THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 8, 2024
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4:03 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on issues relating to national security and defence generally.
Senator Tony Dean (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to this meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I am Tony Dean, a senator from Ontario and chair of the committee. I’m joined by my fellow committee members who I welcome to introduce themselves, beginning with our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Jean-Guy Dagenais from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Oh: Senator Victor Oh, Toronto, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator Patterson: Senator Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Hello. Marty Deacon, senator from Ontario.
Senator Duncan: Good afternoon. Pat Duncan, senator for the Yukon.
[Translation]
Senator Dalphond: Pierre Dalphond, De Lorimier senatorial division in Quebec.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Boehm: Peter Boehm, Ontario.
Senator Dasko: Donna Dasko, a senator from Ontario.
Senator Yussuff: Hassan Yussuff, Ontario.
Senator Loffreda: Tony Loffreda, Montreal. Quebec. Welcome.
The Chair: Thank you, colleagues.
Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable Bill Blair, Minister of National Defence, who has been invited to appear before the committee to speak to issues related to his mandate, and I suspect something very specific to that today.
Minister Blair is accompanied by, from the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff; Natasha Kim, Associate Deputy Minister; Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel; and Peter Hammerschmidt, Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy, joined by, from Communications Security Establishment Canada, its chief, Caroline Xavier. Thank you all for joining us today.
Minister Blair, welcome. I now invite you to provide your opening remarks to us today.
Hon. Bill Blair, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence: Thank you, Mr. Chair, and members of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
First, let me say I’m honoured and pleased with the opportunity to come before you today. I’ve been closely following many of your studies and work, and I want to offer my sincere gratitude. That has helped bring focus to the important work we’re doing at National Defence and in the Canadian Armed Forces.
As you’ve already introduced the colleagues who have joined me, in the interests of time I won’t repeat; however, I can assure you that over the past several months these people have been working extraordinarily hard and effectively on the announcement we were able to deliver to Canadians today. Let me take the opportunity to publicly thank them all most sincerely for their hard work.
This appearance and the request to provide an overview of my ministerial priorities, as I said, is a timely one. As I hope many of you are aware, I was proud to announce today our renewed vision for the Canadian Armed Forces and the Department of National Defence entitled Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence.
To respond to the challenges of our rapidly changing world, the policy we introduced today builds off of Strong, Secure, Engaged, our 2017 policy, and the promises that were set out in my mandate, commitments for new equipment and capabilities, new policies around recruitment, retention and deepening our ties to Canada’s defence industry. It also will represent a near tripling of our National Defence budget since 2015.
With that in mind, I’d like to look back on the mandate letter to highlight some of the progress and key commitments from 2021 and look to the future to see how these same issues are being taken up in our newly announced defence policy.
The Prime Minister’s 2021 mandate letter for National Defence covers a wide range of commitments, from continental defence and cultural evolution, to international engagements and equipping our Armed Forces. I believe we have made significant progress in line with these commitments.
Following this letter, in 2022, my predecessor announced a $38.6 billion investment in NORAD modernization. We are already seeing some results of this funding, with infrastructure upgrades across the country. A new Arctic Over the Horizon Radar capability is in development.
Likewise, we have been working hard to address a number of the important recommendations from former Supreme Court Justice Arbour’s Independent External Comprehensive Review and Justice Fish’s Third Independent Review, as well as a number of other external reviews aimed at improving the culture of our institution. As of December 2023, we have implemented 65 of the recommendations from these reviews.
I am pleased to advise that, last month, I introduced Bill C-66 to formally remove jurisdiction from the Canadian Armed Forces to investigate and prosecute Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada, among other changes based on the reports of Justices Arbour and Fish. This will have the effect of codifying Madam Justice Arbour’s fifth recommendation to us and was specifically highlighted as a priority in my mandate letter.
Mr. Chair, regarding our international engagements, it’s important to note that this letter was published before Russia’s illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Ukraine, which began in 2022. This war, and the return of strategic competition signalled by Putin’s despotic ambitions, have quickly come to influence how we are engaged around the world.
We have stepped up our support for Ukraine, committing roughly $4 billion in military aid to help them in their fight.
We have continued to train Ukrainian soldiers through Operation UNIFIER, which began in 2015 and continues through to this day. More than 40,000 Ukrainian armed forces members have been trained by the Canadian Armed Forces.
We have been working with our allies and partners through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group to ensure that the Ukrainians have everything they need in this time of crisis.
In response to Russia’s aggression, we are also leading the scale-up of the battle group in Latvia to a multinational combat capable brigade by 2026. I have some details with respect to the work we are doing in Latvia, if you are interested, but I won’t belabour them now.
I would also advise that, as part of our Indo-Pacific Strategy, we have increased our presence in the region. We are working hard to foster closer ties with partners in the Indo-Pacific.
Finally, we’ve made some very important progress in delivering on the equipment our military needs to stay agile and effective in the 21st century. That includes us finalizing the procurement and upgrade of 140 aircraft for the RCAF, most notably our future fleet of F-35 fighters but which includes investment in multi-mission aircraft, surveillance aircraft, supply ships and other necessary aircraft.
We are continuing with the most ambitious shipbuilding strategy since the Second World War to equip the Royal Canadian Navy with ships, such as our Arctic and offshore patrol ships and our future Canadian surface combatants. We are continuing to acquire a new fleet of armoured combat support vehicles for the Canadian Army.
While we’ve made important progress in delivering on this mandate, we recognize that the need to do more to keep up with the new challenges in the global threat environment is very real. The world continues to change — and quickly — and we need to make sure we’re doing everything possible to protect Canada and Canadians while making a difference on the international stage.
Today, our new policy, Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence, provides an ambitious and realistic road map for meeting these goals with new investments and an increased focus on fostering relationships with the defence industry. Most notably, it comes with a new funding commitment equal to $1.8 billion over the five years and $73 billion over the next 20. These investments, along with those we intend to release later this month as part of our budget — there is more to be told — will bring us to 1.76% of GDP by 2029-30. As I’ve been able to share with the Secretary General of NATO and our most closely aligned NATO allies, this is a very significant step toward reaching our NATO commitment of 2%.
We’re also putting in place the conditions to achieve the 2%, including a firm commitment to rebuild our forces by modernizing our recruitment processes; a review of defence procurement processes to deliver capability to the CAF more effectively and in a more timely way; and a continued commitment to ensure that women and men of the CAF are at the heart of everything we do.
As well, it contains a promise to conduct a defence policy review every four years. This is to ensure that we are meeting our goals and that those goals remain relevant in the geopolitical environment, while updating our plans and investments as required.
In terms of equipment, we’re going to deepen our relationship with Canada’s defence industry. Defence policy is also industrial policy, and production is deterrence. We have a goal of acquiring new capabilities for our army, navy and air force while continuing to ensure the operations and maintenance of current fleets, such as the critical Halifax frigates. We’ve included $1.5 billion in today’s update in order to keep the Halifax fleet functional and afloat. It’s a very significant investment, and it is necessary while we await the completion of the surface combatant ships.
We are also bolstering our ability to conduct cyberoperations by establishing a new CAF cyber-command. This is another significant investment. I know the chief will be able to provide you more detail on it in the subsequent hour. We are standing up a joint Canadian cyberoperations capability together with CSE to integrate the unique strengths of each organization — CAF and CSE — as a unified team that will conduct active cyberoperations in support of Canadian interests.
Senators, both the previous defence policy, SSE, and my mandate letter from 2021 have been important guiding documents for our institution, but it’s important to acknowledge that the world continues to change rapidly. We know we need to do more. We need to get better and stronger. Our North, Strong and Free policy builds on those commitments with a new funding package and new investments to ensure our military is effective now and well into the future.
This comes at a critical time for our country and for the world. We are continuing to work hard to implement this new vision for the Canadian Armed Forces. The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces do an extraordinary job for this country. We have an obligation to make sure they have the best equipment, the best support, the best training and the best leadership. Those are our commitments.
Thanks very much.
The Chair: Thanks very much, minister. We will now proceed to questions.
Colleagues, Mr. Blair will be with us today until 5 p.m. We’re going to do as best we can to allot time for each member to ask a question during this first hour. We’ll have a second round of questions with the officials present from 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. With that in mind, four minutes is allotted for each question, including the answer. Please keep your questions succinct in an effort to allow as many interventions as possible. The first question goes, as is the normal course, to our deputy chair.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: Thank you, Minister. Welcome to our committee.
For the past week, the Prime Minister has been handing out billions of dollars. One wonders where he’ll find them. This morning, he announced an additional $8 billion for the armed forces. This is good news in itself, but despite these investments, Canada remains delinquent vis-à-vis its NATO partners.
In 2017, on the issue of the oft-quoted 2% threshold for investment in military spending, Mr. Trudeau promised to align spending with our allies’ expectations. That was seven years ago, and we still haven’t reached it. What’s the Prime Minister’s problem with military investment? Why is he stubbornly refusing to do everything he can to become a reliable NATO partner?
[English]
Mr. Blair: Thank you very much for the question.
Perhaps I could place some context upon your question. In 2015, when we became the government, defence spending in Canada had languished for two years under the previous government at less than 1% investment in defence. That really created a very difficult situation. We made a commitment very early in our mandate — and certainly in 2017 — to significantly increase defence spending. We’re right on track for that. We’ve kept pace with that to increase defence spending by 70% through 2026.
However, with the war in Ukraine and some of the very significant challenges we’re facing in our Arctic and the more aggressive postures of potential adversaries, China and Russia in particular, the world has become a more difficult and dangerous place. We recognized we needed to do more. The Prime Minister, when he gave me the job of being the Minister of National Defence, said we need to do more. We’ve worked hard on that. That’s why today’s policy announcement is doing more. Again, it’s a significant investment. As I’ve said, by 2029, we will have tripled defence spending from the previous government’s frankly very poor record of defence spending.
There are a few things I would also like to put in context. Canada’s defence budget within NATO is the seventh-largest defence budget of any member of NATO. Although the 2% target is an important one, there’s another part of that Wales Summit Declaration with respect to defence spending, and it is that Canada must spend 20% of its defence budget on new capabilities. Starting next year and as a result of this policy announcement today, for the next 20 years, we will meet that standard. It also places us on a very clear upward trajectory of defence spending, rising to 1.76 in 2029.
But with other things that are included in that policy document, the Prime Minister today was very clear that we’re also working at renewing and building a new underwater surveillance capability: submarines. When we’re ready to make that expenditure and when the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Navy and our procurement people have done the important work they need to do to make sure it is a good investment for the Canadian tax dollars, we will proceed with that. That will easily move us into that 2% threshold.
Our allies know this. It is one of the reasons I think you will see comments from our allies that they’re very pleased with today’s announcement and the trajectory of defence spending that Canada is on. I will also tell you, from our conversations with our allies, that they value Canada’s contribution in NATO, NORAD, the Indo-Pacific and around the world, but they also recognize our renewed focus on Canada’s defence. One of the things you’ll see within our new policy document is also a much greater emphasis on defending Canada to maintain and secure our national sovereignty, particularly over our High Arctic.
Senator Boehm: Thank you, minister, general and accompanying delegation for being here.
I think we all know that what was announced today is very important and much needed as well, but in my experience, and to misquote a former U.S. general, diplomacy comes before bullets. There is a symbiotic relationship between what our forces do and defence planners do and what our diplomats do abroad in crisis areas. Much of the new statement is focused on the security challenges brought by climate change. We know there are tremendous challenges in Haiti and other parts of the world where we have a tradition of stepping up. We have a tradition where our diplomats also engage. In a statement in the update, Minister Joly says that, more than ever, defence and diplomacy go hand a hand in pursuing our national interests. Yet, Global Affairs Canada is being slashed. Do you have any thoughts on that symbiotic relationship and how it can be strengthened when it’s clear that the defence side is getting a much-needed infusion but it’s not so certain about the diplomatic side?
Mr. Blair: I remain hopeful that we have to do the whole job, including significant investment on foreign affairs and diplomatic efforts. It also includes pretty significant investments in international development and support around the world.
When I first got into this portfolio, Minister Joly and I had a long discussion about defence policy. I’ve already said that I believe it’s industrial policy, but it’s also foreign policy, and they are very much aligned. You will notice in the defence policy update that we provided today that there is an introduction from both myself and Minister Joly, and I hope that’s seen as a recognition of the importance of both jobs.
My focus, obviously, is on reconstitution and reinvigoration of the Canadian Armed Forces, and that means solving our recruitment problems but also making significant investments in new equipment. We all share a great pride in Canada’s long history of peacekeeping services and service around the world in conflict and peacekeeping efforts, but I also believe it’s necessary to be strong at home in order to be capable of being strong for your allies.
As we invest in, for example, a greater capability here at home, we are also leading the forward presence in Latvia. We’ve made very significant commitments in materiel, people and leadership to the NATO alliance. Canada is pulling its weight. We’re working hard towards reaching that 2% goal, but I don’t think there is any fair criticism that can be levelled against us for our level of commitment and dedication to that NATO mission.
The foreign policy initiatives, ensuring that my foreign minister can do her job from a position is strength, is my responsibility, and we see very much an alignment between both of our responsibilities.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Minister, I have doubts about your figures. The figures you’ve announced don’t match the percentages you’ve announced. Are you anticipating a fall in GDP? If so, your figures may be correct.
I assume you don’t think GDP will go down over 20 years; it will surely go up, so how can you say that $71 billion or $76 billion will get us to 1.76% of GDP in 20 years? It just doesn’t make sense. The numbers don’t add up.
[English]
Mr. Blair: To be very clear, the $8.1 billion in investment that will take place between now and 2029 will bring us to 1.76 in —
Senator Carignan: How can you say that?
Mr. Blair: Well, I can say that because I know how much we spend in defence.
Senator Carignan: How much have we spent?
Mr. Blair: Well, interestingly enough, how much we’ve spent, sir, there are already increases built into the defence budget through the SSE that take us right through 2026-27. We are now making some additional investments that you are going to see. I will also tell you that, in what was presented today in our defence policy update and the numbers that were provided in a pre-budget statement, there are additional investments that will be made. When we look at those in totality, it gives me great confidence, and we also have the benefit of a prediction of an increase in the GDP.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: How many billions are we currently short of the 2% threshold? Would you agree that we’re short by $15 billion U.S.?
[English]
Mr. Blair: I’ve inquired as to what the gap will be in 2029 when we reach 1.76%, and I’m told that we’ll still be $6 billion or $7 billion short from the 2%. I’m also aware that if we are able to complete the work of determining what our undersea surveillance capabilities will require and the new investments we’re going to have to make additionally in missile defence for this country, that will lead to additional expenditures that I think provide a very clear path to exceeding the 2% threshold. At the same time, I will try to be very straightforward, and I would invite you to go to the first appendix of our document where we’ve laid out those expenditures and how it gets us to the point of 1.76% in 2029.
By the way, I’m not such a great prognosticator that I would be able to predict what the GDP will be in —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: We know that finances are not this government’s strong suit.
[English]
Mr. Blair: Why don’t we agree to disagree on that? I don’t think one needs us to debate it. What I will say is we’ve tried very hard to be responsible in our predictions and in our investments. Right from the outset, when we formed government, we said that we needed to do much better and invest in defence. I think you can see a steady and consistent upward trajectory of defence spending by the Canadian government since we formed government. We have now put forward a plan through our new defence policy that continues in that growth that will take us to 1.76% —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: You know that’s not enough. Canada is a member of NATO. We go to NATO. I was in Brussels last month. Canada’s position is embarrassing when we talk to other nations. The 2% threshold is a floor for them, not a ceiling. You see it as a ceiling, but nobody there sees it as a ceiling. We’re still a long way from that.
[English]
Mr. Blair: I think there are many ways that we can look at Canada’s contribution to NATO. I’ve actually spent time with the Supreme Allied Commander. We’ve looked at the analysis of Canada’s contribution, the work that we are doing in Latvia and the leadership that the Canadian Armed Forces provides. We are making significant contributions there. The 2% — don’t get me wrong — is an obligation. It was part of the Wales agreement. It was reiterated in Vilnius. Canada renewed its commitment to reaching the 2% target. We are on track to do that.
I have enormous pride in what the Canadian Armed Forces contributes to global peace and to our allied partners, and I am not embarrassed by our contributions —
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: But you would agree that we’re not talking about the armed forces: they’re doing their best with what you’re giving them.
[English]
Senator Oh: Thank you, minister, for being here with us.
My question for you is this: What steps are being taken to strengthen border security and immigration management, while balancing security measures and human rights? How does the government plan to address challenges related to increased migration and cross-border criminal activities?
Mr. Blair: Thank you very much, senator.
Those are very useful questions. It is not, of course, part of my remit as the Minister of National Defence, save and except if under the National Defence Act there was a request from the Public Safety Minister or the RCMP to provide them with support as an aid to civil authority. Perhaps those are questions more appropriately put to some of my colleagues.
I can tell you, sir, that one of the things that we are very focused on is securing our own borders. One of our obligations to our closest ally and partner, the United States, is that Canada will contribute in a meaningful and significant way to the security of North America. That is one of the reasons we’re making a very significant investment in NORAD modernization. It’s going to create, for example, new capabilities in Over the Horizon Radar systems, new capabilities of defection and defence for all of North America. Canada’s contribution to that is proportional and very significant, and $38 billion is what we’ve undertaken and that work is well under way.
In addition to that, we’ve heard clearly from our allies, both in NATO and NORAD, the United States and in our Indo-Pacific partners, that there is a very real concern about security in the high North, and particularly the adversarial actions of certain hostile governments and their incursion into the North. We believe that the Canadian Armed Forces has a very significant role to play to secure our own borders, our own country and to defend Canadian sovereignty in the High Arctic. That’s the entire High Arctic, by the way. We are not persistently present there. We need to be persistently present. We need to invest in our own capabilities and invest in the people who live there, in their communities, so we can all benefit from these investments.
Strengthening of our perimeter will also help us in our relationship with the United States with respect to the large undefended border between us, because their expectation, as they’ve communicated very clearly to us, is that Canada will do a better job, a good job, of securing our own perimeter so that the border we share with our closest ally and neighbour is one that can remain free.
Senator Patterson: Minister, it was really encouraging to see the defence policy update published. It’s been a labour of love. I certainly know that.
I want to focus on the people’s section and, in particular, health care. I know that’s a huge surprise to you. The one thing that we do know is the health care crisis in Canada is also reflected within the Canadian Armed Forces because you are the de facto Minister of Health for the fourteenth health jurisdiction. We also know that, as a combat service support capability, health is one of those things. So we focus on the Arctic. We have other Arctic senators here, and we also know that access to health support in the North is almost non-existent. I’m just curious as to where you see the Canadian Armed Forces going in terms of, very specifically, building health capability, whether it be platforms for medical evacuation or support within the North with the specialized equipment that’s there.
To follow up on that: Ukraine has shown us that the days when we are a superior force going into places and creating small numbers of casualties — maybe our future looks more like Ukraine. Is the Canadian health care system ready to take on large numbers of casualties if that were to transpire?
First, you have internal to the North, and then the health care system being prepared. How are you seeing that unfolding?
Mr. Blair: These are good but challenging questions.
With respect to your first question, I’ve talked a little bit about the investments we’re going to have to make in the North. We’re going to have to deploy our people to the North. If we are going to train our people to work and operate in the North, it means significant investment in infrastructure. I have identified within that infrastructure things like airport runways, highways, heating plants and water treatment plants, but certainly other infrastructure. As you say, I’m the Minister of Health as well as the Minister of Education and apparently the Minister of Justice for the Canadian Armed Forces. It’s a comprehensive responsibility. This is a conversation I’ve actually been having with northern premiers, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami, or ITK, and the Assembly of First Nations, or AFN, as well. It’s an opportunity for us to look at very significant deficits of infrastructure, including health infrastructure in the Far North. By building new airfields, for example, we’ll be able to bring people in and out. By creating capabilities that support CAF, we also strengthen the communities in which they’ll be located. I think there’s a real opportunity there with those things.
With respect to being ready to deal with the type of casualties, it’s not just physical casualties, although we’ve seen that significantly. There are other types of injury that the Ukrainians have demonstrated to us as very much the new reality. We have learned a great deal from Ukraine. Ukrainians know more about fighting the Russians than anyone because they have been hard at it for two years. There is a new nature of warfare, and there are new technologies at play. Frankly, in some respects, everything that was old is new again. For example, we’re back into trench warfare, but with the additional elements of drones, cyber operations and artillery. There’s a confluence of new capabilities that is really challenging, and we’re learning from the experience. One of the things that we are doing, which I think is really important, is medical training — we’re doing it in Poland and in the U.K. — for the Ukrainian armed forces to help their people survive some of those injuries. We also recognize there’s going to be a lot more work to do for them and then perhaps for us if we were ever to find ourselves in a similar situation. Increasing our capability of dealing with the new threats means that we have to look at all of those elements. I wish I had better, more fulsome answers for you, but I think we have an opportunity to do it.
General Eyre has provided me with assurances that he will be able to provide you with more fulsome information in the next session.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, everyone, for being here.
We have a lot to digest from the last six hours when looking at the press conference in Trenton and our Zoom briefing today. This committee did a fulsome Arctic sovereignty study, and I hope our information was able to inform your recommendations. I would love to hear more about that, but, for the purposes of your presence, I’m going to slide over to something related to NATO.
Last week, the NATO allies agreed to initiate planning on long-term military support for Ukraine, though there was some debate on what this might actually look like. Until now, NATO has been hesitant to involve itself directly in Ukraine’s defence, with most aid to Ukraine being done via bilateral agreements. I’m wondering what our government’s view is on NATO taking a more direct role in the military aid to Ukraine. Is it important that we do this to make up for any present and future vacuum left by the United States? I’m just looking at this because it does kind of change the game.
Mr. Blair: Thank you.
I’ve actually been very much part of those discussions. I’m a member of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, which was, frankly, stood up primarily under the leadership of the Secretary of Defense of the United States. They have been the primary driver of that, but there are a number of other things as well. The Supreme Allied Commander for NATO is also responsible for the Security Assistance Group-Ukraine, or SAG-U in Wiesbaden, which coordinates the delivery of a lot of materiel. The Ukraine Defense Contact Group has been an excellent coordinating body. We convene every two months. We get updates on the battlefield from Minister Umerov and sometimes President Zelenskyy also participates, so it’s a very fulsome conversation. I want to assure you, and I have personally been hugely reassured and impressed with the level of commitment among all of our allies who are part of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group, and that includes everyone in NATO, by the way. It has been solid, steadfast and very impressive.
Having said that, there was a proposal that came initially from the United States and that has been adopted by the NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg on the creation of a NATO mission to Ukraine. It would not be located in Ukraine but in a different territory. I support that. I’ve had a lot of conversations with our allies and with the secretary in NATO. I believe that that could actually bring better coordination to our collective response in support of Ukraine.
Having said that, I am not one of those people who despair of America’s continued support. Secretary Austin and his government have been rock solid. In fact, their support for Ukraine has been critical in the last two years. They have run into some difficult political processes. I’ve learned a few things about difficult political processes myself. There’s a bit of a bump in the road for them, but I don’t think we should interpret that as a wavering of their support.
In other discussions, I was recently at a meeting that was convened by President Macron in France, in which a number of the European leaders were present. There is a strong desire for Europe to step up. It’s interesting that when Europeans talk about it, they include Canada in that because it’s the United States and everyone else.
We’re all working hard to step up, and I think there is going to be strong multilateral support for the NATO proposal to go forward with a NATO mission in support of Ukraine. There are some concerns among allies, and I’m sure you are aware of them, whether or not that would implicate NATO under a section 5 implication. We have to proceed thoughtfully and carefully with that decision, but the intent is to bring a greater level of coordination and to be more effective in our support of Ukraine.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you, Minister Blair, for being here today.
I know we have discussed this briefly, but it’s an important issue. Minister Blair, congratulations on the ambitious $73 billion investment projected by 2044. However, amidst escalating geopolitical tensions, many are still concerned about Canada’s commitment currently at only 1.76% of GDP by 2029 to its armed forces. U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen welcomed the plan, saying in a statement that:
The policy appears to articulate a substantial down payment toward Canada’s pledge to meet its NATO commitment to spend at least two percent of its GDP on defence.
As Minister of National Defence, are you comfortable that this will be accepted as well by NATO and our European allies? Many believe — and they will applaud today’s announcement — that the 2% should now be a floor and not a ceiling. Could we not have prioritized the budget and spending to reach the 2%, to attain the 2%, rather than not fulfill completely or fully our promise to attain that 2%?
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator.
I’m a defence minister. We are always ambitious and we all want to do more. There are two challenges we face that I’d like to share with senators.
One is getting the money. In the current fiscal environment, where Canadians have expressed legitimate concerns to us on issues of affordability, housing, health care, dental care and support for seniors, there are a lot of different demands on government dollars. At the same time, I think there is a growing consensus among Canadians that we need to do more for National Defence.
One of the challenges we face is not just getting access to the funding but making sure that we invest that funding and produce good results for Canadians. I’ve always looked at it as every public dollar spent is an investment in creating public value. That requires that we have careful, rigorous processes of procurement to make sure we’re getting the best value. It can be challenging.
I sometimes joke about my position. The two greatest challenges I face are getting money and spending money. I don’t mean that as flippantly as it sounds. Spending money, doing it well and doing it right, takes time. Frankly, it takes too much time. That’s one of the reasons we commit to in this defence policy update to reviewing our procurement processes. However, I don’t think that in any way relieves us of the responsibility to spend Canadian dollars carefully and to create the best value.
For example, in our document we talk about the need to replace our rather aging and less effective Victoria class submarines. At the moment, we are not in a position to say what submarine we want. One of the things unique to Canada is we don’t make a commitment to spending until we book the money. That’s not the case for all of our NATO allies. Sometimes their policy documents are more aspirational than based upon a commitment of dollars. We require the commitment of those dollars, and we have a commitment of dollars. The policy document also recognizes that we are spending money to determine exactly what our requirements will be for underwater surveillance. Once that work has been done, we’ve acknowledged that we’ll have to replace, for example, our submarine fleet.
That investment is going to take us well into the 2% range, but we’ve got work to do to get there. I’m grateful for the financial support we’ve received for what we not only need to do now but also what we are capable of doing now. We’ve got a ton of work to do, and we’re going to do it, to get ready to spend those dollars well. When we’re ready, I’m still confident we will be able to get those dollars that will get us there. That’s the assurance we can also provide to our allies. Canada is a valued ally by all of our NATO partners and also our Five Eyes partners, particularly the United States. I think they have an understanding of the efforts and the extraordinary investments that we’ve been making in defence to recover from a long period of neglect. We’re getting there. When we start to deliver those 16 surface combatant ships and when those fighter jets arrive, we’ve got a lot of work to do not only to receive the jets but also to train the pilots, build the infrastructure, the hangars, the support and the maintenance required maintain them. With the investments we’re making in the air force, the navy, the army and with the Communications Security Establishment, I think our allies can see a positive trajectory for the Canadian Armed Forces and for Canada’s contributions to global security.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister, for being here on this day when you’ve made a major announcement. Thanks for coordinating that with your appearance here.
Mr. Blair: I wasn’t aiming for the eclipse or for the day of the Blue Jays’ home opener.
Senator Cardozo: That’s a confluence of a lot of dynamics.
How did you come to that figure of 1.76%? I listen to debates in the chamber and to the groups that come before us. Not a single one has said that the federal government is spending enough. Everybody is saying that the federal government is underfunding this sector, whether it’s defence, foreign affairs, cancer, housing — you name it. How did you and the cabinet, or the Prime Minister, come to decide on that figure of 1.76% and not more or not less?
My other question is this: What is DND and CAF doing with regard to the enormous problems you have in the force of sexual misconduct and systemic racism?
Mr. Blair: Thank you.
First, let me cite an example of things that we considered to include in this defence policy update and the budget we sought to do for it.
With all of the new responsibilities that we’re taking on at NATO, in NORAD and, in particular, here, at home, in defence of our own country, we need to grow the Canadian Armed Forces. Today, we’re short 16,500 regular and reserve members. We’ve got to solve that problem. We have to turn that around and do a much better job of onboarding and recruiting the talent and the capabilities that we need in the Canadian Armed Forces. We also have to do a much better job of retaining the great people that we’ve got. We looked at the investments. Even beyond the deficit of 16,500 that we currently have, the Chief of the Defence Staff has said that we need 14,000 more people.
We decided that we will deal with the 16,500 deficit first. When we close that gap — frankly, I think we can demonstrate that and onboard 10,000 additional people — then I’m quite confident I can go back to my government and say, “We’ve solved this problem now. We’re on the right track. We can get the people we need,” and we’ll ask for more money to onboard additional people. Ultimately, for all the jobs that we have to do, we’ll need 30,000 more members of the Canadian Armed Forces, both regular and reserve. We also have to make significant investments in some of our civilian support for procurement and recruitment.
We’re trying to be fair to Canadian taxpayers. We asked for the money that we’re confident we can spend well now. Once we’ve established that and resolved some of the challenges that we face in recruitment, procurement and other things, then we can come back with confidence and say to Canadians, “We’re ready now to take the next step.” I’m quite prepared to come back.
Senator Cardozo: You are saying you might go up to 2% by 2029-30 if you meet these targets?
Mr. Blair: Again, sir, we’re also trying to respond to a really challenging and evolving threat environment, technological challenges and a changing environment. As of today, that has brought us to the conclusion that these are the investments we must make over the next five years. I believe that, because of the rapidity of the changing environment, the threat environment and the technological environment we’re dealing with, we need to come back and review our defence policy every four years. We’re putting that right into this document. I’ve also tried to create an alignment that this committee would also acknowledge is important. We’re also going to bring forward our national security policy document every four years. I think they’re related. This is a five-year budget, but within a four-year period we won’t come back. It will be an assessment of both the threat environment and the new capabilities we’re building through these investments. I believe that will give us an opportunity to come back again before Parliament and Canadians and say, “Now we’re ready to take the next step.”
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Yussuff: Thank you, minister, for taking the time to be here. Given that your document came to us hot off the presses, you recognize that we’re not fully equipped to respond to all of the details right now. Hopefully, we’ll get you back here soon.
Starting on a positive note, I don’t think enough has been acknowledged about the role CAF has played in dealing with domestic issues and the forest fires. It’s not in front of us right now, but it’s about to be. I’ve looked at some of the reports coming out, and we’re going to be in the same predicament as last year. I want to express, through you, the incredible role they played and thank members of CAF for what they’re doing.
I was in Vilnius and got a chance to meet with our Canadian leadership there to see the important role they’re playing in trying to figure out how to build a battalion. I can tell you about the appreciation that they have for what we’re doing, given that the proximity between them and Russia is like a sneeze and you’re right there. I thank you for all of that.
Let me ask you some questions now about the reallocation of resources going forward. As you know, when you ask Canadians to join the military, they want assurance that you can look after their families and settle them appropriately. This policy allocates a lot of money for a number of things to do with families. Health care is one of them, but let me deal with the housing question. So, $295 million over 20 years is about $14 plus million per year. We have old housing stock in this country, as you know. Most military bases need upgrading, and we need new housing stock to meet the needs of our military. Given that we have lots of people on priority lists right now, are we likely to see the realization that we will have enough housing stock to meet the current needs and to update the stock that’s already outdated in this country?
Mr. Blair: That is one of the critical questions we have been dealing with.
We have some money in this budget to deal with our housing stock. We’re short about 7,000 housing units right across the country for Armed Forces members, but we have other opportunities in the Canadian Armed Forces. We have a lot of land, for example, much of it serviced land where we used to have PMQ housing, but that housing is no longer fit for purpose and no longer of use. We have been exploring with our base commanders, local municipalities and the private sector the possibility of entering into P3 arrangements, public-private partnership arrangements, with those municipalities, developers and the base to leverage the existing value — I don’t need new money for this — of the land that we have.
There are other monies that have been announced with respect to infrastructure investment, almost $6 billion, and other monies to support the building of rental accommodation. There are many opportunities for us to use the relatively small amount of budget we have, the great value of the land we possess and, frankly, the ingenuity and innovation of our people to actually create housing opportunities that will be of huge benefit to Canadian Armed Forces members and also the communities on which our bases exist. That’s right across the country. I was at Base Borden earlier this week. We’ve been talking to people in Esquimalt and in Toronto.
I would also point out that we have armouries right across this country, and many of them were built over a century ago. They are almost all located in inner cities across Canada. Most of the reservists live in the suburbs. There are many things we can do with that property and those spaces to make sure our reservists have the best facilities to work out of. It also gives us an opportunity to create housing. There are many different, innovative approaches that we are working on with respect to that.
Senator Yussuff: I would also hope one of those would be modular housing. As you know, they are built on an industrial design. They can be assembled and put on military bases.
Mr. Blair: Can I add something else, though? We need housing for Canadian military members, but I also want to build them neighbourhoods. I want to build them good places to raise their kids and families. It really is about military families. I agree. There are some brilliant opportunities and innovations on different types of housing. There is no one-size-fits-all, and that’s one of the reasons we want to tailor it to the individual requirements of the community in which it will be based. It is also important to build them neighbourhoods to live in, to raise their families in, good places to live. We ask so much of them. When we say we’re going to transfer you to a place where you’re going to work for three years, they have to uproot their families, find childcare and a family doctor for the kids. We put a lot on them. We want to support them in doing that. We want to take some of the pressure off so they get access to child care when they need it, access to decent housing and the opportunity to live in a good neighbourhood.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister, for being here today.
I want to ask you very specifically about the Ukrainian situation and your assessment of it. I may have asked this question the last time you came but, of course, the world changes and the situation evolves there.
Please provide your analysis of what you think is happening in Ukraine, in particular, the strength of the Russians. In the first year of the conflict, Ukraine seemed to be in the ascendancy, and now the Russians seem to be recovering and presenting themselves with great strength. Can you describe what the situation is and where you think it’s headed? What scenarios are you looking for as they move forward in this war?
Mr. Blair: Thank you, senator. All of us care about Ukraine, very sincerely, and we’re very concerned with the situation as it continues to evolve there.
We felt a year ago, when we last spoke of this, that it was going to take a considerable period of time for Russia to reconstitute its military establishment, procurement and its production. They had suffered significant and even disproportionately significant losses. They had expended a lot of ammunition. Because it’s an autocratic government, they were able, unfortunately, to retool their industry. What they’re bringing to bear now is force, mass of people, materiel and artillery. It has become increasingly challenging. We had great hope for the summer offensive in Ukraine. It produced some positive results, but most of that is being challenged now because the Russians are really leaning in.
There have been very important efforts of success that the Ukraine military has been able to achieve. Let’s acknowledge as well that they’re under enormous pressure. The lack of material support from all of our allies — I include us in that, but all of us — it has taken too much time to deliver. We’re looking at ways to expedite that.
I can share with you, for example, that with artillery ammunition, the 155 mm artillery ammunition, there’s a desperate need among the Ukrainians for that. The Russians are able to outgun them three to one, four to one, perhaps more than that. It’s changing the outcome on the battlefield. I’m about to invest $300 million in Canadian production of that ammunition and provide them with long-term contracts, but it will take two and a half years to deliver that. I entered into a memorandum of understanding with the Czechs in order to buy ammunition that they have been able to acquire so that we can deliver it to Ukraine quickly. We are going to spend close to $60 million of our investment in Ukraine to get that artillery to them as quickly as possible.
They also have a strong need for air defence and missile defence. They’ve done some extraordinary things in drone technology. I also met with their minister of strategic industry. They’ve learned a great deal about that technology and its use in the battlefield. I think we can learn from them. We are doing some work there and investing in their industry. They are sharing their learning with our industry. There’s something beneficial there.
Frankly, I don’t despair. Their fighting spirit is extraordinary. Their courage is unbelievable. They have been incredibly ingenious and innovative in the way they’ve responded. They have made it clear they’re under an enormous amount of pressure both in their requirement for soldiers and materiel. We have more work to do. We are all committed to doing it.
I will share with you I spend a couple of hours every day talking to our allies because we are all focused on what needs to be done for Ukraine.
Senator Dasko: I want to pick up on a phrase you used in answer to Senator Deacon’s question, again talking about support for Ukraine. You described the Americans’ reluctance to — obviously, they haven’t passed their spending package yet. You described it as a bump in the road, whereas other analysts would describe this as extremely important, the fact that the Americans have not come through with their spending on Ukraine.
Mr. Blair: I have been accused of being overly optimistic, butI’ve worked with the Americans for a long time. I judge the character of the people I deal with to be strong and resolved. They’re absolutely committed to supporting Ukraine.
Senator Dasko: You think they’ll come up with this money?
Mr. Blair: I will tell you about my colleague, Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin. I don’t know a man more committed to the defence of Ukraine and that international rules-based order we’ve all come to rely on. Incredible strength. They have been extraordinary in their leadership on this.
I understand. We see the complexity of the political environment playing out in the United States. They’re in an election year as well, and that obviously has added to the dynamic. At the same time, I’m not prepared to sort of throw the towel in. Having said that, the discussion amongst ourselves and all of our other allies — other than the United States — is, while the Americans are resolving this, the rest of us have to step up and do more.
Senator Duncan: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here.
I’d also like to express my appreciation. In this document, which we’ve only just received and had a chance to look at, I can hear and see the voices of the three senators and the three northern premiers. Thank you.
That being said, the three territories are vastly different. I always say it’s like a bowl of fruit. There are apples, oranges and bananas. The Yukon, my region, has a very large, undefended border with Alaska. You mentioned there are commitments for F-35 fighter jets. Honestly, as a Yukoner, I thank God every day that the F-35s based in Alaska are a lot closer than the ones in Cold Lake. You’ve talked about our relationship with the U.S., and that Alaska-Yukon relationship is very important.
Perhaps, minister, you’d like your officials to respond to this in writing. How do you intend that this commitment to the North that’s made in this document is going to recognize the differences in the three territories and be spread across them?
Mr. Blair: We’re looking at the development of what we call five Northern support hubs. We haven’t determined where they’re going to be, but we know we have to do them. That will give us the regional geographic footprint that we need. We are still going to be based out of Cold Lake and Comox, but we need to have the capacity to operate up there. That means land and come-and-go on a fairly regular basis. There are other technologies, such as remotely piloted aircraft systems, RPAS, or drones. We’re acquiring that as well. Those are all really important surveillance presences.
I’ve talked to Ranj Pillai a lot over the past weekend. He wants me to set up a reserve in the Yukon. He’s right. One of our greatest-valued assets available to us — it’s more of an opportunity right now than an asset — is the Rangers. The Rangers across the North are extraordinary, but we can do better. We can support them better if we are more persistently there. I want to take full advantage. It’s their land. They know the land. I’ve talked to Natan Obed and to AFN National Chief Cindy Woodhouse Nepinak as well. All of them are keen to work with us, but they want to be properly consulted. They want us to understand the unique requirements of their parts of the North, and we’re absolutely committed to do that.
By the way, hold our feet to the fire, please.
I used to think that sovereignty was occasionally a plane going by or a ship sailing by when the ice was out. The North told me that it’s not about flying by once a while; it’s about infrastructure, such as highways and airports. It’s about water treatment plants, fibre optics, communications, medical treatment and education. It’s about building communities in the North where the Canadian Armed Forces can work and operate effectively but where the people there — it’s their communities, and we will support them as well.
We made a very significant pivot in defence policy as part of our work over the past several months. Historically, a lot of the focus was on our international commitments, clearly NATO and NORAD being part of that, but I think it was a fair criticism that we had not focused enough in Canada on being strong at home, defending our own country and this continent. We talk about Arctic sovereignty. If someone else defends it, it’s not our sovereignty, it’s theirs. We have to be there. We have a job to be there. In this document, I hope you can see we’re prepared to step up.
The Chair: Thank you, Minister Blair.
Colleagues, that brings us to the end of our time with Minister Blair this afternoon. Minister, thank you for your time with us today. We know your schedule is as intense as the issues in your portfolio. It is a 24-7 job, and we deeply appreciate your time and candour and openness in answering a lot of questions today. We wish you all the best. We thank you for doing this, not just on behalf of us in this room in the Senate but on behalf of Canadians across the country who depend upon you and the government to protect them. Thank you very much, and all the best.
Colleagues, officials from National Defence and from the CSE will stay with us for the next hour or so to continue discussing issues related to the mandate of National Defence. Last hour, we had the pleasure of hearing the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable Bill Blair, on this topic, and we now continue our questions with General Eyre, Assistant Deputy Minister Crosby, Associate Deputy Minister Kim and Chief Xavier. I ask that members identify to whom each question is directed, if possible.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for General Eyre.
I’d like to raise the problem of the deficit in terms of human resources and recruitment. On the one hand, we’re talking about an emergency, which is real, but on the other, we’re taking actions that seem rather long-term. If we want to be effective, aiming for 2032 is not the way to seriously bring the workforce back up to where it needs to be.
With immigration, Canada has become a country of 41 million people. Are your recruiting efforts attracting these new Canadians, or do they have little or no interest in joining the armed forces? Is the military capable of reflecting our country’s new demographic mosaic?
General Wayne Eyre, Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you very much for the question. Increasing the number of members in the Canadian Armed Forces is a priority for me. For the past few years, we’ve had a reconstitution program just for that. I’m very pleased to announce today that we’ve been successful over the past year.
[English]
I was briefed on Friday that, based on the end of February and early March numbers, the Canadian Armed Forces regular force is projected to grow — the final numbers are still coming in — by 214. That’s after three years of shrinking. Likewise, the reserve force has grown by several hundred as well.
We are entering this fiscal year with more recruits in the processing pipeline than we have for the last three. February had the greatest number of monthly applicants in the last five years.
Senator, our efforts are starting to bear some fruit, so I am cautiously optimistic. That said, we cannot take our foot off the gas. We have to continue.
[Translation]
We have many recruitment initiatives to speed up the process, i.e., common medical standards for enlistment.
[English]
As the minister announced, we are looking at the probationary period.
There are many pilot projects under way. One I’ll talk about is the Canadian Armed Forces aptitude test. We have noticed that many of our prospective applicants are, for lack of a better term, averse to taking the aptitude test. We have removed that test for a good number of occupations. We have waived it, and it will occur later in the process. That test is ongoing.
[Translation]
You mentioned about the number of immigrants in our country; you’re right about that too.
[English]
This country has a population where 23% are foreign-born. The challenge we’re facing is on security clearances. This is not a military problem; this is a Government of Canada problem. We are leading the way in fixing it. Everyone who has a foreign affiliation requires that next level of security scrutiny.
Very recently, we have signed an MOU with IRCC to allow for the sharing of data to accelerate that security clearance process. Last week, we signed a contract for a new security software program to accelerate the processing of those security clearances because, quite frankly, the security software program we had was falling apart.
There is not one single silver bullet, but all of those measures together will continue to grow the Canadian Armed Forces.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Kim.
The Hill Times reported that your department spent $1.2 billion last year on consultants of all kinds. We also learned from the research that 60% of the department’s employees don’t actually work for the government; they’re employed by contractors. That is enormous when you consider the size of the federal public service. It’s also worrying when you consider the security issues involved. Do you find this normal? How can this be justified? When they work for contractors, is it because these people are better paid than your public servants?
Natasha Kim, Associate Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you for the question, Senator. It’s a complex issue. While it’s true that DND spends a lot on procurement contracts, that’s because there are so many projects: capital projects, procurement, the purchase of platforms, aircraft and so on. If we look at our spending, we’re talking about almost $5 billion a year, but half of that represents services, for example in engineering, which are very specific, very specialized services related to the procurement of very important equipment for platforms or other such things.
It’s not necessarily as straightforward as saying that people who work for contractors will replace employees. For example, with military and civilian employees, we spend billions of dollars on salaries. It’s really a balance. Is it always perfect? I don’t think so. It’s really something we look at within the department to make sure we have good skills and capabilities with the public service.
[English]
Senator Patterson: I’m actually going to redirect a bit and talk about equipment. I thought Mr. Crosby was going to be here, but I think General Eyre might have to take this one.
We’ve talked a lot about in DPU looking at sensing capabilities, in particular. I see the line item for maritime sensors. I was just recently in the U.S. with the NATO Parliamentary Assembly. I’m on a subcommittee for NATO defence capability transformation. We went to a facility where the United States Navy is building the SPY-6 radars. There were many other NATO affiliates with us there who are also investing in that. It was an impressive operation, as it probably should be considering the weight of what it’s doing, but it’s also quite interesting to see, both from an enterprise perspective and from a defence interoperability perspective. I questioned where Canada is on this. I was the only Canadian on the group, so I had to ask myself that question.
I was surprised, coming back and doing a bit more digging, that CSE is developing its own integrated radar system. One thing that is very important in procurement is not just having the platforms, but it’s also to do with timeliness and expense in order to do that. While it’s great to have value for taxpayers, it’s also really important that members of the Canadian Armed Forces are as safe and as integrated and as interoperable as possible.
My question is this: What advantage does Canada gain by developing and building a radar that most of our key allies will not operate, and does it put us on a divergent path from one of our key allies on the naval side, which is the United States Navy and the Aegis Combat System?
The second part of my question is this: Is that going to represent a serious increase in expense or delay in timeline in actually delivering on a key Arctic requirement for sensing in the maritime environment?
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, perhaps we could have Mr. Crosby come up. While he’s coming to the table, I can give you a generic statement.
As is reflected in our Defence Policy Update of today — and I will say that this is extremely positive news for the Canadian Armed Forces. We can get into more detail, but this is being seen very positively. The Defence Policy Update talks about the changing character of war, and one of the components of the changing character of war is what’s been called the battle of signatures or “Signature Management.”
As we take a look at the precision strike revolution, if you can see it, it can be targeted, and if it can be targeted, it can be killed, so the sensor technology is extremely important as we go forward. As technology rapidly evolves, whether it’s a sensor technology itself or the command and control systems that combine those sensors, we need to continue to be at the cutting edge of that, because that acceleration in technological development means that the adaptation is absolutely necessary. Canadians, Canadian industry and the Canadian Armed Forces being involved in that research and development is extremely important going forward because it’s just going to continue to advance.
Troy Crosby, Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: I can add on.
A group of us have been down to the Lockheed Martin facility in the U.S. where the SPY-7 is actually in development. We’re not the first customer of the SPY-7 radar being developed for a number of countries, including Japan, who recently conducted a successful test of the SPY-7 for their applications at sea. Spain is also acquiring a variant of the SPY-7 technology. We are going through the process with Lockheed Martin Canada, as our partner, in integrating the SPY-7 with Aegis, which was part of the proposed solution in 2019 already. They are very familiar with the technology there.
We’re looking forward to having that delivered in time to equip our land-based test facility and then onwards with the Canadian Surface Combatant. The schedule right now has us beginning low-rate construction on CSC in the middle of this year into full-rate production next year, so all that technology will come together.
Senator Loffreda: Thank you for being here, once again.
We’re discussing technology, and my question is for General Eyre: How are the Canadian Armed Forces adapting to emerging threats such as cyber warfare and hybrid warfare tactics, and are you content with the current efforts and resources deployed to enhance Canada’s cybersecurity defence capabilities?
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, we are in a security environment where constant adaptation, constant change and constant learning are an absolute imperative.
You will have seen in the Defence Policy Update that we are standing up a cyber command within the Canadian Armed Forces. You will have seen significant investment into the Communication Security Establishment for cyber. Cyber has emerged as one of the five war-fighting domains that we need to continue to integrate with the traditional ones — land, maritime, surface and subsurface, air, space and now cyber. When you talk technology, integrating those domains — what we call pan‑domain operations — is going to be increasingly important.
There is no one single, silver bullet technology that’s out there, but history has shown, and the future will continue to show, that it’s the integration of those technologies and continuing to study how they’re being used and what is on the cutting edge of their employment and how we can rapidly take those lessons from wherever they’re being observed and incorporate them into our own force which will be the secret of future victory.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you to all of you for being here today and carrying on with our questions.
I’ll direct this question to General Eyre, and you can decide if you need to ask others. It’s regarding the Royal Canadian Navy, or RCN, new Arctic and offshore patrol ships. I’m sure we’ve all heard about the challenges and the frustrations with that. In February, it was reported in the media that these ships had been plagued with some challenges: problems around anchors, a refuelling system that is too heavy to use, areas in the vessels that are flooding, lead in the drinking water and some issues around performing emergency towing. What is worse is that these ships were, I think, a year or less than a year old — not much older than a year, if that — which impacts warranties and costs for repairs. Do we have an idea yet of how much this has maybe slowed things down, the cost of repairs, and how these defects or challenges have impacted the navy’s operation capacity?
Gen. Eyre: I’m going to say a few words, Mr. Chair, and then turn it over to Mr. Crosby again.
In general terms, with any new big capability like that that is first off the assembly line, of course, there are going to be growing pains. If you take a look at the bathtub curve of mean time to failure over time, right at the front end, as we get those bugs out, that’s going to happen.
I will tell you, and I’ve been on three different ships already, that the sailors that are on these ships are universally happy with them. In fact, just about a month ago, just over a month, I was on the HMCS Margaret Brooke down in Jamaica, and the sailors were raving about their ship, and, boy, that was a cohesive crew, and they were happy to be on it.
Yes, there have been some technical challenges, and I will ask Mr. Crosby to talk to those.
Mr. Crosby: I think Chief of the Defence Staff has done a great job of answering most of the questions there.
I can add that none of the issues that we have seen would have to do with wear on the ships. They’re new design challenges. These are first-of-class, first-of-design ships that are going through their initial period of operations at sea, and we’re discovering things, not unexpectedly. It is, of course, disappointing. We would love to be able to field the ships without seeing any of those kinds of challenges, but we have the crew, and, importantly, we have the industrial capacity and expertise to be able to address these issues. For the ships that have been discovered with defects or problems, those issues have been resolved or are on their way to being resolved, and I think that gives me great confidence in our ability to take on the much more complex delivery of the Canadian Surface Combatant in the coming years.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for that. I think it’s like a car that gets tuned on a whole other scale.
Coming back to and looking at the previous part of this, looking at procurement, there were some really great major announcements made today that we’re kind of working through, but we have, I think, lagged behind other countries in terms of our procurement speed and turnaround. There are many departments involved in the process. I’m wondering if it is time to consider putting it all at the feet of the DND to try to streamline the process. I’ve heard some sort of hinting of it, but particularly in light of the procurement commitments made in today’s policy, we can bring things together, rather than having so many different departments involved.
Ms. Kim: That is an excellent point, senator.
I will note that, as part of the policy, there is the commitment to undertake a procurement review so that we can definitely address those challenges that we have seen. In fact, Public Services and Procurement Canada is already undertaking that. They’ve started, but with this commitment, we really want to see that through.
We know that what’s really important, as the minister said, is not just getting the money but also being able to spend the money and doing that in a predictable way, because the more delays that we see, the less that dollar will buy in the long run. It is absolutely a priority for us, and, as the minister noted, it is a really key building block for that next step as well.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator Oh: Thank you, panel, for being here. I just want to follow up also on a question on equipment.
How many of our 12 frigates can be fully equipped and deployed today? We also have one frigate currently deployed to the South China Sea. Are the frigates fully equipped and capable of defending themselves?
Gen. Eyre: We have no frigates currently deployed in that part of the world. However, the HMCS Montreal will deploy over the coming weeks. Over the course of the coming months, it will be in that region, I believe followed later in the summer by HMCS Ottawa and HMCS Vancouver, but don’t quote me on that. We’ll have three ships operating in the Pacific over the course of this calendar year. As to how many are functional right at this point in time, I don’t have that. But yes, we are deploying three this year, plus one to Europe as well.
Senator Oh: Did you say that we don’t have a ship currently in Asia?
Gen. Eyre: We currently do not have a ship operating in the western Pacific, but we will have in the coming months.
Senator Oh: How many of our CF-18 squadrons have a full complement of pilots and ground personnel, allowing them to deploy today in the potential of combat operations?
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, we have our F-18s in what we call tiered readiness. First priority is for NORAD, and they are ready to go very quickly, within minutes, as required. For NATO, I can’t get into the exact details because it’s classified, but it’s on a system of 10, 30 and 180 days’ notice to move to support NATO.
Now, it’s no secret that we have a challenge with pilots and with ground crew, and we are working hard to get those numbers back up. There’s a lot of buzz, a lot of attraction with the F-35 coming in, so the future of the air force and the fighter community is looking very positive.
Senator Oh: About five years ago, I was honoured to sail on the HMCS Charlottetown from St. John’s to Iqaluit for three nights and four days. Our men and women are doing well.
Gen. Eyre: We are super proud of them.
Senator Boehm: My question is for Caroline Xavier. With the announcements made today, and with the establishment act of the CSE being almost five years old now, how will your organization take these additional investments, given the polycrisis environment that we’re in now where almost all of our institutions, including our very own Senate, are constantly being hit by cyber attacks? Will this allow you to invest in more technology, more full-time equivalents and more personnel? Could you give us your view, or as much as you can tell us?
Caroline Xavier, Chief, Communications Security Establishment: Thank you for the question. I’m grateful to have the opportunity to answer it.
We’re pleased about the announcement that was made today as part of the Our North, Strong and Free: A Renewed Vision for Canada’s Defence announcement. It builds on an announcement made in Budget 2022 where there were already investments made in the Communications Security Establishment, in particular because of the foreign cyber operations that became part of our act in 2019, as you’ve outlined. Since the investment in 2022, we have been working hand in glove with our Canadian Armed Forces colleagues to be able to continue to do what we need to do in practising and ensuring that we have a good understanding of these new authorities that were given to us.
When we see this investment that has been made today in particular for $1 billion of the $8 billion in the next five years toward CSE and the ability to really invest in our foreign cyber operations, I think this will continue to allow us to be able to defend and protect Canada because we haven’t been able to use those foreign cyber operations jointly with our partners, in particular with our Five Eyes alliance, in a way to ensure that we are protecting from cyber crime, from extremists and things that we see as counterterrorism. From that perspective, we already recognize what we’re capable of doing, but doing it jointly with our Canadian Armed Forces will continue to make us stronger. Because we have the authorities already, the Canadian Armed Forces have been jointly working with us. This investment today will allow us to be able to advance that investment and advance the opportunities it provides for us to continue to protect Canada and defend against the many threats that continue to evolve.
Senator Boehm: Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: General Eyre, I want to take a moment to thank you for your service to Canada. You recently announced that you will be retiring. Thank you for your service to Canada, and especially as Chief of the Defence Staff.
My question is with regard to Ukraine, to the extent you can discuss these things. When we have these discussions, I always wonder if the other side is listening, and they are. How bad are things for Ukraine? You talked a bit earlier about how Russia was, in a sense, rearming or rebuilding. Where do things stand now, and where do you see them going in the next several months?
Gen. Eyre: That is a difficult question.
The war in Ukraine, from my perspective, has devolved into a war of attrition. No large war is ever as fast as those who started it wanted it to be. Generally, history has shown us that. History has also shown us that in a war of attrition, success is predicated on three things: the continuing will to win, the ability to mobilize a population and the ability to mobilize your defence industrial base.
If you look at the correlation of power between the two, Putin sees this as existential for his own regime to survive, and you see support in Russia for that. Likewise, you see continued strong will on the part of the Ukrainians to fight and win.
If you look at mobilization of population, the population difference is about 10 to 1, Russia to Ukraine. Russia is not having any problems in mobilizing its population. It has a much lower regard for life than Ukraine. In fact, you see that in some of the tactics they’ve been using. Ukrainians have been calling their mass waves meat storms, and they’ve been suffering tremendous casualties. Quantity has a quality all of its own in these cases. That’s why we’re seeing a discussion of mobilization within Ukraine as well and the mobilization bill that’s going forward to bring more into Ukrainian armed forces. The population disparity size is of concern.
Then there is mobilizing the defence industrial base. We’re seeing Russia reconstitute much faster than anticipated and producing more ammunition domestically and more arms than initially anticipated, with additional support from North Korea in the form of millions of rounds of artillery, short-range ballistic missiles, with Iran providing ammunition and drones, and dual-use technologies being provided by China and lots of financial support. For Ukraine, on the other hand, their support is predicated on what we, the West, freedom-loving countries are providing. That’s why that support is so important at this point.
The stakes here are pretty high. The norms of territorial sovereignty that have been in place since the end of the Second World War are being grossly violated here. If we look at our own defence policy and the need to protect our own territorial sovereignty into the decades ahead in our very sparsely populated North, there can be a correlation. What happens in Ukraine will be consequential for the future. That’s why it’s so important.
Senator Cardozo: What does the delay in Washington mean to this whole campaign from NATO’s perspective?
Gen. Eyre: Well, you are seeing a disparity in the amount of arms and equipment between the two sides. The weight of artillery that Russia is able to bring down on the Ukrainians far outweighs what Ukraine is able to provide. Despite the drones and the missiles, the vast majority of the battlefield casualties are being caused by artillery. It’s the same as warfare in the 20th century where 70% of battlefield kills, injuries and wounds were caused by artillery. It’s the same thing now. That is a key shortfall.
Likewise, there are shortfalls in air defence. We are seeing Ukrainian air defence systems being overwhelmed by the sheer quantity of drone and missile attacks from Russia. The sense of urgency continues to be extremely important.
Senator Cardozo: Would you see Russia knocking on any —
The Chair: I am sorry to interrupt, but we do have to move on.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I’m going to keep asking questions about investments and that 2% target. I keep crunching the numbers, but since this afternoon’s announcement of the 2% target, I simply don’t see how a $71 billion budget over 20 years can get us to 1.76% of current GDP. The Parliamentary Budget Officer told us last year that we were $18 billion a year short of the 2% threshold. That means we’re $18 billion a year short and would need $75 billion over five years to catch up.
Today, we’re told we’ll be short $71 billion over the next 20 years, and it’s assumed that GDP will remain stable for 20 years, which is impossible.
You advise the minister; who manages these figures in your department? Is it the minister? I know numbers are not their strong suit; the minister told us as much, by the way.
Here’s my question, in a nutshell: if we have $71 billion for 20 years, won’t that still be almost status quo, at 1.4% of GDP?
Ms. Kim: Thank you for the question, Senator Carignan. I hope I can enlighten you. There are two figures. First, there’s the estimated spending under the new defence policy that was announced today, which includes figures reflecting the cost of this new policy. We’re talking about $73 billion over the next 20 years. There are other figures and calculation methods for the 2% target. For this, we use all defence-related spending by the Government of Canada. It’s not just our department or the Canadian Armed Forces, but other expenditures as well.
So, as the minister said, this projection for 2029–2030 will reach 1.76% of Canada’s GDP in that year. I hope that provides some clarity; it depends on the year and what amount we’re talking about. It’s not exactly the same from one year to the next, according to the new policy outlined here. It changes somewhat from year to year.
Senator Carignan: If I take the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s figure of $18 billion annually, was he working from current Department of National Defence spending based on the same fundamentals as other NATO members?
Ms. Kim: We use the same methodology as NATO to calculate the percentage of GDP. For example, our projections for 2029–2030 are just over $57 billion. This is all defence-related government spending.
Senator Carignan: So you anticipate that spending that is currently… Are we talking about forty billion dollars?
Ms. Kim: Currently, for defence, it’s $33 billion, but that amount is only for the department, not for defence as a whole.
Senator Carignan: That’s right; so, overall, we’re around $40 or $42 billion. Will that number rise to $57 billion within five years?
Ms. Kim: I’d have to check, but for us it will certainly be an increase.
Senator Carignan: Could you provide us with those numbers?
Ms. Kim: Yes, of course, we can send those to you.
Senator Carignan: It’s very confusing. Sometimes it’s about billions of dollars, sometimes it’s about GDP and sometimes it’s about percentages. When it comes to percentages, the basis for calculation isn’t the same. We’re hard on ourselves here, but when we’re in Belgium meeting with our colleagues, we want to defend our country. We want to defend our investments, but we run out of arguments; I swear, it’s embarrassing.
Ms. Kim: Yes, it can be difficult when you try to compare different countries that have varied approaches to managing budgets and funding. The minister said something to that effect; we have a very rigorous approach in Canada.
Senator Carignan: Very well.
I have a question on another subject. Last time, if I remember correctly, we had Major-General Smith here. I hope I’m using the right title; I don’t want to dismiss or demote anyone.
I asked him a question, then told him I hoped it was quicker to buy equipment to supply Ukraine than to buy equipment with our own procurement system—because otherwise, poor them, they’d never get it. He responded that it’s different; there’s a different system when we buy material to send to Ukraine, for example, than when we buy material for our own services internally.
Can you explain the nature of this different procurement service? No matter how many questions I ask and how much I dig around, I can’t see the legal or political basis for this different system.
Ms. Kim: I’ll turn this over to Troy in a moment, but for donations to Ukraine, we often use the Canadian Commercial Corporation, which supports the process and has a specific procurement mandate for international aid.
[English]
Mr. Crosby: We respond to specific requests for capability that the Ukrainians have identified, and then the Canadian Commercial Corporation, or CCC, responds and actually puts in place the contract on behalf of Ukraine with Canadian industry rather than our normal approach, which would have us run a competitive selection process along with our colleagues typically at Public Services and Procurement Canada. In this case, National Defence will provide technical assistance or advice to the CCC on behalf of the Ukrainians, and we’re able to move forward that way.
Senator Yussuff: Again, I thank all of you for being here.
I will maybe start with a follow-up to the question my colleague asked earlier. Thank you again for positive reporting on recruitment. At least we’re making progress. As you know, one of the things that has been an impediment to recruitment has been how we have dealt with the harassment issue in the military. What can you tell us about where we’re at in the level of complaints that we’re receiving? Is it up or down? Is it stagnant? Has the culture changed to a degree where we have some confidence that what we’re doing is making a difference with regard to how people are being treated internally, especially given the fact that half the population are women in this country, and if we want to grow the CAF, we will have to recruit more women, but we have to make sure they’re coming to a place where they feel welcome and the culture is safe for them to operate.
Gen. Eyre: Mr. Chair, you would be hard pressed to find another organization in this country that is putting more effort into understanding and evolving its own internal culture. Three years ago, when I was confronted as the Acting Chief of the Defence Staff and we were confronted as an institution, we stood up an organization within the Canadian Armed Forces and the department to bring together the stove pipes and the various pockets that were focused on the issue to achieve the synergies necessary to get it working.
We have very recently published our culture evolution strategy after studying the problem fairly significantly and doing consultations with thousands to better define the problem and to harness the grassroots initiatives that were coming in. At the same time, we have also recently published a comprehensive implementation plan to deal with the multitude of external recommendations that have come in over the past number of years to improve our institution.
With all of these various initiatives, like any organization, it is too soon to declare success, so I won’t do that. I will say, however, that indicators are positive, whether it’s from survey results that we’re getting or anecdotally from talking to individuals at the grassroots level who proactively bring up the positive changes they are making.
You are absolutely right that we have to be an organization that can attract and retain talent from all segments of Canadian society. That means we are changing the way that we lead, changing the way that we build teams and changing the way that we understand subordinates so we know the various backgrounds that individuals come from in order to cater to strengths, developmental needs and the like.
This country has probably gone through more societal change in the last 10 years than the last 50 combined, and that’s reflected in your military as well. This is something, again, where we will not take our foot off the gas because, as our society continues to rapidly evolve, we need to evolve as well.
Senator Yussuff: One of the announcements today with regard to new money is to deal with health records being better integrated. As you know, provinces have been on this kick for quite some time. In the context of families and individuals joining the military, how are the two systems likely to operate to ensure the military can have access when they need to in the public system, recognizing they’ve got more equipment, more doctors and more hospitals available? With the amount of money that’s been allocated, obviously it can go a long way in that regard. How will the system be working going forward once you’re able to put it in place?
Gen. Eyre: My understanding in talking to our Surgeon General is that this is going to greatly increase our efficiency, not only in information data sharing within the bounds of privacy — personal information rules with provinces — but also with Veterans Affairs Canada to help with the seamless transition from serving member to veteran.
From my perspective, almost more importantly, it’s going to increase the capacity of our clinicians. They will not be spending so much time behind a computer doing data input and trying to connect A to B in different programs. Instead of spending time in front of a computer, they’ll be spending time in front of a patient. That’s going to increase our ability to provide tangible health care to our members. There are numerous benefits with bringing this system in.
Senator Yussuff: I also want to wish you well in your retirement. I know how important this is, with a lot of years of service to the country. Thank you so much for all you’ve done, but also, happy, healthy retirement, my friend.
Gen. Eyre: Thank you. Not done yet.
Senator Dasko: Thank you again for being here today.
I want to keep pursuing the Ukraine topic for a moment. I have to say, from your comments earlier and from the minister’s comments, looking ahead, it’s really hard to be optimistic. It’s just a really difficult situation. On the good side, NATO countries seem to be stepping forward, and that’s a positive sign, but then, of course, the Americans, who are so important in terms of their contribution, have not been coming forward.
From time to time, I read articles that say that our own contribution is not necessarily lacking but that we are slow to fulfill the promises that we’ve made to Ukraine. I’d like to get your comments on that in terms of our commitments and how we have fulfilled them to the extent to which we have fulfilled our commitments to Ukraine. In terms of the military equipment that’s been delivered to the Ukrainian military, what have we delivered? What are the Ukrainians still waiting for?
Ms. Kim: I’m happy to start with that question, senator, and my colleagues may want to add.
Perhaps just to give you an overall view, we are now committed to over $4 billion in military assistance to Ukraine since the invasion broke out. Not all of that is money that was committed last fiscal year or the year before. Some of that goes out, in particular, related to our security assurances agreement.
Senator Dasko: Can you say that last part again, please?
Ms. Kim: Yes, in our security assurances agreement that we concluded with Ukraine, part of that was a guarantee of longer-term funding and more reliable funding in order to provide assistance to them. A big chunk of that $4 billion — I’d say about half — goes into later years, starting this fiscal year. We are very committed to seeing that delivered.
When you look at the first half, we have delivered huge amounts of aid to Ukraine, whether that’s through the CAF stocks or other items. Obviously, the promised NASAMS system has been delayed in terms of the U.S. production line, so we are working closely with the U.S. to see that happen. That is almost $500 million, so that’s a big chunk obviously. We are looking to have the drones that were announced earlier this year delivered this spring. With night vision, which was announced, we are looking to have that this spring as well. Multi-role boats, which were also announced, should be there by this summer.
Senator Dasko: Those are the 800 drones that went to the minister’s announcement in January?
Ms. Kim: Starting this spring is what we’re aiming for.
Senator Dasko: Yes. So they are being delivered when?
Ms. Kim: We are looking at an estimate of about May or June.
Senator Dasko: Of this year?
Ms. Kim: Yes. So we’re definitely working every day to try to advance those programs. Sometimes we’re talking about a delay of months as opposed to years, which is, as per our previous conversation, sometimes what we see in some things.
Senator Dasko: So it’s kind of mixed. Obviously, they’re still waiting for quite a few things from Canada?
Ms. Kim: I’d say we’ve delivered most of what we have promised. Some of this has longer lead times, like when we’re talking about building new LAVs, armoured vehicles.
The Chair: Colleagues, time is running out quickly. I’m going to ask the next three senators to each pose one question. We’ll get those three questions on the table, and then we’ll ask our guests to sort out who answers what.
[Translation]
Senator Dagenais: My question is for Ms. Kim. Ms. Kim, it seems that, for the past week, money is no longer an issue for the government. On the other hand, if I remember correctly, last September, spending was a serious problem, to the point where the President of the Treasury Board asked you to slash $1 billion from your department’s spending.
In fact, if memory serves, General Eyre then said, “It’s impossible to cut nearly a billion dollars from the defence budget without some impact.” Eight months later, I’d like to know where you made cuts; was the request followed up? Which services were affected? Will today’s announcement end your obligation to cut spending?
[English]
Senator Patterson: General Eyre, I’m going to go back to your comments about what is going on in Ukraine and trying to predict our future because we have common adversaries out there. Going back to health care capability, whether we’re talking in the Arctic, and that’s beyond forest fires but into true future threats, as well as supporting Canadian Forces overseas with their own unique health care capabilities, how do you see that evolving? Where will we find that in the future in terms of investment? I find it often gets buried or missing. Thank you.
Senator Cardozo: Ms. Kim, my question is regarding the $4 billion that we have provided to Ukraine so far. I understand that that doesn’t get counted towards that 2% target. Is that right? What percentage would that be if it was counted? I think just in terms of how we talk about it, we can say we’re doing 1.38% plus another point whatever on defence, even if it’s not somebody else’s criteria.
The Chair: Perhaps we can ask General Eyre to start, and that gives Ms. Kim a little bit more time to deal with her two answers.
Gen. Eyre: Firstly, for the cuts that we saw last fall versus what we’ve got today, I asked the same question a couple of days ago, and our finance ADM is still reconciling the two. Perhaps our associate DM has got more on that.
On health care and how that changes, we are back to what we saw in the Cold War with having more forward treatment and stabilization of casualties. We can’t do what we did in Afghanistan, where we went right from the point of injury, helicopter evacuation, to a Role 3 medical facility. It’s forward stabilization and forward treatment. What that means is more forward surgical teams, more ambulance relay points and the like.
I will tell you that our Canadian Forces Health Services have been studying what’s happening in Ukraine. They’ve been in touch with Ukrainian military medical authorities. In fact, I had a meeting with the Ukrainian surgeon general, when she was visiting here in Canada, to study what is happening on the battlefield and what changes we need to make to be better able to treat our casualties on the battlefield. Advances in technology are definitely going to help.
Senator, you talked about the North. Telemedicine is incredibly important, where it can be done remotely. I have personally seen telemedicine in action up in Resolute Bay, and it works. It’s one way of empowering our clinicians to do more with the reach-back capability that they get through technology.
Ms. Kim: I will start with the last question first.
I believe we sent a letter to the committee to clarify this point, because I think it was a point of confusion last time. Absolutely, our military assistance to Ukraine is included. Yes, we would include that in our calculations.
[Translation]
For our estimates around the 2% threshold, we’ve already made budget cuts that were announced last year. Those are two different things. We’ve already made cuts, because the exercise isn’t just about tax cuts; it’s also about identifying more efficient processes and measures in the department.
We’ll continue to do this in order to reduce unnecessary travel and costs. With the new investments, there may be things related to new projects that will require more travel. We may have to modify our spending, but we’ll continue to find savings.
[English]
The Chair: Thank you very much.
Colleagues, this brings us to the end of our meeting this evening.
To our esteemed guests, I sincerely thank General Eyre, Mr. Crosby, Ms. Kim, Mr. Hammerschmidt and Ms. Xavier. We appreciate the time and, indeed, the extra time that you have spent with us this evening answering all of our questions and for prompting an engaging discussion.
In a broader context, I want to say to you on behalf of the committee and the Senate of Canada that we appreciate the hard work that you do every day and, in many cases, nights and weekends to keep us safe and to keep Canadians safe. You’re doing that in the context of what seems to be growing global volatility. The world seems to be becoming more dangerous, from meeting to meeting sometimes, and we know that a lot of this lands at your feet, in your hands, on your desk, and that happens not just during the day but in evenings and on weekends. We thank you very much for that on behalf of Canadians.
Colleagues, our next meeting takes place on Monday, April 15, at 4 p.m. Eastern. With that, I wish everyone a good evening. Thank you.
(The committee adjourned.)