National Defence Committee on May 6th, 2026

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

Is it possible to ensure, for example, that technologies developed with public funds can remain under Canadian or Quebec control?

[Christiane Fox]

In certain circumstances, yes. As I said, exports can sometimes be more complex. We want to give companies the opportunity to export.

However, I think that opportunities do exist. For example, we can use satellites to look at possible ways to prevent forest fires, but also for military investments and applications.

So, I think that opportunities do exist for Quebec, for the industry and for the government.

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

When it comes to strategic sectors, such as artificial intelligence, drones or the aerospace industry, we don't necessarily want others to get their hands on them.

[Christiane Fox]

I think that we'll want to keep a certain amount of control over the products created in some sectors. I think we need to make what we ask of the industry, universities and research facilities perfectly clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Mr. Kibble, you have five minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My first question is for Ms. Fox.

I reviewed the DIS and I could not find how it deals with non-kinetic threats, specifically coercive trade, foreign interference and supply chain weaponization. I note that in the “State of Canada's Defence Industry Report”, it doesn't even include steel and aluminum as factors.

Could you help me understand how it deals with, say, coercive trade?

[Christiane Fox]

Cyber is absolutely a part of our capabilities—what the CSE does here in Canada and what we need in terms of development. That includes being quantum-secure, the cloud and AI. Those are listed as part of digital systems.

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

I'm not talking about digital systems. I'm talking about the strategy of dealing with coercive trade, foreign interference and supply chain weaponization. It's not a technology; it's a strategy. As I said, the SCDI report doesn't even include steel and aluminum as factors.

[Wendy Hadwen]

We received a lot of input as we prepared the strategy to make sure that we safeguard our economic advantages from adversaries who may wish to undermine or exploit them. Associated with these investments is the full intention to protect them with cybersecurity measures and—

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

Thank you. I'm glad the intention is there, but I'm just not seeing it in the plan as part of the strategy.

My question is now for General Simoneau. The department authenticated the January 27 evaluation from Lieutenant-Colonel Kieley, commandant at the recruit school. Do you accept these findings as the institutional view of the CFLRS period that it covers?

[LGen Erick Simoneau]

I want to start by contextualizing this report. It is a very technical report that demonstrates what the learning organization is: It's people observing, reporting up, and our headquarters having the time to do analysis and put forward plans of action to address—

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

Do you accept the report, then?

[LGen Erick Simoneau]

I accept all 10 recommendations at the end of the report. I am pleased to report today that eight of those recommendations at the end have already been implemented.

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

Thank you.

In The Globe and Mail, in 2025, the minister declared a recruitment goal of 12,000 to 15,000 per year. Earlier this year, it was announced that the goal is now 6,900, approximately, and then it was announced, for this year, that there were 7,300 enrolments—not successful passes but enrolments.

We know, from Kieley's report, that almost 25% are not passing, so we're clearly not meeting our goals, despite the positive announcements about them. What are the recruiting numbers needed to achieve trained effective strength in the Canadian Forces? What was that path forward? How many do we need this year, next year and the following year, and not recruits but the ones who actually make it through and pass?

[LGen Erick Simoneau]

I will start by saying that, on this, we have reduced the number of barriers to entry but we did not lower standards. Therefore, as we onboard a greater volume of applicants, we are producing more. However, it's normal that the success rate at basic training is lower, from 85%, in the report, to 77%. I think that's what you're....

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

You said you were producing more, but more against the standard. What are the actual numbers that you need, let's say this year, next year and the following years, to eventually get to trained effective strength? What's the path for that, the actual numbers? Do we know this?

[LGen Erick Simoneau]

The trained effective strength goal, as directed by the CDS, is 71,500 in the regular forces by 2029. We're well along that path: We're at just under 68,000 as we speak, and we have two years to reach 71,500. With growing at the rate of 5,000, as we did over the past two years, we'll hit that number, as directed by the chief of the defence staff.

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

For next year, the target is 8,200. It's a 12% increase from this year. The Auditor General reports that the school is already operating at 80% of its capacity, and that there are instructor and critical equipment shortages, even uniform shortages.

By what mechanism does the capacity-constrained school absorb a 12% intake increase, and then even more the next year?

[LGen Erick Simoneau]

There are three things related to that question.

First of all, we're increasing the bed capacity, both in Saint-Jean and Borden. I received a picture today of 420 beds being built at a camp, ready to go for this summer. That is going to increase our capacity.

In terms of instructors, this is the number one priority of the Canadian Armed Forces. In those schools, 100% staffing is being achieved already and will continue to be achieved.

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

Quickly, if I can, in eight seconds—

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you, Mr. Kibble. You're not quick enough. I'm sorry.

Ms. Idlout, I go over to you for five minutes.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq. Thank you, Chair.

First, I want to acknowledge just how impressed I am that our Government of Canada officials, the leaders, are all women. How amazing is that? That's so wonderful.

I'm going to ask a two-part question about the implementation of the defence industrial strategy. The first one will be on how the Government of Canada will work with territories and indigenous partners to implement the objectives of the strategy. I know you partially answered that, which I really appreciate, but can you elaborate more on that?

Second, how will Canada's industrial strategy support defence-related research, development and innovation in Canada?

Then I'll just ask the chair to monitor your time and cut you off when it's the end of my time.

Thank you.

[Christiane Fox]

Okay. I'll start, and then my colleagues may want to add something.

What I would say first, to your first question on how we are working with the territories and the indigenous organizations in the north, is that we've set up various tables so that we can sit down and get to a level of specificity by territory. We've done a lot of engagement through the Inuit-Crown partnership. We have a special table that's dedicated to defence and security to talk through some of the issues. There are particular military capabilities that we need to share with our partners in the Arctic and Inuit Nunangat, but we also need to hear from them about their priorities and maybe where we can work together.

We're making big investments in the north, in some cases on important infrastructure, but that infrastructure will require power and broadband. How can we look at the needs of communities and the needs of the military and come together for those investments? We've had several conversations that will continue to develop. One of the things we're trying to do is to be more transparent about our plans and to get input early.

On key issues like the workforce, which your colleague raised, it's an important place where we want to make sure that we can work with local communities on employment opportunities and also on safety and security in the context of communities that will be next to an operational hub. How can we factor in some of those considerations? We'll continue that engagement.

We are also meeting with land claim organizations and some of the environmental decision bodies around some of the projects that will be coming their way. It's going to be an ongoing discussion. From a kind of country ride, we held our first federal-provincial-territorial meeting to talk through everybody's priorities, and the territories were part of that conversation as well.

On your second point, I think this is a real opportunity for Canada to really think about R and D, technology and innovation in the context of, yes, defence but also dual use. As we think about some of the quantum experts we have across the country, the AI centres, the drone capabilities that we're seeing become more important in the future of military capabilities, how can we invest and how can we partner?

I think that perhaps in the past, there was a lot of activity that would happen at DRDC and separate activity that would happen maybe in an institution. Having an opportunity to bring people together to do that research, some of it in a safe space and a secure location and some through that dual-use technology.... The DIS allows us the funding investments to generate that activity in the country, and I think we will have to be clear on what R and D opportunities are linked to some of these sovereign capabilities that have been identified in the DIS. I think those are some of the conversations that we've having with research institutions.

Wendy, I don't know if you want to add anything.

[Wendy Hadwen]

Thank you so much.

If I may, I would also note that the defence industrial strategy puts us in a new position of offering some of our ranges, training areas and operational environments to be able to test and evaluate things that Canadian industry produces. Some of these are formal, and some of these are yet to take place. We imagine industry days, where there is a location where we have a big military presence and we also have industries.

Even more to the point, the Canadian Armed Forces is making a big effort to be present at trade shows in Canada, or industry shows. CANSEC was mentioned, but honestly, there seems to be something happening every week in a different part of the country, and that's a good thing. The more that industry and the Canadian Armed Forces can meet in person.... That relationship-building is a key part of how we gain an advantage.

[The Chair, Liberal, Charles Sousa]

Thank you for your questions and answers.

Mr. Bezan, it's over to you.

I'm sensitive about the time. We have about 10 minutes left. I have five minutes for your questions.

Take your five minutes, and then we'll see what happens next.