It's also important that, when we are spending hard-earned Canadian taxpayer dollars, we can demonstrate to them that we are being efficient in how we spend their money and that we're producing the best value for their investments. I think it's entirely appropriate that the Treasury Board has asked us and every other government department to look carefully at how we are spending the money and make sure we're contributing to real capability for the Canadian Armed Forces and to the supports we provide to the men and women who serve. We have been doing that work, and it is not without challenge. I'm not going to suggest.... I'm very grateful, by the way, to the chief of the defence staff and our deputy minister for the hard work they and their teams have put into finding the most efficient way to spend that money.

Then, in addition to that, you should also take into account in your mathematics that we've committed $38.6 billion to NORAD modernization. That's an enormous new investment in the defence of our continent.

Finally, through our new defence policy update, we've added additional money: $8.1 billion over the next five years and $73 billion.... Other things will be spoken of, as well, which will help with your mathematical equation. Ultimately, what this results in is a near tripling of defence spending. The document, as well, speaks to some of the other work that we have to do.

In Canada, we don't, like some of our allies, simply put out aspirational policy documents. We actually book the money to get the job done. When the money is not yet clearly identified and authorized.... As we said in this document, we still have work to do, but we have been very clear what that work is and what additional capability requirements we must acquire.

You talked about the sense of urgency. Let me also assure you that solving the recruitment crisis...because we cannot continue losing more people than we are able to intake. Turning that around is job number one—getting in the people we need to do the job and making our procurement processes more effective. I'm not trying to diminish the care we must take in spending taxpayer dollars, but we have to go faster and be more efficient in the way we get that job done, because the cost of maintaining our fleet of ships and planes is increasing over time. It is incumbent upon us to do a better job.

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

I'll come back to the state of readiness in a later round of questions.

However, you will agree with me that most of the money was announced for the end of the next five years, not for the beginning. We don't know what's going to happen, because there could be a new government at that point. I'd like to know whether any avenues have been explored to ensure that slightly more restrictive mechanisms are applied to future military spending, similar to what Belgium has done with a military programming law that aims to ensure official spending for the future, with the agreement of its Parliament.

Have mechanisms of this kind been analyzed by your department to ensure greater reinvestment in defence in the future?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

There are a couple of things there.

First of all, the spending we've articulated in the new defence policy update is, I think, an accurate and realistic reflection of how long it takes to actually complete these procurements. We've worked very closely with our departments to say when we will need this money and when we will be able to spend this money. We have to define our requirements, and we have to go to the marketplace. Those procurement processes need to begin now, but when they will be completed, we have to have the money ready to make that expenditure.

You're asking whether or not.... I think this document is not just a political document. It speaks to Canadians. It tells Canadians what Canada must do and it also speaks to our allies. Although I will tell you I'm very hopeful that I will be able to continue in this role for many years into the future, I think any future government of any political stripe will be responsible for making sure Canada can defend its own security and sovereignty and can uphold its obligations. I think we've provided a very strong and appropriate path forward. It was intended to ensure that Canadians understand what our obligations are, and I would have every expectation that Canadians will demand that of their government, whatever government they may have.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Thank you, Madame Normandin.

Ms. Mathyssen, go ahead for six minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Minister, thank you for joining us today.

Last month, the Liberal caucus overall supported the NDP motion for peace and justice for Palestine. That final motion reflected calls we'd heard from the Palestinian Canadian community for years about how Canada must stop arming Israel's siege of Gaza and the occupation of the West Bank. In February, the Dutch court ordered the Netherlands to halt exports from the F-35 program because Israel was using those jets in the bombing of Gaza, but we haven't heard any indication that your government will follow suit.

In fact, the defence policy update, which we're discussing today, says, “We will think differently about how we procure with our allies”, but that seems to imply that we'll loosen that import arms control regime, especially when we're talking about U.S.-led initiatives like the joint fighter jet program.

Given that there's a great deal of military aid from the United States to Israel fuelling this attack on Gaza and this is quickly leading to what we feared—a larger regional war—do you believe the defence production sharing agreement between Canada and the United States should be updated to align better with the Arms Trade Treaty and include end-use assurances for international law violations?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

My responsibility is to make sure I get the Canadian Armed Forces the equipment, materiel and technology they need to do their important job of defending this country. We have, I think, very important relationships. Canada has one of the strongest military export permit regimes of any country in the world, and we have made a commitment to abide by that very strong and rigorous regime.

I think the relationships and agreements we have with the United States, with our European and NATO allies and with other countries around the world need to be respected at all times, but my first priority is making sure I acquire for our military what they need.

Because we often work in coalition environments, in NATO in particular but also through NORAD and, at times, even in the Indo-Pacific, having some degree of interoperability with our closest allies is also critical. I think those relationships are very much to the benefit of our armed forces and our national defence.

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

Are you saying, though, that Canada's interoperability and allyship are far more important than our commitment to human rights—

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I'm not.

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

—and international law?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Of course they are not.

I think Canada's commitment to the law of armed conflict and humanitarian law is unwavering, strong and very clear. I think that is quite apparent to all of us.

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

This contract could be deemed a violation of that.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

That has not been determined. The application of any such arrangement is subject to scrutiny and review to make sure we are obeying all of the rules articulated in those agreements.

The only point I'm making, Lindsay, is that our ability to work collaboratively with our allies and particularly within the military industry involves rules. Those rules must always be respected and obeyed, but those relationships and that collaboration are very much to the benefit of our industries and our armed forces.

I'm committed to ensuring that we follow all the rules in such an agreement, but at the same time I also believe very strongly in its value.

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

The upkeep or the commitment to international human rights is part of, I think, what Canada was built on in terms of peacekeeping. In 1992 there were over 3,000 Canadians proudly serving as peacekeepers, but now we're sitting in the low dozens. I would argue that now more than ever, Canada needs to step up and be a voice in peacekeeping and peacebuilding, yet the defence policy update doesn't mention the word “peacekeeping” once.

In light of what we're seeing around the world and in the Middle East right now in that increasing potential conflict, why doesn't the defence policy update outline our plan for peacekeeping?

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

I think what you'll see reflected in this document is a strong commitment to deterrence, to making peace and to keeping peace. This is not a document about fighting wars. It's a document about preventing wars and responding in such a way, with our allies, to make sure that we can represent sufficient deterrence to potential adversaries and what can sometimes be very aggressive and hostile activities on their part.

I will agree with you about 1992. The world has changed quite significantly. For example, there's our support for Ukraine. There is an active conflict taking place there. There's a war taking place. There is no peace to maintain. At the present time, our job is to make sure that Ukraine has all of the supports we can provide, along with our allies, in order to effectively defend itself.

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

How much time do I have?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

You'll have to be very brief, please. You have 20 seconds.

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

Can I bank it?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes, you can bank it.

[Bill Blair, Liberal, Scarborough Southwest, ON]

Can I bank my answer?

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

It's non-transferable, Mr. Bezan.

Ms. Kramp-Neuman, you have five minutes, please.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Minister Blair, for being here.

The word “explore” shows up a total of 12 times in the new defence policy update. Nine of those are promises. Given that it has been about seven years since the last publication of “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, what have you and the ministry been doing the entire time?