National Defence Committee on March 25th, 2026

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Most here are very supportive of the goal to reach 5% NATO GDP spending. According to the PBO's report, it will take $35 billion cumulative each year, on top of our current military spending and the various other projects, culminating in an additional spend of the eye-watering amount of $159 billion in extra dollars by 2035-36.

How do the Liberals plan to pay for this? Will there be increased taxes or cuts to programs elsewhere? What is your plan? We've come up with this amount. How are we going to achieve it?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Our plan is to give rise to the strongest defence industrial sector this country has ever seen. Our plan is to build from 600 companies to considerably more. Our plan is to increase over 10 years, by another 125,000 jobs, work in the defence sector. This is already taking hold.

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

In the last 10 years of trying to build budgets—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Kibble—

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

—we've not achieved $150 billion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Kibble—

[Jeff Kibble, Conservative, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. It just seemed like a big number—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Earle, it's over to you now for five minutes.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Minister. Thanks to your team for being here today.

As you know, and as my colleagues here know, I am the member of Parliament for Labrador, which has a land mass in our country of 296,000 square kilometres and 8,000 kilometres of coastline. It has the military base 5 Wing Goose Bay. That particular military base supports Canadian operations in the Arctic. We certainly support our European allies, and I'm very proud to say, as I know all of you are, that military base is aiding in our contribution to NORAD.

In the period from around 2007 through to 2015, as somebody who lives near the wing, I would say we saw a significant decline in spending and investment on the wing. With that, a lot of the infrastructure there declined. Looking at the estimates in supplementary (C) today, they reflect some of the public announcements we've heard in recent weeks. I'm preoccupied with Labrador, naturally, and I know you're preoccupied with Canada and the women and men in uniform who serve our country.

Can you talk to us a bit about the investments that are planned in supplementary estimates (C), why they are necessary and maybe why they are so important in areas of Arctic sovereignty? Maybe you could talk about SAR and those investments for our great Canadian Coast Guard.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Canadians know the threat landscape in Canada has changed. Canadians know our geography won't necessarily protect us anymore. Canadians know our reputation as a fair, democratic, rules-based country isn't enough anymore for us to be able to assert our security and our sovereignty, so we have made a decision to invest massively in the Arctic. This is part and parcel of increasing our reach, our presence, our mobility there and our responsiveness.

I mentioned the over-the-horizon radar. We're also investing heavily in maritime patrols. We're investing in airborne early warning aircraft. We're investing in maritime sensors. We've brought the Coast Guard into the family, so to speak—6,500 strong—and it will further increase our domain awareness and our posture in the Arctic.

We are looking at the three NORAD forward operating locations in Inuvik, Yellowknife and Iqaluit, as well as at the deployed operating base in Goose Bay—the definition of which we'll get back to Mr. Kibble on. We are investing $2.67 billion for two northern operational support hubs at Whitehorse and Resolute and two new northern operational support nodes, which are slightly smaller but important, at Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet.

We're working with our partners there and with indigenous rights holders. We're looking at dual-purpose, multi-purpose benefits, as I mentioned, such as extending runways, adding tarmac and improving our utilities access to support defence operations, as well as the quality of life for the people who live there. We are looking at getting electricity, and enough of it. The Coast Guard is going to continue the incredible advanced work it does in working with indigenous folks there.

This is all about asserting our presence and moving more fulsomely in the area, and these investments are long overdue. I think everybody at the table would admit that they are long overdue. Canadians are very supportive, because they're concerned about where I started, which is that the threat landscape has changed.

[Philip Earle, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

I wonder if you care to comment on this, and you may not wish to do so—naturally. I've declared my biases. I am preoccupied with Labrador and the people I represent there.

Is the decline we saw in the years between 2007 and 2015 impacting some of the things we're seeing in supplementary estimates (C) today? Is there cause to spend more money because of that period of time?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

There's no doubt that in some circumstances, we're further behind the eight ball, but the good news is that we're at the starting line. The really good news is that we have tens of thousands of extraordinary women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces, who are incredibly good at executing and delivering on plans and making things happen. The good news is that we have a government now that is really prioritizing this defence industrial strategy and these investments. The good news is that our banks, our venture capital funds, our engineering firms and our construction firms are aligning themselves and they want to help. They want to help with these investments that we will be making, for example, in Labrador, to be able to deliver on the infrastructure and the needs we need to follow up on.

For the decade leading up to 2015, of course it was difficult. People were managing through scarcity, really, and as a result of that, we're making important contributions. It goes back to Mr. Kibble's question about why we are spending this money. We're spending this money because it's the right thing to do for our forces, our security, our sovereignty, our economy and our jobs.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you.

Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, you have two and a half minutes, sir.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have only two and a half minutes, which is always a challenge.

Minister, in the 2025‑26 supplementary estimates (C), the department is requesting over $34.4 million for Canadian Armed Forces operations in the Middle East. We know that in the 2025 budget, the Government of Canada committed to providing, starting in 2025‑26, $300.1 million over three years to the Department of National Defence and the Communications Security Establishment Canada to support Operation AMARNA in the Middle East.

What are the operational objectives behind this additional funding?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I ask the vice-chief of the defence staff to answer the question?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Yes, you can, and I'm going to immediately add a corresponding sub-question: Has the conflict in Iran caused any significant changes to what was originally planned?

[LGen Stephen Kelsey]

Thank you for the question. What specifically do you want me to talk about, the operational objectives in Iran or the $300.1‑million investment?

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Actually, I'd like you to tell me about both.

My first question is this: What are the operational objectives behind the funding? My second question is this: Has the conflict changed the plans?

[LGen Stephen Kelsey]

I'll start with the second question about the operational objectives in Iran and the circumstances. I could address the Strait of Hormuz first, if that's the purpose of your question.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Actually, it was mainly about the funds initially planned for the Middle East.

Mr. Chair, I would like to make sure of something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

You have another minute.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

I have had to repeat the question several times. I would appreciate it if you gave me a little extension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Yes. Go ahead, please.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Kelsey, funding was announced in the supplementary estimates (C). I won't repeat the entire wording, since the question has already been asked. However, funding was set aside for the Middle East, both at the Department of National Defence and at Communications Security Establishment Canada, to support Operation AMARNA in the Middle East.

First, what are the operational objectives associated with those funds? Second, has Iran changed the situation?

[LGen Stephen Kelsey]

We have six operations in the Middle East with 13 countries. The objectives vary from mission to mission. Operation AMARNA essentially aims to stabilize the countries concerned. In Jordan, for example, it's a training and support mission. In Kuwait, as we have already discussed, it's about operational support hubs, offering commodities and reducing response times. Every mission changed slightly, so the objectives have changed as well. That said, funding for Operation AMARNA covers a set of objectives related to the six operations.