THE STANDING SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL SECURITY, DEFENCE AND VETERANS AFFAIRS
EVIDENCE
OTTAWA, Monday, April 27, 2026
The Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs met with videoconference this day at 4 p.m. [ET] to examine and report on such issues as may arise from time to time relating to national security and defence generally, including veterans’ affairs; and, in camera, to consider Bill C-8, An Act respecting cyber security, amending the Telecommunications Act and making consequential amendments to other Acts.
Senator Hassan Yussuff (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Good afternoon and welcome. I call to order the meeting of the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs.
I am Hassan Yussuff, a senator from Ontario and the chair of the committee. I am joined today by my fellow committee members, whom I welcome to introduce themselves.
Senator Al Zaibak: Mohammad Al Zaibak, Ontario.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: I am Claude Carignan from Quebec.
[English]
Senator White: Judy White, Newfoundland and Labrador.
Senator Patterson: Rebecca Patterson, Ontario.
Senator Cardozo: Andrew Cardozo, Ontario.
Senator Hay: Katherine Hay, Ontario.
Senator M. Deacon: Marty Deacon, Ontario. Welcome.
Senator Duncan: Pat Duncan, from the Yukon.
Senator McNair: Welcome. John McNair, from New Brunswick.
Senator Dasko: Welcome, minister. Donna Dasko, from Ontario.
Senator Ince: Welcome, all. Tony Ince, from Nova Scotia.
The Chair: Today, we have the pleasure of welcoming the Honourable David McGuinty, Minister of National Defence. He is joining us to provide a briefing on the current issues related to the mandate of the Department of National Defence.
The minister is accompanied by officials. I will take my time to introduce each one of them: Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, welcome; Lieutenant-General Stephen R. Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, welcome, sir; Kevin Brosseau, Commissioner of the Canadian Coast Guard, welcome; Jonathan Moor, Chief Financial Officer, welcome; Heather Sheehy, Assistant Deputy Minister; Scott Millar, Assistant Deputy Minister (Policy); Alia Tayyeb, Deputy Chief Commissioner of Security Establishment; and Julie Chassé, Chief Financial Officer, Communications Security Establishment.
Thank you all for joining us today.
Mr. McGuinty, welcome. Thank you for being here. We will begin by inviting you to provide opening remarks, to be followed by questions from our committee members. You may begin when you are ready, sir. You have five minutes for your opening remarks, and then we’ll turn it over to our colleagues.
Hon. David McGuinty, P.C., M.P., Minister of National Defence: Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.
[Translation]
Thank you for inviting me to discuss the Department of National Defence’s mandate and priorities.
[English]
As we all know, we are operating in an increasingly volatile global threat environment.
Beyond the conflict in the Middle East and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, the international relationships that have underpinned global stability for decades are being tested and rapidly reshaped.
There is more state-sponsored conflict today than at any point since the Second World War, with major powers seeking to expand their influence beyond their borders.
China, for example, is positioning itself at the centre of an increasingly multipolar world.
Taken together, these developments are placing unprecedented strain on the systems and norms that have long guided Canada’s defence and security priorities.
In response, Canada is accelerating the renewal of its defence capabilities while driving growth across our domestic defence industry. Historic investments outlined in Budget 2025 are enabling this work.
Over the next five years, the Government of Canada will invest $81.8 billion to rebuild, rearm and reinvest in the Canadian Armed Forces. Through these investments, we are modernizing our capabilities, sustaining our operations and supporting our people.
This also places Canada on a credible path toward meeting NATO’s 5% Defence Investment Pledge by 2035.
Our priorities include:
Advancing major, multi-year procurements, such as River Class Destroyers and armoured combat support vehicles; increasing the procurement of ammunition and drones; and strengthening our digital infrastructure, with targeted investments in technology, space, artificial intelligence and quantum capabilities.
We are ensuring our members have the tools they need when and where they need them.
Our Defence Industrial Strategy provides a clear roadmap to deliver these capabilities while creating jobs and economic opportunities across Canada.
Last month, we announced new support for Canada’s sovereign space capabilities, including funding for Maritime Launch Services to establish a launch facility near Canso, Nova Scotia.
We are also seeing deeper collaboration with Canadian industry, including new contracts under Canada’s Munitions Supply Program.
[Translation]
These investments will strengthen Canada’s strategic autonomy. As our Prime Minister has stated, we will no longer rely on others for our defence. The investments my department is making are a testament to Canada’s commitment to NATO and NORAD and our other partners. They directly support Arctic defence, one of the top priorities set out in Canada’s defence policy, “Our North, Strong and Free.”
[English]
Asserting sovereignty and securing the Arctic is essential to the defence of Canada, North America and NATO’s northwestern flank.
National Defence is strengthening its presence and capabilities in the region by: establishing both the new Polar and the Arctic Over-the-Horizon Radar systems; building Northern Operational Support Hubs across key locations, along with additional smaller operational nodes; investing in early warning aircraft, remotely piloted aircraft systems, Arctic patrol vessels, icebreakers and undersea sensors. And, of course, we are advancing the procurement of up to 12 conventionally powered, under-ice capable submarines.
We are working closely with our northern partners, including territorial governments, Indigenous partners, municipalities and local stakeholders as part of a whole-of-society approach.
Through exercises like Operation NANOOK, Canadian Armed Forces members strengthen relationships with northern communities and draw on vital regional knowledge.
[Translation]
Through exercises such as Operation Nanook, Canadian Armed Forces members work with northern communities to build relationships and benefit from regional knowledge.
We’re also working with military personnel from the United States, Belgium, France and Denmark to strengthen Arctic knowledge and defend regional sovereignty.
I would also highlight that Budget 2025 includes funding for the Canadian Coast Guard, which was transferred to the Department of National Defence as a separate civilian special operating agency.
Integrating the Coast Guard to National Defence allows Canada to optimize the use of its ships, helicopters, sensors and operational centres, thereby strengthening maritime domain awareness and allowing for a quicker response to emerging threats.
[English]
Funding from Budget 2025 will also support the Communications Security Establishment, our signals intelligence organization which reports to National Defence, further strengthening Canada’s ability to detect, disrupt and deter malicious cyber activity.
But there is one essential element behind all of this, and that is our people. They bring expertise, resilience and professionalism to every mission. They turn strategy into action every single day.
That is why we are taking concrete steps to strengthen recruitment and retention across the Canadian Armed Forces. We are investing in military housing, child care and increasing salaries for each and every serving member.
We are seeing results. Applications are up; in fact, they are way up year over year. From April 1, 2024, to March 31, 2025, the Canadian Armed Forces enrolled 55% more recruits than the previous year, exceeding our annual target.
We will continue to build on this momentum by further modernizing and streamlining our recruitment processes. This is a defining moment for our defence system, Canada’s defence, a moment that demands urgency and sustained, long-term vision. We have to act quickly, and we are acting very quickly.
Through sustained investment, we are equipping the Canadian Armed Forces with the capabilities they need to meet today’s challenges and those of tomorrow.
At the same time, we are strengthening Canada’s economy by supporting growth across our defence industries.
[Translation]
National Defence is resolutely focused on readiness and strategic investment so the Canadian Armed Forces can continue to protect Canadians and defend Canada’s sovereignty.
[English]
Thank you very much, members of the committee, Mr. Chair.
The Chair: Thank you, minister, for being here, and thank you for your opening statement.
I want to identify two senators who have joined us: Senator Stan Kutcher, from Nova Scotia, and Senator Youance from Quebec.
I would like to note that the minister will be with us until 5 p.m. today.
Mr. McGuinty: Mr. Chair, that is definitely not military timing.
The Chair: But his staff will be here until 6 p.m. We will do our best to allow time for each member to ask a question during this first hour.
The second round of questions with the officials will take place from 5:00 to 6 p.m. With this in mind, four minutes will be allotted for each question, including the answer.
I would like to ask that you keep your questions succinct, as always, in an effort to allow as many questions and interventions as possible.
The first question to our deputy chair.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, Mr. McGuinty and your team, for joining us today, and for your leadership in launching the national Defence Industrial Strategy and the Defence Investment Agency, among other initiatives.
Minister, the government has outlined an ambitious defence vision under the Our North, Strong and Free policy and Canada’s Defence Industrial Strategy.
Could you please provide a clear update on implementation, specifically what measurable progress has been achieved and where do you see the most significant gaps?
Mr. McGuinty: Thank you, senator. I think I would like to start with the Defence Industrial Strategy. So here’s the news: The news is, for the first time in Canadian history, we have a Defence Industrial Strategy; we have never had one.
What we did in order to achieve one was to reach out to 17 allies and like-minded countries, and asked them, what have you done? What has worked and not worked? What have you learned? What conclusions have you derived? How have you improved?
Then we reached out and engaged over 2000 businesses in the country. We brought in the top bankers and venture capitalists in the country, which is not usual for the Department of National Defence. We asked them if we are going to launch a defence industrial strategy to improve our economic activity in the defence sector, what would we need to do? What systemic barriers do we need to overcome? How do we align signals? How do we clearly illustrate, for Canadian companies and Canadian researchers, what our needs are without compromising, for example, the safety and security of the forces?
We also set out 10 core areas for investment, 10 priority areas; not 12, not 3, not 20 — 10. We chose 10 deliberately, based on the experience from other countries who did not have enough. In fact, most countries had too many; they had to winnow it down to their core capabilities, where they had strength. So we had 10 of these sovereign capabilities identified.
Basically, where are we strong? What can we produce? And we set up a three-part process. If we can, when we can, we will build what we need for the Canadian Armed Forces on Canadian soil with Canadian know-how, Canadian steel and buy Canadian provisions. We will build it.
We have about 600 companies now in the defence industrial space; 82,000 full-time employees; 200,000 part-time employees. Then, if we cannot build it, we will partner with like‑minded partners. With, for example, many of the countries with whom we have recently signed agreements, trade and defence alike. Some 20 agreements, if I recall, in the last six to eight months, at a speed which we have never seen in the past.
Countries like Norway, who signed an agreement on space, or Australia, with whom we are cooperating on the Over-the-Horizon Radar system, it is their technology, and we are working with them as partners.
Thirdly, if we cannot partner, we will buy from the suppliers we choose, with the requisite industrial benefits for us with inputs from primary Canadian materials like steel and aluminum. That’s the three-step dance, if I can call it, in the Defence Industrial Strategy in 10 core areas.
So far, senator, the response has been astonishing. The number of Canadian companies who want to work with us, the number of researchers who want to work with us, the top 15 or 25 research universities, all lining up to provide expertise in core areas like quantum and AI, for example.
On top of which, the number of foreign states who want to join us on this journey has been quite revealing. It’s almost as if many countries with whom we have brokered a new bilateral relationship have been indicating, on the defence side, where have you been? We’ve been waiting for you for some time.
“We want to partner with you,” the President of Finland said last week while he was here — and we are. We are partnering with the Danes, the Nordic five and the Arctic seven.
Maybe the last thing to say is that we are opening up new markets in a way that has not been opened up before, senator. We are the only non-European Union country to have been allowed to join the European Union’s procurement regime, called SAFE, which is a 160 billion Euro — phase 1 — opportunity for our companies to go in and partner with companies and bid on procurement opportunities in the European Union. No other country outside the European Union has been allowed to join. We are making progress. The momentum is starting, and we are encouraged.
Senator Al Zaibak: Thank you, minister.
The Chair: Minister, I don’t want to cut you off because I want to hear your answers, but if you see my pen go up.
Mr. McGuinty: Did I tell you I had my eye operated on, senator, so I can see you?
The Chair: I can always use this —
Mr. McGuinty: Two days after the operation, I called my wife over urgently to say, I think there’s something wrong with my eye. She came in rushing and said, “Is everything okay?” I was standing in front of the mirror, and I pointed to the mirror and said, “No, what are all those wrinkles?”
The Chair: We will count them tonight; you can rest assured.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: Welcome to the committee, minister.
I see some people behind you. Many of them have appeared before Senate committees, particularly the National Finance Committee with Mr. Moor. I’d like to acknowledge their exceptional work. We’re really impressed by the quality of their testimony.
Minister, the Prime Minister said he won’t rely on other countries to ensure Canada’s defence. In 2017, the government decided to buy 88 F-35 fighters. I had a little research done. As the Prime Minister said in Davos, looking at middle powers, France has one fighter per 2,400 square kilometres, or 226 fighters, and Italy has 187 fighters, or one per 1,600 square kilometres. Japan has 340 fighters, or one fighter per 1,000 square kilometres, and the United Kingdom has 151 fighters, or one per 1,608 square kilometres. With 88 fighters, Canada will have one fighter per 100,000 square kilometres. That leaves a lot of uncovered ground. That number of 88 fighters was set in the 2010s and confirmed in 2017.
My question is quite simple: Are you considering buying more than 88 fighters? Given the geopolitical situation is completely different from what it was in 2010, do you plan to increase the number of F-35 fighters or create a second fleet, particularly a Swedish one, that would allow us to cover more ground?
Mr. McGuinty: Senator, that’s one of the reasons we’re reviewing the F-35 purchase. As you pointed out, there are major geopolitical issues surrounding this file. There’s also the question of economic and industrial benefits. I’m sure you heard last week that company representatives were in Mirabel and that the company is considering increasing its offer for Canada.
Senator Carignan: I live 10 minutes from there, so you can imagine I have.
Mr. McGuinty: There you go. That’s one of the reasons we’re taking the time we need to take a closer look at the offer. We’re talking about a fleet of fighter jets.
Regarding other fighters from other countries, that’s obviously on the table. It’s all part of our review.
I’ve heard over and over again the concerns regarding the number of fighters, not only here but abroad. Italy thinks it may have bought too many, but let’s not forget they’re also building the plane in northern Italy. We’ll keep going forward and see. We’ll be following the advice of our Canadian Armed Forces experts very closely.
Regarding the mix of fighter jets, that’s an ongoing discussion and it’s part of —
Senator Carignan: The number could increase, then?
Mr. McGuinty: We have to start from the beginning. We’re continuing the transition from the F-18 to the F-35. The team behind me is certainly in a better position to tell you where we stand with the 16 fighters we’ve ordered.
Let’s remember the technology is changing; things are changing fast and we’re still looking at the idea of a stand-alone system. The analysis process is ongoing.
Senator Carignan: I’ve seen academic journals reporting on a Japanese article that said Canada would like to become an observer on the new stealth replacement platform known as Tempest, a partnership between Japan, Italy and the United Kingdom.
Is this a serious option? Does Canada really intend to participate in this project?
Mr. McGuinty: It’s something we’re looking at as the next generation of fighter jets, but the final decision hasn’t been made.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: Welcome, minister, and welcome to your officials who serve Canada so well in these turbulent times. I wonder if you can share your vision of the longevity of what we are entering. I have a sense when I meet our counterparts at the NATO Parliamentary Assembly in Europe that they look at this as being a very long-term challenge we face with Russia. I think with relations in North America, there is the sense that there will be a peace deal and we will get back to normal. What is your message to Canadians about whether this is a short-term or long‑term challenge that we face? Of course there is China in the mix well.
Mr. McGuinty: Four years ago, Russia illegally, and in unprovoked fashion, invaded Ukraine. They continue, and they are dedicated to continuing. They are losing a lot of personnel. They have converted a large part of their economy to a war economy. Their president is now ordering Russian oligarchs to transfer money to their central accounts to pay for the war effort. People I work with in the region tell me that until the upper‑middle class of Leningrad and Moscow start feeling financial pain, things will likely not slow down. We have a situation where we have a regime in Russia completely focused on continuing. We have, in Iran, a country that declared to the world for 20 years, it had no missiles that could fly further than 2,000 kilometres, yet they discharged one that flew 5,000 kilometres. We have a whole series of actors now who are obtaining very dangerous weapon systems and technologies. Canada and the Canadian people are right to support us in making these investments to strengthen our abilities, particularly in the Arctic. The threat landscape has changed. The threat actors have changed. They cooperate and mutually reinforce each other, and as a result, we are broadening our relationships and diversifying our military and defence relationships. We are in the Philippines signing a defence agreement, for example, in the Indo-Pacific region.
We’re cooperating more and leading a trade mission, I believe, somewhere in the Indo-Pacific, in the next several months.
So, yes, this is a real problem, and I think this is not going away and will be with us for the foreseeable future.
Senator Cardozo: Do you see this carrying on over the next five or 10 years with Russia wanting to go further into Europe and invade other countries?
Mr. McGuinty: Certainly, the planning that goes on at the NATO level, with the SACEUR and the senior military leadership, wants to be able to anticipate a possible next move by Russia. The Baltic states are living in constant fear. The Finns are living in constant fear and are investing far more than we are as a percentage basis of their GDP for defence purposes. All the indicators are that this is going to continue unless we can find a way to negotiate our way forward and have the Russians back away. But there is no evidence now that that is happening. In fact, they seem to be doubling and tripling down.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you, minister.
Senator McNair: Thank you, minister, and to the officials here. Thank you for being here tonight. We appreciate it. Senator White and I recently met with a Mississauga-based company called Wuxly, which designs and manufactures advanced technical and smart textiles entirely domestically and has built its operations to support rapid reduction, emergency response and cold weather and Arctic applications. It has produced and delivered hundreds of thousands of cold weather uniforms for the Ukrainian military. Another company we heard of at this committee was Roshel, the manufacturer of smart armoured vehicles based in Brampton. In testimony before our committee, Roshel’s CEO said the company proudly supplied more than 2,200 armoured vehicles to Ukraine, more than any other company in the world, and all made here in Canada. While Canada has procured over 500 vehicles from Roshel for Ukraine, we have yet to sell anything to the Canadian Army for our own troops, including in Latvia. Zero sales in Canada. Minister, in both of these cases, we heard that even though 99% of production is based in Canada, they are struggling to get their foot in the door in the procurement process. In September 2025, the Prime Minister announced the Buy Canadian Policy, which you referred to earlier. And earlier this month, the Prime Minister summed it up in Montreal when he said: “When the government spends, we will select Canadian suppliers by default.” Minister, is the Defence Investment Agency pursuing deals with Canadian companies? And if so, why is it so challenging for them to get their foot in the door?
Mr. McGuinty: That is a really big question, but a super-important question. The Defence Investment Agency is up and running. It is pursuing procurement of over $100 million. Below that, our procurements are handled by PSPC. About 60% of all expenditures of defence are under $100 million. They’re for non‑military use. They could be shoelaces, carpeting, and all kinds of things. The purpose of the Defence Industrial Strategy is to, for the first time, introduce the notion that what we need with our forces, what they need, and what they can supply them, have got to be integrated. We have launched a new strategy to buy Canadian-made products. As I say, first we build it, then we partner, then we buy. This just got off the ground two months ago. This is the purpose of the strategy. Like you, senator, I have met with so many Canadian companies that have been selling interesting technologies to the Pentagon or Germany or Spain or Columbia. They have been very frustrated with their ability to actually interface with the Canadian government. That is changing quickly. Now there are a series of portals through which companies can enter. They can work with BDC, where we stood up a $4-billion fund for small- and medium-sized businesses in the defence sector. They could work with EDC, which was specifically regulated to not be able to provide support for exports. That’s been lifted, and now they are financing deals. They could work with Defence Construction Canada, which is the Crown corporation owned by Defence that is building billions of dollars of infrastructure across this country. Billions. Water, wastewater systems, 7,500 homes, child care centres, facilities of all kinds, and the electrification of bases. Everything is on the table.
What we are doing is corralling these opportunities and making them better available to Canadian companies. We’re working our way forward in this system. The deputy is putting a system in place to receive the bids and the offers — what are we good at — and that’s exactly where we’re at. I have met with Roshel. I spent four hours on the floor. I know what you speak with that particular company, and it is something that we are examining.
Senator McNair: Kudos to establishing the Defence Investment Agency, or DIA. I think it is a huge first step.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, minister and officials, for being here. It’s appreciated. My question is a little bit more specific but builds on Senator McNair’s. First, I want to note your enthusiasm for changing our defence strategy. It is refreshing.
Western countries did not realize that the peace dividend was over until the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, and they are still in the drowsy, waking-up stage. We now know that action is needed. For us to be able to actually defend our sovereignty — it is one thing to declare we are sovereign; it is another to defend sovereignty — and to work with our allies internationally, we need to be able to have the equipment needed, and we need to have procurement to be done efficiently and effectively.
We have heard over and over again in this committee, testimony that the procurement system is broken. It does not work. It has been broken for quite a long time, so we are not going to go back to look at why and who was responsible, but it is broken now. More specifically than what you said in your answer to Senator McNair, what things are being done to correct the multitude of deficiencies that we have heard about with procurement, either by the DIA or the current processes under way?
Mr. McGuinty: Right on the button. That’s exactly one of the challenges that we are facing. The first thing we are doing is creating the DIA. We have a new agency with a specific mandate to actually professionalize procurement and to make it more efficient and streamlined and to take the requests from the primary client — the primary client is, of course, the Canadian Armed Forces — and that organization now is seized with that not narrow but circumscribed responsibility to go out and acquire.
Let me give you an example of how quickly it’s working. The pay increase is not exactly a procurement issue, but it indicates speed. When we first talked about getting members of the force a pay raise, the reaction from the Treasury Board was that this will probably take us about two years. Our response was that’s probably too long. Then they said, “Well, maybe it will take 18 months,” and we said, “That’s going to be too long as well, so tell you what: You have 100 days.” Then, 101 days later, the entire package was pulled together through the Treasury Board.
When it comes to the submarines, it normally takes three years to down select from five bidders to two. Three years. We said, “That’s going to take too long.” They said, “Maybe we will do it in two years.” We said, “No, that’s too long. You have got no more than five months.” It was done in four months. We use those as demonstration pilot projects to explain to the system that this can be done much more quickly — not recklessly, not foolishly, not without due diligence. The entire system is now beginning to understand the pace with which we have to move.
I will give another example. After touring 13 bases, I realized that the base commanders don’t have nearly enough financial discretion or authorities at the base level to be able to make investments in the base. They have a water system that does not work. It is hard because they have got to run it up 18 floors and down 18 floors at headquarters to get an approval, so we have given them additional financial authorities, which streamlines some of the acquisitions they can make.
We’re moving very quickly on all these fronts. It is encouraging.
Lastly, one of the systemic challenges we have been facing for years is the Treasury Board process, memoranda to cabinet, going through the Treasury Board, going through the Privy Council, going through another department and being asked over and over again to jump over the same hurdles. We’re now looking at that entire system to streamline it and remove systemic barriers and systemic duplication. We’re flying the fighter jet as we build it —
Senator Kutcher: Coming from a public health background, I understand exactly how that happens and the challenges therein. I commend you on those things.
The Chair: Time is up, senator.
Senator Kutcher: Are you sure? We’re just starting to have this conversation.
The Chair: Maybe you can come back another time, and we will give you more time.
Senator White: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here. As someone from Newfoundland and Labrador, I have a great appreciation for the Canadian Coast Guard and how vital it is. But I also have an understanding of how challenged it is as it relates to aging infrastructure and technological gaps. I am wondering if you could speak a bit about the plan going forward, given that there are increased responsibilities regarding security. What is the plan forward to ensure that it will be well equipped to do not only what we need it to do in places like Newfoundland and Labrador but also on the security level as well?
Mr. McGuinty: Let’s start with equipment. Here’s a bit of an update on what we are doing with the fleet of large and small vessels. To date, they have taken delivery of 4 large science vessels and 22 small vessels under the National Shipbuilding Strategy, which is a great success for Canada.
Looking ahead, the first Arctic offshore patrol ship is expected to be launched in April and delivered before the end of 2026. The second ship will be delivered in the fall of 2027. We awarded two contracts last year for two massive polar ice breakers, you will recall, through contracts with Vancouver’s Seaspan Shipyards and Chantier Davie. Those are under way. Delivery of both is expected by the early 2030s, and we are pushing both companies hard. That will allow for year-round Arctic operations and bolster the coast guard’s capacity to provide crucial services in the North, like emergency response and support for Arctic science.
Six more vessels are planned, mid-shore multimission vessels. The Prime Minister announced those just not long ago. On top of the vessels, the Canadian Coast Guard has recently taken delivery of 23 helicopters and 4 interim ice breakers, so this is happening very quickly. We are going gangbusters.
I met with Irving Shipbuilding last Friday. We are constantly in touch with all of those companies and organizations. As you rightly point out, the Canadian Coast Guard will be asked to take on a security and intelligence role, which is to be the eyes and ears for Canadians while they do incredible work with rescue and science and conservation — the important work that they do already.
We’re looking now at new facilities for the coast guard around the country. I think Sydney was given the go-ahead for a major study on converting its port there into something a bit better for the big ice breaker.
There is so much work going on that it is kind of difficult to know where to limit it. I know that, in the second hour, you will have an opportunity to put more detailed questions to the head of the coast guard. Thank you.
Senator White: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, minister and officials, for being here today.
First, I would like to drill down a little bit more following Senator Cardozo’s question, especially with respect to the situation in Ukraine. You did comment about Russian society, and it’s gearing up — they are a completely military society now. I guess that’s what has happened, but what is the situation on the ground in Ukraine? What is your assessment of the situation with respect to Ukraine’s defence, its ability to win the war and the ability of the Russians to win?
I would say, about a month ago, I kept hearing the phrase that went something like this: Russia can’t win, but Ukraine can’t win without help. I don’t know whether that makes any sense or whether that describes the situation today. Ukraine made it through a very difficult winter, but I would like to understand your assessment of the situation.
Going forward, what do you expect to find and what should be done by Ukraine’s allies? Of course, Canada is one of Canada’s greatest supporters in the world. It receives very strong support from Canada, and I’m grateful for that. So that’s my question: What is your assessment of the current situation and the prospects?
Mr. McGuinty: I will try to winnow it down to core information. Number one, we are the highest per capita doner and supporter of Ukraine since 2014. Canada is, and we continue to be so.
It is unbelievable to watch and see — as our good senator from Nova Scotia knows having just returned from Ukraine — the passion, dedication and commitment of Ukrainians to withstand this attack. It is unbelievable. Having been briefed about what is happening on the front lines, I can only say that it is war. It is terrible. People are dying by the thousands every month. It is brutal. The Russians are conscripting young people from villages by paying their families money and sending their kids to the front lines.
There are open-source reports now about kids getting to the front lines and their families then bribing the commanding officers on the front line so they do not have to go to the front line, and they can work in the kitchens instead. It is very, very bad. In Canada, with NATO, we remain completely committed to this Ukrainian war. We have provided $8.5 billion in military assistance, and we are committing another $2 billion this fiscal year. We’re donating more armoured vehicles. We are working with them to get a sense of what they require. We have been helping address their front-line medical needs. The list is long.
The situation is difficult. As I said, the Russians seem to have converted their economy into a war economy. I recently heard and also saw in open-source reporting that a number of their banks may be facing bankruptcy. We continue to work with our allies, for example, with some of the so-called pearl packages, packages of matériel coming from the United States, where we purchase a whole package for US$500 million, but more often, we partner with other countries. The Ukrainians remain extremely dedicated.
Lastly, the technology that they have given rise to, through autonomous systems and drones, is simply breathtaking. They are leading the world in a lot of this technology and partnering with many countries, including Canada. This is still a full‑fledged war, and we work with our NATO allies through the Ukraine Defense Contact Group — some 40 or 45 countries — pooling our resources and continuing to support them.
The Chair: Thank you, minister.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you, everybody, for being here. Over the last two months, I have had the opportunity to see Operation NANOOK live and unplugged in deep snow and cold. In Whitehorse, I also had the chance to tour Cadets, Canadian Rangers and RCMP facilities. The only reason I say that today is because they are candidly hopeful that something in the south — that would be us in Ottawa — will be done to help with procurement, help with facilities and help heat buildings they live in. I wanted to bring up that notion of hope.
I have a question, but before that, I want to come back to autonomous systems and what my colleague started with. Minister, you talked about submarines in a couple of examples, and then you referred to “autonomous” just now. The change of the look and feel of war in Ukraine and Iran is teaching us a lot. We have heard from a number of drone-related folks, and so in the same way you responded to submarines in the other areas, how are we helping them also as one of these suppliers that are doing very well, selling around the world?
Mr. McGuinty: On the drone side?
Senator M. Deacon: Yes, drones.
Mr. McGuinty: Three weeks ago, we announced a $900‑million drone and anti-drone research centre at the National Research Council Canada right here in Ottawa at the Uplands Canadian Forces Base, or CFB. We are getting into the drone business in a very aggressive way. We will be working with partners that are companies leading the way in Canada.
Senator, one of the challenges in terms of equipping the Canadian Armed Forces responsibly — trying to know what the puck is going to be — is that the pace of technology is so breathtaking. It is difficult, to be frank, but we have to make hard decisions and move forward with getting the equipment that we need. We are reaching out and looking at new artificial intelligence agreements and new quantum research agreements. The Communications Security Establishment Canada is doing breathtaking work with their counterparts all over the world, which remains classified.
I think I am answering your question. You want to know how well we are doing with exports.
Senator M. Deacon: Procurement, communication and ensuring that we are getting our Canadian builders and suppliers.
Mr. McGuinty: Here’s an example. We’re bringing all the defence attaches into Ottawa in May for the big CANSEC meeting, and I look forward to spending half a day with them. They are now being charged with additional responsibilities, and part of their responsibilities now is to help us move Canadian matériel into different markets. I’m very shameless. I don’t ask for forgiveness for it, but I will sit across the table from the Minister of Defence and say, I understand this Canadian company is waiting for an answer on the following $400-million contract. How are we doing? What can we do about this? I do this regularly with different Canadian suppliers. We are all going to be doing more of this, and it is starting to take hold.
Senator M. Deacon: You said the word “quantum,” which was music to my ears. Canada is a world leader in quantum computing, but it will prove crucial in defence as we move forward. You just mentioned it. I know CANSEC will be exciting. What step is the government taking to invest in this defensive capability, both on the battlefield and at home, as it relates to quantum tech?
Mr. McGuinty: It is one of our ten sovereign capabilities listed under the Defence Industrial Strategies. It is one of our ten priority areas because we happen to be really good at this, and we’re going to get better. I met just recently with Waterloo and their team that runs the entire quantum ecosystem in southwestern Ontario. We have met with the top 15 research universities. We have a new table that is being created between those research universities and the Defence Industrial Strategy team to ensure that we are in concert with each other. We are creating six to eight new classified research hubs where we can come together, bring in experts from the public and private sectors, bring in Canadian money, foreign direct investment money and sovereign wealth money to conduct the research we need, behind closed doors, in order to address the classified needs of the Canadian Armed Forces by developing new tech, engineering and new products. This is happening. We have already launched the first “dish” — as it is called — in Halifax for maritime purposes. We are rapidly accelerating these investments. We are convinced this will lead to new tech, new outcomes, new products and new exports.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you very much.
Senator Hay: Thank you all for being here. I will throw a couple of quotes your way. Minister, recently you said that, “During the toughest of times, strength rises to the surface.” As Canada works to rebuild, rearm and reinvest holistically, can you expand on what strength looks like in practical terms today?
If I may follow up with a second question, I’m now quoting the great philosopher Betty, who said that, “Whatever happens in a marriage, keep talking.” Wherever we are in that continuum with the U.S., how is that going? What do they think of the Defence Industrial Strategy?
Mr. McGuinty: Okay. You had to bring my mother into this, didn’t you?
Senator Hay: I did. Right on the table.
Mr. McGuinty: Saintly Mother Betty. We have everything going for us. I meet with foreign countries and foreign ministers; they look at me, they shake their heads and say, oh, my, you are so blessed, so fortunate. Look at your society. You are not perfect, but look at how well you are making it happen for each other. Look at your resource base. Look at your critical minerals, steel, aluminum, water, space and education. We are one of the most highly educated populations in the world. Look at the cluster of engineers. You might not know this, but it’s true: The National Capital Region has the highest concentration of engineers in all of North America. We have here more than San Francisco, Boston and Texas.
We have all the capabilities, senator; we have all the smarts; we have the top research universities; and, by the way, we have $1.6-billion in the budget for talent acquisition. We are now going abroad looking for teams of researchers in their labs and saying how would like to joins us in Canada? “We will accelerate your PR, your security clearances, and we will set you up in a lab.” We’re doing that now.
We have all that talent.
With respect to the United States, I am also going to quote one of my mother, Betty’s maxims. She used to tell all of her 10 children: “You need to remember that you cannot be angry and smart at the same time; just be smart.” With the United States, I have tried to govern myself, and I think we have all tried to govern ourselves to keep it disciplined and manage our way through our relationship, which is very strong — changing, but it is very strong — on defence, intelligence and security. We are still working together under NORAD, which is the only binational command in the world. We have continental responsibilities. We have integrated air and missile defence systems we are looking at, which is why we have an Over‑the‑Horizon Radar system.
I think we just have to be disciplined, we have to manage it well, and we have to continue to have a dialogue and stay smart about the whole thing.
That’s certainly what we’re trying to do. This team here, beside and behind me, who are extraordinary women and men in the system, both DND and the Canadian Armed Forces, knows this. They are constantly dispatched to work with our counterparts in D.C. and elsewhere, and they are watching. They know we are still very close. It is not that we stopped dancing, senator; it is just that we might have moved from a tango to a waltz.
Senator Hay: From the outside looking in, it does not feel like sunshine and tulips, but I understand you are at a different dialogue level.
What are they saying to you about the Defence Industrial Strategy — buy Canadian — because that is sometimes a flashpoint?
The Chair: Very briefly.
Mr. McGuinty: My experience working and talking with the American ambassador and talking with my counterparts in the United States is: Go for it; you can compete. My answer has always been, “Yes, we can. We will compete and we will win.” This is the country of Blackberry, insulin and AI. We have all the depths of talent we need. We need to harness and deploy it, and that’s what the Defence Industrial Strategy is trying to do.
Senator Ince: Thank you, minister, and everyone else with you. I like that last answer. It is very positive, and it makes me very proud.
Minister, you announced last week that the Canadian Armed Forces reached its highest level of recruitment in 30 years. While surpassing recruiting targets for the second consecutive year is encouraging, the CAF also faces ongoing concerns around retention, training bottlenecks and readiness pressures. Can you tell this committee how many of those 7,310 recruits are expected to translate into net force growth after attrition? Also, what measures are being taken to ensure that these enrollment gains result in larger, fully trained deployable forces?
Mr. McGuinty: I will ask our deputy to give you that straight number.
Christiane Fox, Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you very much for the question.
We did have a record for the last 30 years in terms of an increase, and we are really looking at what some of the factors are that lead to retention. Obviously, there are salaries and some of the allowances that permit that.
We looked at the retention rate kind of as a “0 to 1 year” versus beyond the one-year mark. We noticed that, in that 0 to 1 year, we lost about 16% of individuals who had come into the CAF. We are looking at why; what are some of the factors that made them take those decisions? After one year, we have very comparable rates to the industry. As we mapped out our recruitment and retention initiatives, it was with that in mind: salaries, child care, base and housing, wifi on bases — these are all factors that keep our talent within the CAF.
Those are some of the things we are reflecting upon that I wanted to share. Thank you for the question.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
[Translation]
Senator Youance: Thank you, minister.
Canadian Armed Forces assets and personnel deployed in the western hemisphere are participating in ongoing or periodic military operations, namely Operation Caribbe and Operation Projection.
Since 2026, the CAF has deployed ships as well as Royal Canadian Air Force aircraft to support U.S.-led operations. Operation Projection was still ongoing in 2025.
How have Canadian Armed Forces members and assets supported U.S. efforts in the fight against drug trafficking and production sites in the western hemisphere?
I’d particularly like an answer to the second part of my question. How does Canada’s military presence in South America and the Caribbean and its cooperation with like-minded partners in these regions contribute to peace and stability?
Mr. McGuinty: Thank you, senator.
I’ll start by saying Operation Caribbe, for example, is a good example of the ongoing military cooperation between our two countries. There are dozens of examples where we share and cooperate with the U.S. and other countries. Obviously, since we share a continental border, we’re closer to the U.S. I visited the four NORAD sites, two in Canada and two in the U.S. It’s incredible that we can face our continental security challenges together.
Operation Caribbe has been going on for several years. We’re working very closely with the Americans to prevent drug trafficking and seize shipments. We’ve participated recently in arrests in the Caribbean Sea with the U.S. where 1,600 kilograms — or 1.6 tonnes — of cocaine was seized.
Regarding the U.S. strikes on ships from Venezuela, the Canadian Armed Forces had nothing to do with that and are not contributing to those operations, either physically or with intelligence. We’re very clear on that and there’s no issue. We continue our cooperation.
I think Operation Caribbe and others show how important it is to work with other countries and armed forces. That’s what we want to do, and do it more often, in the Arctic with the five Nordic countries, including Norway, Sweden and Finland.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
In terms of the weapons arriving in Haiti, is the Canadian Armed Forces working at that level, since we have forces in the region?
Lieutenant-General Stephen R. Kelsey, Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Operations in Haiti require a capacity and expertise that are completely different from what our Canadian Armed Forces offer. I think that’s why we’ve had five different missions to try and solve the issue. It’s essential to find the right tools and equipment with the local police to deal with the situation. I’m not sure the American forces have the right tools to solve the issue. What’s happening in Haiti is difficult; it’s terrible, but that’s what it is.
Senator Youance: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Two colleagues still have a question. Minister, we hope you don’t mind bearing with us until we will get to the end of the list.
Senator Patterson: I’m going to talk about dual-use technology. This is more for informing Canadians what that means, especially when we talk about development in the Arctic. We have heard a lot about dual use, but we also know from our experiences in the Middle East that dual use creates a legitimate military target. While we don’t necessarily have an adversary who plays by international rules, I think it is going to be quite important to understand how you are navigating that space to determine how you are going to address potential security concerns, whether it is infrastructure concerning ports, runways et cetera, especially in the North.
I think the subquestion that comes with that, can everything be dual use because of that? I forgot to add satellites.
Mr. McGuinty: That is a really important question. We have turned our minds to that question and are trying to figure this out, what constitutes dual or multi-use.
For example, we know if we expand a runway for fighter jets in the Arctic, and it can also be used for larger cargo aircraft that can land now on tarmac because the CEO of Canadian North tells me they are not in a position to upgrade their fleet because only the older planes cannot land on gravel. The new planes cannot. That would be a case where we would say, “That’s a dual-use possibility.”
It is the same for electrification. If we electrify the eastern Arctic, we would be providing electricity for our people and also our forces; any northern, operational support hub, for example. We would be providing electricity for a university in the eastern Arctic. This is not a simple matter. We have to craft carefully, because, as we are moving to invest 5% of our GDP, 1.5% of that is for investments that are not fully defence or not purely defence-related in nature. Hence, we are going to have to be very diligent and disciplined about this.
As you pointed out, this is exactly what the European Union is struggling with right now because they have so many critical infrastructure systems they are trying to describe as dual and multi-use.
We are working our way forward now. We have a committee. What is the name of our committee? And the name of the committee escapes me.
Ms. Fox: Defence, security and sovereignty, I believe.
Mr. McGuinty: We are working with them to come up with a robust, agreed-upon nomenclature of what dual use is and what it is not.
Senator Duncan: Minister, thank you to you and your staff for being here. I truly appreciate your comments about the whole-of-society and whole-of-government approach with respect to your announcement of the Northern Operational Support Hubs, or NOSH, your inclusivity of the North and attention to the North.
My question is about the intersection of NOSH and the development of NOSH with the Canadian Rangers. In the Yukon, we have three members of the Canadian Armed Forces DND staff based at camp Boyle Barracks. We have Rangers in every single Yukon community; fifty in Whitehorse, and there is a wait-list to join the Rangers.
My question from the Rangers is: with the development of the NOSH throughout the North, where do the Rangers fit? We have CAF. We have DND. How do they intersect and get their needs known? The camp Boyle Barracks, there is no place and no facility for these Rangers in Whitehorse. There’s the camp Boyle Barracks, and that’s it. There is no facility for them to conduct their exercises and continue to support the community. How does that intersect with the development of the Northern Operational Support Hubs to say this is what we need?
Mr. McGuinty: The Vice and I were speaking about the Rangers earlier today in terms of what we’re hoping to do and plans for expansion, et cetera. Anything on that front?
LGen. Kelsey: There is one truth the minister said is worth repeating; that people are our mission. If that is true in the North, then the Rangers are at the centre of everything we try to do.
It is different from the High Arctic than it is in the Yukon, as it is from the coast of Canada. There are 5,000 Rangers. We need to redefine how we can take advantage of the Rangers in their communities. We generally grow them based on community need. It is a particular thing in the High Arctic given the needs of the community. But maybe there is an opportunity to explore.
The Northern Operational Support Hubs are very specific for enabling major operations. It is not to say there could not be an opportunity to look geographically at what opportunities there are for Rangers. They generally don’t use facilities in the High Arctic. But they play an important role with the Junior Canadian Rangers and Cadets, which I think exist in your territory. So maybe it’s being open to finding new ways of exploiting the talent we have, and the investment should follow.
Senator Duncan: Thank you so much for that answer. Thank you, again.
The Chair: Minister, we are almost at the end of our time with you. I was trying to read today to comprehend the list of responsibilities you have. I recognize this goes with the job, but it is almost physically impossible for anybody to keep track of the list of things that you are responsible for; housing, pay, equipment, security, capabilities, creating jobs and minding our national security over such a vast country.
I cannot begin to imagine how much responsibility falls on your shoulders. I think you need to know that the country, writ large, is with the government right now with regard to the challenge we face in this great country. We have never lived in a more dangerous time than we are right now. Your job is an enormous one, and we don’t have the luxury of failure.
We are spending a vast amount of money on the things we need to achieve and the equipment we need to secure. I think we need to humanize our relationship with Canadians with regard to what our goals are and what our vision is. If we don’t do that, it will simply be about equipment. And the people who are central to all this need to be reminded every day; it’s about their livelihood, their democracy and the lives they want for their families and kids.
On behalf of our committee, thank you very much for everything you do for Canadians. Thank you for coming here today.
Mr. McGuinty: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and senators. It was a great honour.
The Chair: We are meeting today to discuss issues related to the mandate of National Defence. This past hour, we have heard from the Minister of National Defence, the Honourable David McGuinty, on this topic.
We will continue our questions with officials from the Department of National Defence, the Canadian Armed Forces, the Canadian Coast Guard and the Communications Security Establishment.
Moving forward, I ask that members identify to whom each question is directed to, if possible.
This brings us to our first question.
Senator Carignan, you have the first question.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for Ms. Fox.
Witnesses appearing before the Standing Senate Committee on National Security, Defence and Veterans Affairs during its study of Bill C-12 raised concerns about ocean floor mapping. We’ve recommended the government and department move more quickly with mapping. When I hear about the purchase of submarines, icebreakers and drones, am I to understand that also includes underwater drones, not just aerial ones? Did you receive our recommendation?
Also, what does the department intend to do with this request? We think it’s quite urgent. However, I understand you have a lot on your plate.
Ms. Fox: That’s a very good question. Given the importance of mapping information in the context of these purchases to ensure we get the military capabilities we need, especially for the navy and the Canadian Coast Guard, we’re looking at accelerating the process.
We take that recommendation seriously. We’re looking to make informed decisions. We have other tools to help us ensure the Canadian Armed Forces get the capabilities they need. It’s definitely something the department’s looking at, and I was made aware of that recommendation very recently. I joined the department about two months ago. Bill C-12 was one of the first files discussed during briefings.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
I see Mr. Brosseau’s here, and I can’t help but ask him a question: How is the fight against fentanyl going in Canada?
Are we exporters or importers? How’s that going?
Kevin Brosseau, Commissioner, Canadian Coast Guard: Thank you for the question, senator.
I’ve been here for a few months now. As I said last time, we’re not exporting fentanyl to the U.S., and that’s a fact.
As you know, the fentanyl crisis is severe in Canada. However, there are good reasons to be optimistic. Across the country, we see the work on supply and demand is bearing positive results. The situation is improving in cities and towns, and in every region of the country.
As I said earlier, the strategy is very important. I talk regularly with MPs because we work together within an integrated system. This isn’t just an issue of public health and safety; it’s truly a humanitarian crisis. The work has to be done in cooperation with provincial governments and Indigenous communities.
I apologize for the long answer, but the fight continues, because we still have a lot of work to do. As I said, I look forward to seeing the results in June. I think the statistics will once again show that things are improving in Canada.
Senator Carignan: Thank you.
[English]
Senator Cardozo: I have so many questions, I have to figure out which ones to ask.
Let me develop, taking further from Senator Carignan’s question on drone technology and ask the flipside of it, which is: As drone technology is expanding by our, let’s call them enemies, should we be concerned that very cheaply and rapidly produced drones can take out the most expensive of our equipment? So could a bunch of $100 drones take out a billion‑dollar destroyer while it’s out there, or any other technology? Is that changing fundamentally the nature of warfare?
The other question I have is with regard to youth and creating jobs for Canadians, and especially for youth employment.
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
What I would say first on your question on drones, I think it is essential for Canada to develop both drone and anti-drone technology because we are seeing what is happening in Ukraine and the Middle East.
It is accurate that the drone technology — I think the last conversation I was part of, the Ukrainians were informing us that every sixth week the technology changes or improves. We have to find a way to keep pace with that because sometimes lower dollar value production can lead to major damage. So it is absolutely at the forefront of our planning.
This is why we have to make investments in the development of drone technology to ensure that we have the right military capabilities to respond to threats. I think that is absolutely part of our plan.
I will touch on the dual-use conversation that surfaced with the minister in the first round of questions because it is important for us to look at drone technology in a dual use. Yes, it is about our capabilities and sovereignty.
But drone technology can also help us combat forest fires and look at different types of challenges that the country faces. I think that is where we have to think about military spending and what this can mean for other challenges the country is facing.
Then, to your question about youth employment, we have been thinking through the continuum of the Canadian Armed Forces. So, through junior rangers and cadets, there are important life skills you achieve that serve you well if you join the military, or serve you well in other aspects of your development and future. I think there’s an important effort in the department to look at these programs and try to lead to employment.
I would also say, as part of our recruitment campaign, we have to go where people are to attract them to military careers. I’m new in the department and have looked at some of the tools the department has put out for young Canadians. One is a campaign called “This is For You.” You can go into a simulation, click on the army and see what it feels like to be on an army base or in the navy.
It’s about a connection that we have a responsibility to have with young people to attract into these fields, but regardless, it is also about youth development at large, no matter their path.
Senator Cardozo: I want to focus on youth employment by all the companies you’re buying equipment from —
Ms. Fox: Absolutely.
Senator Cardozo: — not just recruiting into the —
Ms. Fox: I think we don’t have a big defence industrial base in this country. We need to build small- and medium-sized enterprises across the country, and that leads to employment.
We also have to work with colleges and universities about what kind of R&D work is being done to stimulate SME growth and creating that ecosystem. It’s about SMEs and large prime companies, and it is about working very closely with the academic sector.
I think young Canadians, whether you’re working in quantum research or AI, there are opportunities through investment in the military and investment into our defence to find that path; so definitely agree with you.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you all for being here. My apologies that I have to leave early; it is not something you said.
An observation and two questions for Lieutenant-General Kelsey. I just got back from two weeks in Ukraine, and I learned more about drones, both on the operational and receiving end, than I wanted to in my life.
Observation: Military equipment needs to be battle tested to let us know if it’s useful for us or not. Secondly, military strategy also needs to be battle tested to learn.
So the first question: Is CAF currently working in Ukraine to learn from both areas, both in the battle testing of equipment and what kind of strategy we should be thinking about.
Second, Ukraine recently announced the capture of a Russian position using unmanned ground vehicles and drones only, with no personnel involved. What is our military doing on that front?
LGen. Kelsey: I would agree with the observations that things tested in the face of a determined enemy are a value test to understand where an advantage can be found.
We are not just cooperating with the Ukrainians but also our allies, who are there to understand how they’re using new technology. I think the way the Ukrainians have managed to succeed over the last four years has given us much hope.
I would not make the conclusion that while they could defeat a position from the Russians, it’s not the same as holding the ground or being able to effect change, but it’s certainly something that is of great interest to us.
The difference that the Ukrainians have shown us, the difference we have learned in the last decade — Canada has invested a lot, not just in money but also in training our friends and allies — we are now learning from them, and drone technology is a great example.
We need to be aware in order to learn the right lessons from what is going on in Ukraine and not thinking that it’s completely applicable in Latvia, the Baltics or the High Arctic. But it is absolutely true that the character of war has changed, but not necessarily its nature.
Senator Kutcher: Great. Can you be specific about what CAF is actually doing in Ukraine? And can you be specific about what kind of work CAF is doing on unmanned ground vehicles?
LGen. Kelsey: I will not speak to what we are specifically doing in Ukraine, but I will say the lessons we are learning from how they are applying the technology is absolutely what we are applying in our training and exercises.
To be specific, we will pick up through the Ukraine contact group, and the Canadians that are there in Germany are learning directly from them, and we are applying it on the exercises leading to combat readiness evaluation in Latvia.
Senator Kutcher: Thank you.
Senator Ince: My question is also for Lieutenant-General Kelsey. From a military perspective, how are procurement delays affecting operational readiness, particularly in terms of equipment availability and sustainment?
LGen. Kelsey: The tendency of the uniform is to speak in risk, vulnerability and outcomes, and speed and urgency; that is not always the nature of the system.
I heard stern language, which is quite true, about our procurement enterprise, but I would say it was built by those who came before us for a particular reason. It is not helpful to the environment we live in right now. This system of certainty and risk mitigation is transforming. We are excited about the possibilities for the Defence Investment Agency.
In terms of managing the output, when Canadians are overseas doing business, we are hyper-efficient in putting all the resources there, all the people at the highest training level.
The impact is felt here in Canada, where we take risks with ships that are not ready to sail, aircraft that are not available, and army equipment that is awaiting labour such that they can work.
We are very excited about the investment of $9 billion. We’ve tangibly increased the availability of the equipment. It’s not just money and buying parts, or giving predictable funding to part streams; it’s humans. We need people to do the fixing.
When we say people are the mission, it’s not just to get out the door. We need people that follow to grow us, to repair the equipment we have, at the same time as we are trying to do more around the world. It is an interdependent, complex problem, Mr. Chair, and we are excited that we have at least unlocked the first part of it.
Now comes the rapid adoption and opportunity to map the industrial strategy, great Canadian inventions and innovation to our needs to get the advantage and deter our adversaries.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you for being here. This question is open to who can respond to it. Just listening to you, Lieutenant-General Kelsey, I am experiencing a nephew who has applied to the CAF, the RCMP and the Canada Border Services Agency.
And, of course, he calls his aunt every so often because he thinks I know something I don’t. It’s been interesting learning. And I compliment all areas. Every time there is a chance for personal contact or a phone call, it has been an interesting process as we go through this. And they’re long and fulsome, and they take a while, but it’s certainly interesting from that perspective.
I would like to ask a question that comes back to a comment the Prime Minister made. It would have been at the convention out in the public a few weeks ago about the days of 70 cents on the dollar going to the U.S. in military procurement are drawing to a close.
As mentioned earlier, as we look to buy and sell more through allies, how is the government navigating new regulatory frameworks and establishing fresh supply chains?
Ms. Fox: Thank you very much for the question. I think what we have to focus on is we don’t want to be solely reliant on any one partner. This is not just about Canada and the U.S.; this is about what does Canada need to do for our own sovereignty. To do that, a diversity of partners is helpful. It is helpful for not relying on one single source, but also helpful for the context of expanding partnerships and learning. The minister and I recently were up in Norway and had the opportunity to witness the military exercise Cold Response. Spending time with Arctic nations seeing what works in an Arctic environment when it comes to military capability is absolutely essential to help inform the work that we do here.
It is about Canada. It is about the defence of Canada, and as we diversify our partnerships and grow our own industry, we can demonstrate to all of our partners that we take this seriously and that we have those capabilities moving forward. This is what that comment is about: It is about our sovereignty.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you. Some of us carry the Global Affairs hat here on this committee, and I’m trying to match two things up. Defence and diplomacy, of course, are constantly intertwined. Yet, Global Affairs Canada is looking at some pretty significant staffing cuts. My question is this: Does the government not agree that a strong diplomatic presence in these markets is needed to smoothen and mitigate this transition?
Ms. Fox: It is an excellent question because we do need to work in lockstep with Global Affairs. Traditionally, the Trade Commissioner in an embassy and the defence attaché would have had a relationship, but we’re actually asking them to fundamentally work differently and work far more in lockstep. That means that when we have a trade mission led by the Prime Minister or by ministers, they have the right information on the business intelligence of Canadian industries hoping to do work abroad or waiting on contracts.
It will require a different relationship between DND and Global Affairs because it is less about an MOU or a partnership — those things are important — but what the actions are that come out of that. If we have a roadmap with a particular country, what does it mean for us to advance our Defence Industrial Strategy, and what does it mean for business? That means that Global Affairs and their Trade Commissioner Service have to be working in lockstep with us. We have been able to, through defence funding, fund certain of those activities that Global Affairs takes on so that we can work together. That’s the two departments. It is also the BDC in supporting our small businesses and the EDC in providing that export capacity. The minister referred to this meeting of defence attachés: It really is to communicate with them that their business acumen has to grow and be connected with what we’re trying to achieve through the Defence Industrial Strategy.
Senator M. Deacon: Thank you.
Senator McNair: In the last hour, the minister gave a couple of practical examples. One is the pay raise and the pushback from the department saying, two years, 18 months and 100 days. The other one was the narrowing down from five to two submarine proponents. The suggestion initially was three years. They were given five months, and he made the point that you were able to do it in four months.
This leads me to think about the Light Utility Vehicle procurement, which CAF has been running since 2013. Do you think that’s a likely candidate for an accelerated process? Surely, we can do something.
The other one is female combat uniforms, which have been pushed out now to 2027. That is one of the retention issues that has been highlighted. Surely, they can find a procurement agency that will do it more quickly. My question is for Lieutenant‑General Kelsey.
LGen. Kelsey: We are fortunate to have our Assistant Deputy Minister, or ADM, of matériel that could probably answer the question in a better way. Both questions are relevant in that the submarine approach offers hope that there are new ways of delivering capability faster. Submarines are probably one of the most complex undertaking, and all we have done is that we’re aspiring to make a partnership with industry faster. There will be many years before we can deliver that, but we’re excited.
Thinking about projects that are in motion, it is not just whether a light utility vehicle would benefit from this. In fact, our ADM for matériel is actually leading the charge on challenging questions: whether it needs to be a procurement at all and whether it is asset management, which would unlock funding and approaches with Canadian companies faster.
In terms of combat uniforms, we’re in a different position than we were last year: We have the money, we have Canadian companies that can deliver it, and we have the research — the anthropomorphic analysis — to go faster and deliver equipment, including uniforms, for all people that serve. But it is an exciting time. Procurement reform does not throw everything out. It means using the authorities and the expertise we have where it makes sense to go faster. I don’t know if our ADM has anything to offer as well.
Heather Sheehy, Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel), Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces: Thank you, senator. I listened closely to your question in the first half of the session as well. I will give you a couple of additional examples of where we have gone faster. For example, on the Canadian Modular Assault Rifle from Colt Canada, which was an announcement we made recently. You may ask, what do we do to make that go faster? There were some administrative efficiencies that we were trying to put in place. That’s fine.
However, the biggest thing that made a difference was the strong alignment of priorities between the Department of National Defence and Public Services and Procurement Canada, through senior leadership and, indeed, through our political direction to make sure that there was a very strong leadership pull to make this a priority.
There were other things that happened. We did not require a Treasury Board submission because it was then eligible for a new type of process, which is called a risk-based process, which allows for a bit more leniency in terms of having to go through Treasury Board processes. We also had done previous testing of the rifles. We were already at that point, so we were able to move faster.
The Challenger aircraft replacement program, which we also announced around Christmas, we also did that. We attained speed through overtime and priority and were able to use that risk-based approach. We were able through a brute force approach to double down and move forward, and we were able to accelerate.
I have been clear, however, with the deputy that a brute force approach is not going to make a difference on every single file. We have to streamline the way that we do procurements. I am working very closely with the Defence Investment Agency to try to streamline those because if we just try to go faster, we will fail. We have to streamline our processes. I am working with the Vice Chief of the Defence Staff on a “sludge audit” — that is literally what it is called — to map out our processes and figure it out. In the past, we might not have been comfortable leapfrogging certain things, but given the urgency, there are things we can do to move more quickly.
I’m trying to move individual procurements and processes more quickly, and I’m trying to actually work with the DIA to have processes that are slimmer so that, in the end, in a few months from now, we will be able to do both.
Senator McNair: I commend you on the leadership role you are taking.
The Chair: I realize that you have important answers, and I don’t want to cut you off. I’m very lenient that way.
Senator Hay: Thank you for being here. I am going to go down a technology path. When I think of the workforces in the country, in general, and the need to evolve to the new reality of AI technology, it must be the same in the military, if not even that much more important. I’m wondering about the strategies for the AI-skilling of new recruits as well as continuous upskilling. The CAF and DND must be the most technologically forward institutions and organizations in the country. How are you approaching AI in that skilling and upskilling environment?
Ms. Fox: It is an excellent question because it is AI, both in having the talent that we need to work on the capabilities that the country needs, and then it is also AI to help us be better as an institution in how we organize ourselves.
Senator Hay: There is a third in there, data, but we won’t even go there right now.
Ms. Fox: Absolutely, to have data-informed decisions.
As part of our recruitment efforts, we have to look at what some of the critical occupations are that we need today and into the future and ensuring that we have the right strategies to attract and retain that skill set within the military.
I was recently in Petawawa. There is a lot of R&D happening around drone technology on our bases, and that’s something that we have to recruit to keep and develop.
I think we have to be more open to working with academia. We are meeting with the U15 tomorrow to sit down and talk through what they are doing on the R&D side. The capability does not all have to reside within the CAF or DND. We can partner and leverage the talent that occurs outside our organization.
Then I think we really have to spur that innovation. When we talked about the Defence Innovation Secure Hubs, or DISHs, for instance, that’s a place where you can throw out a challenge and then see how industry, academia and the military work together to solve the challenge. But then the missing piece of that is then us purchasing that idea or that developed capability and not letting others come in and take that knowledge.
So it is absolutely part of our strategy in the context of who we’re recruiting, and we have to think about the future of that, especially as we go into some of the Defence Industrial Strategy’s capabilities when you think about sensor technology, an unmanned aircraft system, or UAS, space; these are all things that we need that skill set into the future.
LGen. Kelsey: I will be very brief, chair. We need to recognize that the people we attract think and learn differently and have high expectations for what they can do right now on their phones, that we make them check at the door as they come into the office because of the security potential.
In terms of delivering training, it is absolutely true. We’re still working on older, analogue systems. We have the right talent — already thinking about how to deliver training better.
In terms of how we do business, this is where it gets complicated. The department has been very forward leading on policies associated with autonomous decision-making. That is a very careful space to include the business of kinetic targeting and what happens in extremis in the worst part of a conflict. A lot of thought needs to be invested there.
It also enables decision making. So make decisions about great Canadian companies that have products. Again, we’re thinking about outcomes and priority threats, and so it frustrates industry when they have something, and if we say we have one dollar, we will invest in something else.
AI is helping us see ourselves better and making decisions faster such that we’re pursuing true advantage and not doing what we used to do or old investments, and that’s a change for how we do business.
Senator Hay: I think I’m out of time. Thank you very much.
Senator Ross: Thank you for being here today. Yesterday, there was an interview published by the CBC interviewing Colonel Paul Williams, the base commander at CFB Gagetown — who, incidentally, gave me a base tour last year, and I learned a lot about what is happening right in my backyard. I’m from Fredericton, New Brunswick.
So we have a billion dollars coming with an infrastructure focus. Currently, as you would know, a lot of the infrastructure on the base is from the 1950s and 1960s. We have 2,000 soldiers and their families coming over the next decade. One of the things that Colonel Williams mentioned in this interview was that they have been so short-staffed for so many years that they basically feel that this will just bring them to full staffing, and it won’t actually be a big increase in the complement, with 200 to 300 coming per year.
Tell me what you think will happen in terms of growing pains at bases like CFB Gagetown with this large investment and this fast pace of growth? What can we do to deal with those growing pains?
Ms. Fox: It is an excellent question. First of all, for Gagetown in particular, housing is a pressure. As part of the rollout of military housing, 500 new units will be delivered at Gagetown to accommodate this growing workforce. That’s part of how we will address it.
We have been operating from a bit of a deficit. As we recruit new members in, we have to have a plan for, obviously, the build that is required for these new housing units. Then what kinds of creative solutions can we think about in the interim by buying, perhaps, existing units like we have done in CFB Esquimalt, for instance? It is about more housing to support growth.
It is also about the broader infrastructure on the base so that we can welcome more members. In Budget 2025, we have $19 billion over five years on that broader infrastructure, so that capital spending requires work with base commanders on needs and how we invest. As we recruit new members, we have to factor in the training that is required and base training and beyond that. Then what does that progression look like for a more full-time presence on the bases?
We have investment. Now we really have to think through how do we work with all the actors to deliver to make sure that we’re ready to accept these new members?
Senator Ross: One of the ways that we need to support CAF members is having proper health care for them. I also got to tour a state-of-the-art hospital at CFB Gagetown that was fabulous. It is specifically for CAF members and not for their families.
In New Brunswick, our premier announced in January that we have 238,000 people who are not attached to primary care. It concerns me that these military people will be coming in and joining a growing list of people who are not attached to primary care.
When I was there, I asked questions of a lot of the soldiers that I met. One of the things I asked was, “If you could send a message to Ottawa, what would it be?” What can we help you with? Invariably, almost every one of them said, “Health care for my family.” It is a big concern, and it will be a growing concern with this influx. What are we going to do about that?
Ms. Fox: It is a great question, and it is a pressure. I think it is a pressure when we think about our growing presence in the Arctic. It is a pressure when we think about a growing presence across the country.
Part of the answer is, when you have an on-site hospital for military members that is highly functioning, then you are alleviating some of the burden on local hospitals as a result of that. But I think we have got to work very closely with provincial and territorial governments to make decisions around the health care needs of the country. That is not unique to the military. I take the point that it is something that we are looking at on the pressures on growth. How much can systems handle? Every place in the country is in a different spot, but I think we’re hearing from many jurisdictions about the importance of this health care conversation. We are definitely looking at the issue. We do not have a solution today, but I do think it is top of mind for all of us.
Senator Ross: Just to add to that, the capital region, which would be Fredericton-Oromocto, is the worst off in the province for lack of attachment to primary care.
Ms. Fox: Okay. Good to know. Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you.
Senator Dasko: Thank you, witnesses. My question might have been more appropriate for the minister, but nevertheless, I am very interested in this.
In the lead-up to discussions about our tariff regime and CUSMA with the Americans, they have been giving ultimatums and saying things like getting rid of supply management, and then we will negotiate, or bring our alcohol back, and we will negotiate.
Have the Americans said anything to us about military policy or purchases? Have they said anything along those lines, like you do this, you buy the F-35s and we will start negotiating? Have they done any of that with any aspect of military policy or purchases?
Ms. Fox: First of all, the conversations that we have with the United States from a defence perspective are ongoing. A lot of the conversations are about how we secure, for instance, North America. We are partners in NORAD, and so there are a lot of discussions about where Canada is making their investments in the context of Arctic security because we work in partnership. The more we do in a particular space, then it alleviates the burden on someone else. These are the kinds of discussions that we’re having.
They have been very clear, not just with Canada, but with NATO partners around the need for increased spending to reach that 2%. I think that they see that Canada has reached 2%, and we’re on a path to reach 5%.
I would say, of course, there is always a desire for the U.S. to see us spend on the military. That has been an ongoing discussion, not just with this administration but beyond. I think there is a high interest in where decisions will lie in the coming weeks and months.
Yes, it is an ongoing conversation. We share information about the things we are pursuing, investments that we’re making and the opportunities for partnership, in particular in the Arctic.
Senator Dasko: Okay. So there has been no friction on any of this?
Ms. Fox: I wouldn’t say there is no friction. Every relationship would have friction.
I would say, military to military, there is great collaboration between the two.
Senator Dasko: I want to get back to the question about the F-35s. The minister said a decision has not been made to purchase the rest. This was Senator Carignan’s question from before.
It seemed to me that the minister then was talking about, as he described it, autonomous systems. Did I hear that correctly? Was he speaking about that as a counterproposal to the F-35s, or did I not hear that?
Ms. Fox: My understanding of what the minister said is that the government is still looking at what the complement will be for our fighter jet fleet.
Senator Dasko: Right.
Ms. Fox: And that no final decisions have been made, but specific to the fighter jet fleet is what he was referring to.
Senator Dasko: Okay. So still on the table is the offer to purchase, which is there, and then the other alternative, which has emerged.
Ms. Fox: Yes, everything. The F-35 is still on the table.
Senator Dasko: Yes.
Ms. Fox: And the considerations around a mixed fleet are still on the table, and no decisions have been made.
Senator Dasko: Thank you.
The Chair: Colleagues, we have four individuals that want to ask a question. I’m going to be brutal. I hate to tell you this: You have about 20 to 30 seconds to ask your question, and the response should be equally the same.
[Translation]
Senator Carignan: My question is for the representatives of the Communications Security Establishment Canada. It’s a very important organization.
Wars are more and more hybrid, hence the importance of cybersecurity. I’m a member of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, where we study the estimates and supply. Public Safety Canada has a program to help businesses improve their cybersecurity. However, for a budget of only $3 million, there were 500 requests. Of all those requests, 480 are from organizations considering themselves to be at risk regarding cybersecurity.
What’s being done on your end? Is there funding or are there larger components to fill those gaps?
Also, without revealing inside knowledge, where are we with new threats, particularly with Claude Mythos?
Alia Tayyeb, Deputy Chief, Signals Intelligence, Communications Security Establishment Canada: Thank you for the question. I know we have very little time, so I will try to answer fairly quickly.
Regarding the first part of your question on programs to support Canadian industries and the private sector, as you know, the Canadian Centre for Cyber Security works very closely with industries. We often publish information online and give a number of tips on how to protect yourself against cyber threats. We organize a number of forums where we share information we receive on cyber threats. We also discuss our various levels of cooperation with Public Safety Canada. That’s something we take to heart, and we’re working hard at it.
[English]
The Chair: I will encourage you; if you don’t get a fulsome answer, you can always write to us after, and we’ll put it on the record and share it with senators.
Senator Cardozo: I want to drill down further on the issue of increasing the purchase of Canadian-made products. Can you talk more about how you are going to do that, especially with small and medium companies?
Also, in general, what are you doing to keep IP in Canada, whether it’s with Canadian or foreign firms?
Ms. Fox: First, I would say that buying Canadian is front and centre in government policy and in the Defence Industrial Strategy. I think we have to make determinations about that kind of build, partner and buy. Where does it make more sense in the context of what is the current supply?
We are seeing examples of the shipbuilding industry buying Canadian steel. That’s exactly the type of thing we want to see in order to shift the manufacturing sector to support the defence industry. It is a great example of that.
Then, I think it will be important for us to have conversations around IP because if we want a sector that can export to the world, produce here in Canada and sell abroad, it is important for them to have that IP in order to have the ability to do that.
We’re going to have to work with Canadian industry on those two elements, for sure.
Senator Cardozo: Thank you.
Senator Ince: This question is for Lieutenant-General Kelsey. How does Canada’s military presence in and its cooperation with like-minded partners in South America and the Caribbean ensure peace and stability in the Western hemisphere?
LGen. Kelsey: I think it is true to say that our national interests are more focused on the North Atlantic, the Indo-Pacific and then centred right here at home. It means that we needed to make a strategic choice.
The only national interest is around Operation CARIBBE. It is not to say we don’t have a presence or collaborate with nations in the Southern Hemisphere, or South America.
But, specifically, Operation CARIBBE is the one operation that we work with the U.S. Coast Guard and other allies on a very particular mandate, geographically separated from operations in Venezuela.
In so doing, we reinforce the presence of Canada and demonstrate competency in the maritime domain to counter drug threats.
Senator Ince: Thank you.
The Chair: I want you to provide a written answer if you do not have it off-hand.
It has been quite some time that it has not been in the media about harassment, of course, of women in the military; it has been a pronounced challenge for the military to deal with. Of course, we have not been hearing much in the media about this, so I’m not certain if we have turned the tide in regard to how we are dealing with these issues, since the change in policy and they should be publicly dealt with.
Could you advise the committee what the data has been on a yearly basis, maybe going back a couple of years? How well are we doing in managing this? Has the culture changed significantly given how much attention this issue has had?
The last question I will end with. We have seen a number of individuals and groups who you would call unsavoury characters, mostly interactions that were characterized as racist, to be honest with you; how are we dealing with weeding them out of the military to ensure that we have a military that truly reflects the breadth of this country but, equally, we have people who are committed to what our military history has been about and how we protect this country? Also, how do we export our talent and skills when we go abroad with other countries to show them that we’re here to help but that we’re not here to portray it in a racist fashion?
I will give you a quick chance to respond. But if there is a written answer, that will be helpful for the committee.
Ms. Fox: We can absolutely provide you with some of the data points.
Three points I would make; the first on the culture piece. General Jennie Carignan, our Chief of the Defence Staff, set up the culture group within the military and continues to champion it as our leader of the Armed Forces, which I think has been very meaningful in terms of her contribution.
The Justice Arbour recommendations are about 98% complete. With the passage of Bill C-11, they would be 100% complete. We are showing progress with the recommendations.
To your point about recruitment, I think as we increase our recruitment efforts, we have to think about who we recruit based on the values of what the Armed Forces are. We are doing a lot of work on how we attract people to the Armed Forces and being sensitive to attracting the right people that share those values. We could provide the committee with more work that we’re doing in that regard.
The Chair: Thank you all very much.
Mr. Brosseau, it has been a little time since you have been in this new responsibility. I know the importance of the effort we have put on your responsibility. Every death from fentanyl in this country is one too many. I cannot begin to share the pain that families have been going through in regard to this issue. Thank you for all you are doing in helping us stem the tide of deaths from fentanyl in our country and getting rid of this scourge on our society.
More importantly, to all of you, as public servants, I know you come to these committees, and sometimes you get harassed because the government is challenged at times, and you bear the burden of having to answer some very difficult questions.
First of all, on behalf of our committee, let me say thank you for all you do on behalf of the nation. I know the challenges we face right now are enormous. But your efforts to try to ensure that we can meet the expectations of the Prime Minister and the country at this time are really important. We have high expectations. We know it is you who have to get the nitty-gritty details right, and I know the many hours you put in with regard to that responsibility.
On behalf of our committee, we thank you sincerely for coming here tonight, and thank you for the hard work you do on behalf of the country. Thank you so much for being here.
Colleagues, our final item this evening is to discuss how we wish to proceed with the study of Bill C-8, which was referred to this committee last Thursday, April 23.
(The committee continued in camera.)