EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on National Defence NUMBER 036 1st SESSION 45th PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 6, 2026 Le mercredi 6 mai 2026 Standing Committee on National Defence CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 6, 2026 Committee NUMBER 036 NUMBER 036 NUMÉRO 036 36 06 05 2026 2026/05/06 16:45:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la défense nationale Standing Committee on National Defence NDDN Chair Charles Sousa 1 45

(1645) [ English ]

The Chair (Charles Sousa (Mississauga—Lakeshore, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on Monday, February 23, 2026, the committee is meeting to study the impact of the defence industrial strategy. Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format. Before we continue, I ask participants to consult the guidelines on the table. These measures are to help prevent audio feedback and protect the health and safety of our interpreters. As a reminder for witnesses and members, please wait until I recognize you by name before speaking. For

interpretation, please use the earpiece and select the appropriate channel. Again, all comments should be addressed through the chair. I'd now like to welcome the minister and our witnesses. Of course, we have with us the Honourable David J. McGuinty, Minister of National Defence, with Lieutenant-General Stephen Kelsey, vice-chief of the defence staff, Canadian Armed Forces; Lieutenant-General Erick Simoneau, chief of military personnel and commander of military personnel command; Wendy Hadwen, assistant deputy minister, policy and industry; and Heather Sheehy, assistant deputy minister, materiel. Minister, it's over to you. You have five minutes. Does that sound good?

Hon. David McGuinty (Minister of National Defence) :

It does, Mr. Chair. Thank you very much. It's great to be back. Good afternoon, everyone. I'm sorry we're late getting started, but here we are. [ Translation ] Mr. Chair, I would like to start by thanking the committee for inviting me to discuss Canada's first defence industrial strategy. I think it's my fifth appearance in 10 months. [ English ] I also want to welcome the newest members to this committee. We appreciate the work you do in supporting Canada's defence and security. Before proceeding any further, Mr. Chair, I want to recognize the members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard.

The women and men of both organizations, now under the rubric of defence, serve with professionalism, dedication and courage. They put service before self to defend our country. Everything the government is doing—everything, including Canada's defence industrial strategy—is to ensure they have the tools, the equipment and the support they need to do the difficult jobs we ask of them.

That's why we're rebuilding, we're rearming and we're reinvesting in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we're doing so in a way that strengthens Canada's broader economy. [ Translation ] As the Prime Minister recently announced, Canada has reached the defence spending target of 2% of gross domestic product, or GDP, five years ahead of schedule. We are working diligently to meet the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's, or NATO, new commitment to defence investment—5% of GDP by 2035.

That is why we have held important discussions with industry, the provinces and territories, academia, innovators from all walks of life, indigenous communities, the banking sector, the financial sector, as well as our trusted allies and partners. These consultations have provided a clear picture of what stakeholders expect from a modern defence industrial strategy. They told us we need to move faster, ensure greater predictability and strengthen Canada's defence industrial base. [ English ] We also agreed that Canadian companies must remain competitive, resilient and sovereign.

Most importantly, we must be able to deliver the capabilities our armed forces need when they need them. The defence industrial strategy is our response. This strategy prioritizes Canadian suppliers and materials through a “build-partner-buy” framework—and in that order, Mr. Chair. It means building defence equipment in Canada as a matter of priority, partnering with our allies where it adds value and buying from suppliers abroad only when necessary, with rigorous conditions that spur reinvestment here at home. The strategy is designed around five key pillars.

The first is strengthening Canada's sovereign capabilities by ensuring that we can develop and sustain critical technologies here at home and reducing our reliance on foreign suppliers. The second is modernizing procurement to deliver equipment faster through more efficient processes and more resilient supply chains. The third is investing in innovation, particularly in dual-use technologies such as artificial intelligence, quantum and advanced communications tech.

The fourth is growing Canada's defence industrial base, supporting small and medium-sized enterprises and expanding opportunities right across the country. The fifth is deepening partnerships with trusted NATO allies to enhance interoperability and open new markets for Canadian firms.

Over the next 10 years, we aim to do the following: create 125,000 new jobs across Canada, increase defence exports by 50%, increase the share of defence contracts awarded to Canadian firms to 70%, boost revenues for small and medium-sized businesses by more than $5 billion each year, and increase investment in defence research and development by 85%. In budget 2025, we announced $6.6 billion to invest in our defence industry over five years under the defence industrial strategy.

By 2035, we expect the DIS to deliver a total of $180 billion in major defence equipment, $290 billion in defence-related capital investment and $125 billion in downstream economic activity. All together, this represents more than half a trillion dollars in total economic impact across Canada. We're already seeing progress. Just last month, we announced a $900-million investment in the National Research Council to support the defence industrial strategy. That includes $500 million for next-generation aerospace technologies and $105 million for a new drone innovation hub in Ottawa and Mirabel.

These investments will accelerate innovation, strengthen our industrial base and deliver new capabilities for the CAF. The defence industrial strategy is a unifying, unified national effort. At its core, it's about strengthening our sovereignty and building a more resilient, innovative and secure economy for Canadians. Above all, it's about delivering for the members of the CAF and the Coast Guard, who serve our country every day. We owe it to them to get this right. That is precisely what we are working to do. I look forward to responding to questions from members. Thank you so much.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your opening remarks. We're going to go to our first round of questions. Mr. Bezan, our vice-chair, will start with six minutes.

(1650) James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank the minister and the department officials who are here. Again, I also would like to extend my thanks to the brave women and men serving in the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian Coast Guard for protecting us here at home and carrying out some dangerous missions around the world when called upon. We want to support you in every way that you're doing that job. Minister, your defence industrial strategy is the fifth document from this government on different defence-related activities.

We're quite skeptical on whether or not you're going to be able to meet the targets that you've put in there. When you look at the current state of the Canadian Armed Forces on fleet availability, you see that you cross the line. Less than 60% of the maritime fleets are serviceable and able to be deployed or standing in the ready for new personnel to train on. We see that land vehicles stand at only 51%. Only half are actually serviceable and usable. We're hearing stories of people in Latvia who can't even get vehicles to get training on and be certified alongside our NATO allies. It's embarrassing.

The aerospace fleets that we have are even worse at 42.3%. This is all coming out of the 2024-25 departmental results report. Ten years of Liberal government—your predecessors—have allowed the replacement and maintenance of the key fleets for our armed forces to wither away. One that continues to be a political football for your government is the F-35. You had the Canadian Armed Forces do a review. The Department of National Defence did a review. The Department of Industry did a review. We thought we were going to finally get a decision on the F-35, which won the competition fair and square against the Gripen.

Now, due to concern about what's happening in the States, we're not going to make an announcement on whether or not we're going to proceed with the F-35. Can you update us on where we're at?

Hon. David McGuinty :

If I could, Mr. Chair, through you, I just want to make sure, Mr. Bezan, that you want to talk about the F-35. There are about five questions in there.

James Bezan :

No, there was one question. The rest was a statement.

Hon. David McGuinty :

The rest was a statement—good for you. Listen. Replacing the CF-18 is going to be the most significant investment the Royal Canadian Air Force has undertaken since World War II. You're right that we announced, in 2023, that we would acquire 88 F-35s. As directed by the PM in March 2025, we are reviewing this decision, and that review does continue. We want to make sure that it is the best choice for the country.

James Bezan :

Shouldn't you know that by now?

Hon. David McGuinty :

We're going to take the time we need to get this decision right. However, in the interim, plans are progressing for the receipt and introduction into service of the F-35, and we remain on track for scheduled aircraft deliveries by the end of this year.

James Bezan :

How many are on order right now?

Hon. David McGuinty :

There are 16.

James Bezan :

I know there are more than that. I thought that there was a payment made on the next tranche of F-35s as well.

Hon. David McGuinty :

There's not a formal commitment beyond the 16 number.

James Bezan :

As long as you're continuing to waffle on the F-35, you are also not making decisions about buying the next generation of fighter trainers. Already the Hawks have been retired, and even though they still had hours left on them, they're sitting in Borden, getting dismantled and used for training our aircraft mechanics and technicians. We now have to outsource our pilot training: That is now all happening in Italy and the United States. Again, it's an embarrassment for Canada, with our World War II training of our allies and NATO aircraft training, which we did for the last two or three decades, that it has all disappeared because we don't have the equipment anymore.

Hon. David McGuinty :

We can backcast as far as you'd like, Mr. Bezan. I think we're all responsible for neglecting the investments over the last 50 years.

James Bezan :

We were upgrading the CF-18s and started down the path to replace them with F-35s. It goes right back to the Chrétien government, which actually bought into—

Hon. David McGuinty :

When Mr. Harper left government—

James Bezan :

You guys said you wouldn't buy the F-35s.

Hon. David McGuinty :

—GDP funding for defence was below 1%. Now we're at 2%, and we're climbing to 3.5% and 5% by 2035.

James Bezan :

It's 0.54%, and it's based upon shell games.

Hon. David McGuinty :

In fact, by 2035—we're talking about from now until then—there will be almost a half a trillion dollars of investment in defence. We've set a plan here. It's a very hard, well-costed, detailed rollout, and it will embrace the acquisition of training aircraft and beyond.

James Bezan :

Minister, I have couple of questions for you, based upon what you mentioned earlier. You said that we're going to be building drones, with some of that happening in Ottawa and some happening over in Mirabel. Who in Mirabel is doing the drones? Does it go back to DRDC, or is it to...?

(1655) Hon. David McGuinty :

Right now, the investment is in research. That research may embrace co-operation with other private sector actors, with other countries—in particular with Ukraine, which is something under consideration. This is about upping our research capabilities in drone and counterdrone capabilities.

James Bezan :

One complaint we've always heard is that SMEs, small entrepreneurs, the ones that are out there with innovations, can't get through the front door, and that the government continues to use primes like Boeing, like Bombardier, like Lockheed Martin, to do the various contracting. How do we go at speed to adapt new innovation from Canadian start-ups that can't walk through the door now to sell what they're building, including all sorts of drones?

Hon. David McGuinty :

To be honest, I would need half an hour to answer that comprehensively, but we don't have that kind of time.

James Bezan :

We have 30 seconds.

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's a very important question, Mr. Bezan. It's something that the defence industrial strategy is addressing. We are aligning financing—BDC, EDC export, as examples—and aligning deep research. We are aligning access to contracts. We'll be very clear in exposing, for the first time in Canada.... Remember, this is the first defence industrial strategy in the history of the country—the first. What we're trying to do here is to make sure that we intersect what our Canadian Armed Forces need and how we can give rise to the more than 600 companies we have now in Canada in this space.

We have a whole series of SME measures, which I think will help give rise to growth. As you know, so many of our companies are small. We're looking at the 40-employee company going to 100. We're looking at Colt Canada going from 200 to 400 employees. We're moving forward. On the prime front, you're right, but let's be positive about the primes. Irving shipyards employs almost 3,000 people on the ground in Halifax, but 10,000 other Canadians around the country. It is the same with respect to the Vancouver shipyards. It's the same with respect to GDLS. It's the same for our large CAE—Bombardier and others—players.

These become very important generators across the country.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister. Mr. Bezan, thank you. Again, as a reminder, gentlemen, speak through the chair. I will now go over to you, Mr. Malette, for six minutes.

Chris Malette (Bay of Quinte, Lib.) :

Thank you. Mr. Chair, as you and my friends around this table are now well aware, probably, my riding of Bay of Quinte hosts 8 Wing at CFB Trenton, which plays a critical role not only in supporting the operational readiness of the Canadian Armed Forces but also as a major economic and community partner across the Bay of Quinte region. Last year, Mr. Minister came to our riding and 8 Wing twice and announced massive investments on the base to help support recruitment, to better support our men and women in uniform and to replace aging assets.

I can assure the minister that I find nothing embarrassing about our support for and pride in the Canadian Armed Forces and the capabilities of the men and women of 8 Wing and other air mobility units across Canada. My question is this: Can the minister outline how the government is supporting infrastructure modernization and operational capacity at 8 Wing and elsewhere to ensure that it can continue meeting Canada's domestic and international air mobility needs, while also supporting the civilian workforce and surrounding communities that rely on our base and others?

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's a great question, and specific. Thank you, Mr. Malette, for your support for the work going on in the Trenton area. The first thing to remember is that as we make these fundamental investments across the country, base by base, we're making tens of billions of dollars in investments. It's important—as you just did—to remind Canadians and each other that there's an additional positive spinoff, of course, for the Canadian economy. These are major industrial projects. They're going to have a really important knock-on effect.

In the case of Trenton, if I recall the analysis we did, it's over 1,000 full-time jobs. That's important in a small community like Trenton. Mr. Chair, through you, regarding details about where we are with Trenton, I'd like to ask, if I could, our ADM Heather Sheehy to update you on those specifics.

Heather Sheehy (Assistant Deputy Minister, Materiel, Department of National Defence) :

Thank you for the question. I have some information I'll pass along. Major capital infrastructure investments at Trenton are ongoing. They include strategic tanker transport capability infrastructure, ammunition storage, the Quinte West training centre and fixed-wing search and rescue capability. My colleague responsible for infrastructure has provided me with the information that this has allowed us to increase minor capital investments in maintenance repair, with $63 million planned this fiscal year across 40 different projects.

This represents a doubling of maintenance and repair investment and nearly a quadrupling of minor capital investments. The three-year forecasted spending in Trenton is $165 million. For military housing, in particular—which I know is of interest to members—there are 92 residential housing units currently under construction on the base as part of phase one of our residential housing plan. A further 384 units will be constructed under phase two. I am told that the RFP will be going out for phase two in the next few weeks. I can report, through my colleague, that all of the above projects are currently on track.

(1700) Chris Malette :

I am very happy to hear that, Ms. Sheehy. Thank you very much for that update. Further to that, Minister, 8 Wing Trenton is the hub of Canada's air mobility operations, as I mentioned, and plays a central role in humanitarian assistance, Arctic sovereignty and NATO commitments. Can you please provide an update on how the defence industrial strategy will ensure that the wing has the personnel, equipment and infrastructure needed to meet growing operational demands?

Hon. David McGuinty :

The DIS—I think that's the question—will, for the first time, help us understand the intersection between this economic sector called defence and the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. It's the first time we've had this open conversation in Canada as a matter of public policy and practical application of strategy. It's going to be very important for us to make sure these two things are aligned closely not just for our own needs but also for the incredible opportunities for us to sell abroad. I can speak about that later.

There are many opportunities as we sign more and more bilateral deals—including the one in Europe, recently, which I'd be pleased to expand on. What we're doing is marrying these two via the practical needs of the forces on 33 bases, base by base. It's a full assessment, top to bottom. What are the kitchen needs? What are the electrification needs? What are the housing needs? What are the water and waste-water needs? We need to get this right for the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces. We need to make sure their quality of life is augmented, because we ask them to do difficult things.

They live in a system that many of us don't have to live in, so it's very important for us to make those investments.

Chris Malette :

Thank you very much, Minister. I have one last question, which is, again, very 8 Wing-centric. As we mentioned, 8 Wing has repeatedly stepped up during emergencies here at home, from evacuations to disaster response. In the current investment strategy, how is the government ensuring that our wing and others remain equipped to respond rapidly to increasingly frequent domestic emergencies caused by extreme weather and other crises?

Hon. David McGuinty :

The first thing I would say is that there is $850 million to repair and expand the base itself. The second thing I would say is that there is $3.2 billion in the order we've made for nine Husky refuellers. We're re-equipping. We haven't had this type of volume of a fleet of refuellers, for example, ever, in my recollection. We're moving forward on this front. Of course, they will continue to play a role in firefighting and in natural emergencies.

For example, through Prestwick, where we have an operation in Scotland, they're doing work for United Nations relief and helping to transport goods from all over Europe and the world into Poland for Ukrainian use. They are very well placed and doing, frankly, incredible work.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Malette.

[ English ]

Chris Malette :

We're very much looking forward to welcoming the Husky fleet, Minister.

The Chair :

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, BQ) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Minister, thank you for being here today. I'd also like to thank everyone from the department who is here with you. This question was asked earlier, but I'd like to ask it again briefly to make sure I've fully understood all the details. Regarding the fighter jets, are we still talking about 88 F‑35s, or are we talking about a mixed fleet that could include Gripens? I'd appreciate a brief response.

Hon. David McGuinty :

The decision to purchase 88 aircraft hasn't been made yet. We have ordered 16 aircraft, and we're following the relevant process. However, the analysis and review are ongoing.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

So, the door to a mixed fleet that would include aircraft other than F‑35s is not closed. Is that correct?

Hon. David McGuinty :

The issue of a fleet of fighter jets is currently under review.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Thank you. So, it's clear that nothing is off the table. Now, let's say I'm relying on a Radio-Canada

article published this morning, which stated that the government wants to quickly select a new fleet of early warning aircraft with high Canadian content. Furthermore, it wants the fleet to be as compatible as possible with future F‑35 fighter jets and other ‘fifth-generation’ capabilities. How will the government ensure that such Canadian content is prioritized?

(1705) Hon. David McGuinty :

Sorry, but which aircraft are you referring to?

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I'm quoting an

article from Radio-Canada that came out this morning. You may have seen it.

Hon. David McGuinty :

No, I haven't.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

The plan is to quickly select a new fleet of early warning aircraft with high Canadian content. In addition, it must be as compatible as possible with the future F‑35 fighter jets and other ‘fifth-generation’ capabilities.

Hon. David McGuinty :

If I understand correctly, the purchase of this type of airborne warning and control system, known by the acronym AWACS, is a first in the country's history. Canada has never had one. We are examining this issue. We are currently exploring the international market. This also touches, of course, on the issue of NATO and interoperability with the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, and our American neighbours. No decision has been made on this matter. I remember the

article now. It's a speculative piece. We'll see when the decision is made.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I understand these are statements from the government, but there is already talk, at the very least, of prioritizing high Canadian content. Is there a strategy or set of tactics in place to ensure that this will happen?

Hon. David McGuinty :

In our procurement system, there is a policy managed by our new agency that pertains to buy local: buy Canadian. This policy is currently being implemented. It applies not only to the purchase of such aircraft, for example, but also directly to negotiations pertaining to the purchase of submarines.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Let's set aside the issue of future fighter jets and early warning aircraft for a moment. Under Canada's defence industrial strategy, this is how the government plans to increase the Canadian share of defence equipment procurement to 70%. Let me get this straight: Are we talking about 70% of the value of the contracts or the number of contracts?

Hon. David McGuinty :

Give me a second. [ English ] The goal is for 70% of the share of defence acquisitions to be awarded to Canadian firms.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

There is no

interpretation.

[ English ]

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's for 70% of the share of defence acquisitions to be awarded to Canadian firms.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

So when we talk about acquisitions, we're talking about the contracts themselves, right?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I don't think we're talking about contracts exactly. We're talking more about equipment volume. It's not a question of dollars; it's a question of equipment.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Thank you. I'll make a note of that. Does that include aircraft that have already been selected but haven't been paid for yet, such as the F‑35s?

Hon. David McGuinty :

No, I don't think so. What's already under way will continue. The focus now is on moving forward as soon as the strategy is implemented.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I'll use the example of the purchase of High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, launchers manufactured by the United States. It's been kept virtually under wraps so far, but we've already heard a little about it. Will this purchase be covered by the 70% quota, or are we not there yet?

Hon. David McGuinty :

This procurement process started several months, if not years, ago. [ English ] Heather, can you go ahead?

Heather Sheehy :

Thank you. The HIMARS is something we have been working on for several years. The congressional notice has gone out, in terms of our intention to purchase these. We are very much looking at procurements through the build-partner-buy strategy that the minister has already spoken about. There was a large assessment done in terms of where we could get this capability. This was done a few years ago. The capability is coming from an American firm at this point, because that is the firm that actually provides the capability. Moving forward, we will continue to look at every instance to make sure that we buy domestically when we can.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

So, if I understand correctly, that matter has already been settled. The 70% quota wasn't in effect yet, so this contract isn't affected for now. I have another question. There's been a wave of closer ties with Europe regarding military equipment procurement. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that is, at the very least, the impression we have. How do we justify the “buy Canadian” policy while pursuing this alignment? Are we able to meet the targets while also committing to another partner?

(1710) Hon. David McGuinty :

We're confident that we will meet these targets. That said, we have decided to diversify our defence-related economic ties with other countries. That's why Canada is the only country outside the European Union that has been granted permission to join the Security Action for Europe, or SAFE. It's a procurement system within the European Union, a phase I market worth 160 billion euros. So, there are enormous business opportunities for Canadian companies from Quebec and elsewhere, depending on the sector.

At the same time, we are doing more and more work and entering into more agreements with countries such as Denmark, the Philippines, Australia, Japan, Norway, New Zealand and South Korea. So, we are increasingly diversifying our relationships.

The Chair :

Thank you. [ English ] We're in the second round now. Ms. Gallant, you have five minutes.

Cheryl Gallant (Algonquin—Renfrew—Pembroke, CPC) :

Thanks. Minister, you mentioned that members of the armed forces need the tools and equipment to do the job. You also mentioned that we need the people to do the job. Injured CSOR support personnel are just finding out that they are losing their allowance if they're injured and not back on the job in 30 days. That means that category one support personnel take a $600 per month hit, and for level two, it's $1,200 per month. They're used to getting this, in some cases, for years. Then, all of a sudden, that's taken from their paycheques. Were you aware that this is going on?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I'm not sure if that's 100% accurate, Ms. Gallant. I'm hearing countervailing explanations about this. That's one of the reasons why I'm really happy that General Simoneau is here today, as the head of human resources for the Canadian Armed Forces. If you would permit—through you, Mr. Chair—he's in the best position to answer that detailed question.

Cheryl Gallant :

We have him for an hour later, but we only have you for an hour, so I'll ask you some more questions. With close support, do you know how long it takes to train somebody from the time they're a regular CSOR member up to the point where they're a category one or a category two?

Hon. David McGuinty :

That depends.

Cheryl Gallant :

Yes, it does depend, but roughly how long is it—in months or years?

Hon. David McGuinty :

Are you talking about the special forces?

Cheryl Gallant :

Yes.

Hon. David McGuinty :

I don't know. If I did know, Ms. Gallant, I'm not sure if I would share that.

Cheryl Gallant :

When you learn about our injured CSOR close support losing the $600 to $1,200 a month, will you ask Treasury Board to reverse that?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I will certainly look into it. If it's a real loss, of course, it's something that I'll take up with General Simoneau. I hope he's in a position to better explain it to you in the next hour.

Cheryl Gallant :

Thank you. For which looming conflict do we need an extra 300,000 reservists?

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's a loaded question. The idea is that Canada would consider joining the ranks of all of our Scandinavian partners and other locations around the world that have their own civil guard-type structure. One reason this is being considered is due to the unbelievable uptick by Canadians who want to be involved, in some way, shape or form, and serve the country.

Cheryl Gallant :

The last time you were here, I asked about the injured soldiers who had the cold injuries from being on an Arctic exercise. Have they been provided with the proper equipment they need to...?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I certainly asked that it be the case. I'm told that this was a very unfortunate occurrence. They were sent to an area where they did not contemplate the depth of the cold they would encounter.

Cheryl Gallant :

They didn't have the Canadian Rangers there to guide them and warn them. What about the Canadian Rangers? Will they be provided with equipment of equal quality for the Arctic expeditions?

Hon. David McGuinty :

Vice-Chief, is that the case?

Stephen Kelsey (Vice Chief of the Defence Staff, Canadian Armed Forces, Department of National Defence) :

It is, yes. It's different equipment, but the Canadian Rangers enhancement aspires to give them better equipment because they operate in that environment continuously.

Cheryl Gallant :

In your defence industrial strategy, we see that everything's going to be ready by 2035. What about the milestones for timelines and the according financial payments that need to be made so that we know we're budgeting for it and not just going in the hole another $100 million every time something comes due?

(1715) Hon. David McGuinty :

We are, in fact, actively engaged in that, laying track for the next nine or 10 years. As you can imagine, procuring this kind of military materiel has to be done over time. If we're buying, for example, howitzers, we know they're going to be serviced over a 20- to 40-year period. We know that HIMARS are lasting 10 to 30 years. That costing will continue as we lay track for the next 3.5%.

Cheryl Gallant :

You've purchased HIMARS already. We have the ships on the go, and there are other major procurements. Will you share the timeline? Now you're saying you're going to order them, and they're going to be ready by 2035. However, we want to see, as time goes on, that they're really going to be here and be ready to use by 2035. Will you provide us with a timeline?

Hon. David McGuinty :

Within reason, I will. I'll take that up with my chief financial officer and see what is permissible under Treasury Board rules. We are meeting timelines now. We're going at a speed heretofore never seen. As you know, for example, down-selecting from five to two submarines was done in four months and not three years.

The Chair :

I'm sorry, guys, but we're done. You've had your five minutes. I'm going to Ms. Idlout. It's over to you for five minutes.

Lori Idlout (Nunavut, Lib.) :

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq . Thank you, Chair. Thank you to the minister for presenting and to all those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces. I really appreciate it. The history of how Canada originally asserted its sovereignty over the Arctic is a bit of a dark one. For example, sending Inuit from northern Quebec to the High Arctic, to Resolute and Grise Fiord, was quite the policy that still has an impact on Inuit. Despite that history, I think the Canadian Armed Forces have done an excellent job and have been leaders in reconciliation through their actions.

There are great examples with the Canadian Rangers and Joint Task Force North. There are some great examples of ways that you've made sure to reconcile that history. Just so you know, I have direct family relations. My grandfather, Joseph Idlout, went on a dog team with his family, including my dad, from the Pond Inlet area to Resolute to train the Inuit who didn't know how to live in the High Arctic. That's why Arctic security has always been of interest to me. We still need to focus on making sure we are strengthening our defence capabilities in the Arctic.

I wonder, Minister, if you could share how the northern operational support hubs, the NOSHs, will meet that objective.

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's an excellent question and a big one. Ms. Idlout, we consciously made a decision a year ago that, going forward, we have to work hand in glove in partnership with the people who live in the Arctic and the High Arctic. It is the only way we're going to be able to continue to assert our sovereignty, in our view, and we have to do it as partners. That's why we're collaborating so closely intergovernmentally with northern first nations, Inuit and Métis partners under our obligations under modern treaties, land claims agreements and self-government agreements.

We're navigating through those, and we're being informed by those. That's why we also have an Inuit-Crown partnership committee. It meets three times annually, providing briefings to northern premiers and indigenous leaders. I've met with two of the three northern premiers. I'll be meeting with the third from the Yukon in due course. The ICPC has co-developed a work plan with defence focused on multi-purpose infrastructure and procurement in Inuit Nunangat. We're looking now at these NOSHs. You're aware that the Prime Minister and I were in Yellowknife. We announced these NOSHs and their construction.

These are hubs that are going to better ensure that Canadian sovereignty is established year-long for a year-round presence across the Arctic and the north. They are investing in multi-purpose, dual-use infrastructure that meets the needs of the territories, indigenous peoples and northern communities. This includes landing strips, particular roadways, electrification, energy systems, housing, medical opportunities, medical clinics and so on. This is being combined with our Major Projects Office, working in pincer movement with them.

It's working with ICPC, other departments, other ministers and the people who live there who are our first line of defence. That's why this is so important. We're trying to make sure we get this right.

(1720) Lori Idlout :

Thank you so much. I have a more targeted question regarding the defence industrial strategy. In what ways will you prioritize the well-being and economic development of indigenous peoples?

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's a question we get frequently. It's about whether or not we can make sure that we have a certain amount of economic participation. It's something we're looking at very carefully. I know that Wendy is working on small and medium-sized business implications for participation in the defence industrial strategy and the economic activities that will come. We're very sensitive to this. We're of the view that there is no company too small and no gathering too small to participate. I'll give you an example. It's not a northern one.

I was in Trois-Rivières meeting with an engineering company that's one of the best in the country on radar. They have nine employees. They're very keen on expanding from nine to 20. That doubles their growth. If we can do that more than 600 times in terms of the companies we have now in place, including companies in the north, then we're very much on our way to creating those 125,000 jobs. That is definitely an input that we are looking at now: how we engage, involve and make sure they can participate fulsomely.

The Chair :

Thank you. Go ahead, Monsieur Savard-Tremblay.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Minister, I have reread the

article you said was speculative, but I'd still like to quote it, as it contains some more specific details. I'd like you to tell me if they're speculative, and, in that regard, if they are true or false. For example, the

article states that:

To defend itself, the Canadian government wants to acquire a fleet of six “flying radars” that would cost over $5 billion, officially called early warning and long-range detection aircraft. This program aims to purchase aircraft equipped with radar and detection systems that fly at altitudes of over 10 km in search of enemy missiles, aircraft, or drones. […] The Carney administration states that it wants to act quickly to acquire these new detection aircraft, particularly to fulfill its promise to increase domestic production of military equipment.

That's still pretty specific. Is this something under consideration, or are we already well into the process?

Hon. David McGuinty :

It would be better to direct this question to Mr. Fuhr , as he is the secretary of state responsible for the procurement of such aircraft. We, on the other hand, identify the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. That is exactly why we created the Defence Investment Agency. We created it to make things more professional, to ensure the process is more efficient and to speed things up in a responsible manner. So, the question on the procurement is one that arises during the planning phase, when decisions are being made, so it's best to check with Mr. Fuhr.

My understanding is that, within the Canadian Armed Forces, we are currently assessing our needs. Subsequently, our needs will be communicated to the agency responsible for a potential procurement.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Ultimately, the agency is responsible for procurement. You assess the needs. The people at the agency seem pretty sure of where they're headed,

whereas you told me that, for your part, you're still studying the issue of fighter jets. In any case, it seems pretty specific in the article.

Hon. David McGuinty :

I'm seeing this

article for the first time. It's speculative. At this point, I'm not in a position to confirm where things stand. We're looking into the matter. I can't speak for the Defence Investment Agency.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Logically, if the decision were made, you'd be told to stop thinking about it, that everything is fine, and that you're wasting your time.

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's not exactly how it works.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Tell me how it works.

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's a matter of aligning the needs of the Canadian Armed Forces with the final decision that will be made, as is the case with the F‑35s. Ultimately, we will pass the ball back to the Defence Investment Agency. That agency will initiate negotiations, just as it is currently doing with the submarines.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I would have liked to continue this discussion but it seems I've run out of time.

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Savard‑Tremblay. [ English ] Mr. Kibble, it's over to you for five minutes, sir.

Jeff Kibble (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, CPC) :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My questions are for the minister. For those in uniform—everyone in the room today—thank you for your ongoing service. On the DIS, my questions go to whether the architecture of that strategy has structural gaps—

(1725) Hon. David McGuinty :

Excuse me, Mr. Kibble. One second....

Jeff Kibble :

Can we pause for a second, Mr. Chair?

The Chair :

Yes. I'll hold.

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's not you, Mr. Kibble. I think it's me.

Jeff Kibble :

How are you doing? Is it better?

Hon. David McGuinty :

Yes. Thank you.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. I have hearing damage too. I understand. I want to explore some potential structural gaps in the strategy so that we can look at potential improvements before our commitments harden. I'm going to jump back to an earlier question. I've met with multiple SMEs on Vancouver Island and on the west coast. Could you explain better how SMEs can get trusted partnership status? I think page 14 of the DIS uses the term “formal strategic partnerships” so that they don't have to defer to primes, which has the potential of adding significant cost and time.

Hon. David McGuinty :

Can I ask the quarterback on this...?

Jeff Kibble :

I look for your answer. We can ask this....

Hon. David McGuinty :

Then I will read you what she will tell you in the next hour. How's that?

Jeff Kibble :

Sure. Okay. Let it rip. Thank you.

Hon. David McGuinty :

Look, I will not read this, but here's what I'll tell you. We're working our way through the details now to make sure that SME participation is robust. We launched this strategy 10 weeks ago—not 10 months ago. We're making sure that we are cultivating and bringing together a lot of different players in Canada's private sector. I've met with hundreds of companies. Our DIS team is meeting with and hearing from thousands of companies. We are trying to achieve the balance between obviously working with primes and working with SMEs themselves.

Many companies come forward and have an idea that is not relevant or not related to the actual needs of the Canadian Armed Forces. We're going to have to let them down directly—

Jeff Kibble :

Will there be a direct path for SMEs?

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's the whole idea: to get the path. I just want to share with you one other thing—

Jeff Kibble :

My time is limited, Minister. If I could move on, you mentioned DIS targets of 70% of defence contracts to domestic firms. You said that was not measured by dollars but by materiel. Can you explain how we measure 70% of defence contracts not by dollars? I'm just quoting you—not by dollar value, but by materiel.

Hon. David McGuinty :

If we're buying a particular piece of equipment.... Okay, let's be precise. We just purchased 70,000 rifles from Colt Canada. We're looking to make sure that the procurement of that is 70,000 in terms of Canadian manufacturing.

Jeff Kibble :

That's one contract. Do you measure it by the dollar value? The Prime Minister said that 75¢ of every capital defence dollar currently flows to the United States. We're trying to achieve 70%—

Hon. David McGuinty :

That's been dropping significantly since we launched DIS.

Jeff Kibble :

How are we measuring it if we're not measuring it by dollars, but—to quote you earlier—by materiel value?

Hon. David McGuinty :

What we're trying to do is make sure that overall there is a 70% participation rate by Canadian companies in supplying all the goods and services to the Canadian Armed Forces.

Jeff Kibble :

A Canadian company could have a $1-million contract. Would that weigh equally with a foreign country that would have, say, a submarine contract, and you could say, well, it's fifty-fifty? The dollars don't match up, and I don't see us on a target for reducing that 75¢.

Hon. David McGuinty :

Come back to that in the next hour.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. Would you accept that the DIS and its 10 capabilities are anchored in the conventional kinetic domain and things we've historically called the military domain? It doesn't appear that they're focused—if you would agree with me—on the prekinetic threats that NSICOP has documented across the civil-military boundary. I'm sure you're well aware of those.

Hon. David McGuinty :

On the contrary, Mr. Kibble, these 10 sovereign capabilities were drawn from conversations and outreach with 2,000 Canadian companies and an evaluation of 17 other like-minded countries.

Jeff Kibble :

You're confirming, then, that the DIS is designed for the prekinetic threat picture of, say, coercive trade, foreign interference, supply chain weaponization—

Hon. David McGuinty :

Absolutely. It's designed for both.

Jeff Kibble :

Will you be able to provide us some examples of that from within the DIS? I don't see that in there. I see just a shopping list of stuff to buy.

Hon. David McGuinty :

We're talking about quantum, digital systems, AI, cryptography, foreign interference, organized—

Jeff Kibble :

It does talk about foreign interference. I will look forward to that. Thank you.

Hon. David McGuinty :

There is a whole series of areas where we're strong. We didn't choose these randomly. They were chosen on the basis of Canada's core capabilities.

Jeff Kibble :

Minister, when I go to the grocery store, I do it one of two ways. Either I go with a list based on meals I plan to make and an inventory of what's in my fridge, or I do it the more dangerous way, which is with my appetite. One feeds a family. The other costs a lot of money and blows your budget. Would you accept that the DIS, as drafted, looks more like a procurement framework than a strategy, and that it's a shopping list without an inventory of the full threat picture? How can we address those capability gaps?

(1730) Hon. David McGuinty :

I'll be honest with you, Mr. Kibble. I didn't understand your question.

Jeff Kibble :

I'm seeing it more as—

The Chair :

You're going to have to understand it later. I'm sorry.

Hon. David McGuinty :

I'm sorry. I'd like to.

The Chair :

Our next member is Mr. Earle. It's over to you, sir.

Philip Earle (Labrador, Lib.) :

Thank you for being here, Minister. Thanks to your full team for being here. As I read about the defence industrial strategy, I see us wanting to do more at home and buy locally in Canada. We're going to raise the share of acquisition of supply from Canadian firms to 70%. We're forecasting that we're going to create 125,000 good defence jobs in Canada. We're also going to export some of what we develop and build here. Using a boilerplate of a question, how important is it for us to have this defence industrial strategy in our country at this time?

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's more than timely, Mr. Earle. It is now a requirement. It's essential for us going forward. That's why we put so much effort in the front end, designing what it might look like by drawing on comparative experience. Other countries have done this. Other countries are updating their own industrial strategies, so this is what we've done. That's why we came to ground on a build-partner-buy framework. We build where we can build it, and we partner with like-minded countries when we need to. Only after building or partnering would we buy from a third party.

We're very careful now about from whom we buy, and we specify from whom we would prefer to buy. For example, we bought a very expensive and important over-the-horizon radar system in partnership with the Australians. Phase one is now being implemented. Phase two is under negotiation. We've been very cautious and, if I dare say it, small-c conservative about some of the target outcomes, like 125,000 high-paying jobs, growing defence exports by 50% and growing our Canadian defence industry revenues by 240%. We looked at this from top to bottom.

We really dug down deep and wide on Canada's core areas of expertise, including shipbuilding—we started building 18 years ago—aerospace, space, land systems, communications, digital systems and ammunition. We just invested $1.4 billion in nitrocellulose plants. We just purchased rifles from Colt, as I mentioned earlier. We're investing in shell casings at IMT. We're investing in all sorts of areas, including aerospace and service support, personnel protection, and uncrewed and autonomous systems.

We've pulled together a plan that allows us to go forward and draw on that Canadian capability while fostering more research, more development and more risk-taking.

Philip Earle :

In your opening comments, which I quite enjoyed listening to, you talked about the importance of builders, innovators and finance in building a modern defence sector. How important is it to have those three pillars, if I can refer to them as such?

Hon. David McGuinty :

They are absolutely essential. The Canadian Armed Forces, the department, the government, the Prime Minister and, I think, we all recognize that we need to make sure we enhance this sector. We're not starting from zero. We have 600 companies, 82,000 full-time employees and over 200,000 part-time employees in this space. This is what we're building on. It's going to be very important to give rise to expanding the companies that are there and to creating new companies. We're seeing more of them all the time.

Philip Earle :

I have one minute left. I'm listening to your answer, and I appreciate that. As we see those three pillars intersected or layered to get to where we need to be, how important do you believe indigenous inclusion is in that particular formula?

Hon. David McGuinty :

It's indispensable. We can't move forward unless we are working with Canadians. Indigenous Canadians have a capacity, a participation level and a commitment—everything—with respect to our sovereignty, our presence and our presence in the Arctic in particular. It is essential. The Coast Guard has done an incredible job, over the last 10 years or 20 years, of involving our indigenous neighbours and bringing them in to help, basically, with that work. We'll continue to do that.

(1735) Philip Earle :

Thank you, Minister.

The Chair :

Welcome to the committee, Mr. Rowe. You have up to five minutes, sir.

Jonathan Rowe (Terra Nova—The Peninsulas, CPC) :

Thank you. It's great to have you, Minister. It's good to have a Minister of Defence here today. I have to say that I'm very impressed by your quick answers. I hope that continues in my line of questioning as well. In my riding in Newfoundland and Labrador, we have a lot of infrastructure. One of the biggest challenges in terms of building naval and other pieces of equipment is getting that infrastructure. We have billions' worth of it sitting idle. We have the Marystown Cow Head facility, the Bull Arm facility and the Port of Argentia. Are you familiar with those facilities? Have you visited any of those?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I haven't visited them yet, but I'm familiar with one of them because you and I chatted about it.

Voices: Oh, oh!

Jonathan Rowe :

Exactly. It's very important to get to all of those facilities, especially the Port of Argentia, which, as you know, is a former U.S. naval base that was shut down in the mid-1990s. They even built an oil rig there recently, with a runway and everything. I'm just curious. Have you been able to speak with Kiewit, the Port of Argentia and the Bull Arm facility about possibly landing contracts there for construction?

Hon. David McGuinty :

I think I've done one better. I spent an hour and a half face to face with your premier. We reviewed the presence of the Canadian Armed Forces and DND in Newfoundland and Labrador. It turns out that we're the third-largest employer in Newfoundland and Labrador. As an aside, as an example, we employ 50,000 people in Ontario. We employ more people in British Columbia than Lululemon does. We are very engaged right now in working with the premier and assessing our needs in Newfoundland and Labrador very systematically. Any good advice you can give us in terms of helping to feed information into this analysis would be very appreciated.

Jonathan Rowe :

We have some of the highest unemployment rates in the country, especially among tradespeople. We have huge opportunities there to go and get that construction. I'm also wondering about Atlantic Canada and Nova Scotia. We've seen a launch pad being used there—for skyrocketing costs, if you ask me. I have a launch pad in my riding as well, in St. Lawrence. I'm curious as to why the Department of National Defence didn't use that launch pad, especially considering that it put $8.3 million of government funding into the one in my riding. Why didn't we use that launch pad for free rather than spending over $200 million for a spaceport in Nova Scotia?

Hon. David McGuinty :

A hard decision was made, through analysis and through advice coming from our officials. Now we've made a conscious decision. As one of our major sovereign capability priorities under the DIS, we've decided to go further into the space business and the space-launch capacity. We did it partly because we have a tremendous Canadian tradition in space. We also did it because there's only one launch pad in all of Europe. Many European Union countries have approached Canada to say that if we do build this, they will come. They're shipping from SpaceX now in the United States, and they'd like to diversify.

Jonathan Rowe :

I just can't understand—perhaps you can help me understand—why it is that we're reinventing the wheel by building two spaceports in Atlantic Canada, just across the pond, rather than doubling down on the one already built in my riding of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Hon. David McGuinty :

Our agreement with Maritime Launch, the company involved, will see a dedicated Government of Canada launch pad built in a geographically strategic location near Canso, Nova Scotia. What we're really saying is that we're getting into this field, we're going to make the proper investments and we're going to participate in what is a massive global opportunity. We intend not only to do that but also to achieve our own satellite sovereignty.

Jonathan Rowe :

We're not just going to do it good. We're going to do it twice as good by building two spaceports. On another note, you mentioned drones today. I think that's going to be the future of warfare, unfortunately, with the development of AI and everything. We're seeing this in the Strait of Hormuz and other parts of the world. We're seeing drone technology advancing not just in the air. It's also about marine drones. I was very surprised by your saying that the hub of the think tank is going to be here in Ottawa rather than in, perhaps, B.C., Atlantic Canada or Newfoundland and Labrador, where we could test these drones in the water, with ice conditions, sea mammals and ocean currents.

(1740) Hon. David McGuinty :

Just so you know, there's a small piece here, but it's primarily at Mirabel. There is a cluster, as you know, of capacity in that area. This raises the question of the $30-million investment we made in Halifax through the COVE centre to stand up a specialized maritime location for a defence innovation secure hub. It's precisely to look at these kinds of autonomous underwater systems, working with Kraken and other companies. We made that decision. We made that investment. You're right. The whole question of autonomous weapons speaks to our AI strategy, which we've put in place. We're looking at that.

We're looking at what's going on not only below water but also on land and in the air. It's about all autonomous systems.

Jonathan Rowe :

Are we able to produce sea drones?

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Rowe, for your questions. They were very good questions, and I appreciate it, but we are running out of time. Ms. Lapointe, it's over to you. I'll have to cut you off, probably, but go ahead.

Viviane Lapointe (Sudbury, Lib.) :

Minister, I'm always pleased when you come to committee because I get to talk about critical minerals—something very important to Sudbury and me. This committee undertook a study on the nexus between critical minerals and defence. Witness after witness told us that without critical minerals, we don't have security and we don't have defence. The defence industrial strategy certainly identifies that. Can you tell us how critical minerals are being factored into defence planning, particularly as they apply to supply risks and long-term needs?

Hon. David McGuinty :

The really good news for Canadians to know is that Canada has the potential to produce all 12 NATO-identified defence-critical minerals. That's a great luxury. We're very blessed with this kind of resource. It will be very important for us. We can become positioned as a trusted supplier because we have the potential to produce all 12. That's number one. We're also working, now, to see how we can strengthen the full value chain—process these minerals and refine them so they can be usable inputs. That's why, in budget 2025, we included $443 million over five years to—precisely, Ms.

Lapointe—advance critical minerals processing technologies, support joint investments with our allies and develop a stockpiling mechanism not just for ourselves but also under the rubric of our NATO obligations. As a NATO partner, we are also pursuing stockpiling. This is something that is an asset, or will turn out to be. It will become an even more important asset over time. It's a national and economic security priority.

The Chair :

Thank you, Minister and Ms. Lapointe. Sir, your time is up. You've done your hour. I'm going to have to suspend for a moment to allow the minister and others to regroup. Again, Minister, thank you for taking the time to be before this committee, as you always do.

Hon. David McGuinty :

Thank you, Mr. Chair and all members. I appreciate it.

The Chair :

I'll suspend the meeting.

(1740) (1750) The Chair :

The meeting has resumed. We're going to go to our officials, but before we proceed, given our time and the fact that we were delayed, we're going to end this at 6:45. Is that okay with everybody? Very good. We're going to proceed to our first round of questions. We'll go over to you, Mr. Bezan.

James Bezan :

Thank you. Again, thanks for joining us and being here, Deputy Minister Fox. I want to get into some of the questions that are out there on some of the orders that are outstanding. There is a memo floating around about the regular-sized tactical vests. In the conversations I've had with some of our troops, especially women, there is a shortage of vests. I understand, based upon a memo that I saw, that it won't be rectified until 2029, and more people have to try to fit into regular vests, even if they're small. Doesn't that represent some safety concerns?

Stephen Kelsey :

Absolutely. The anthropomorphic work has been done. We have the money, but we haven't been able to get industry to respond. They're doing everything they can, but it's absolutely true and unacceptable that we have folks of different sizes who are having to use equipment that's not as advantageous as it needs to be.

James Bezan :

Why is it going to take three years to go out there and buy body armour and vests for our troops?

Stephen Kelsey :

It will be three years for the entire force, but not necessarily for the folks who are in Latvia, if that was the question.

James Bezan :

If something bigger happens, we're not going to have the safety equipment there. We need to be making sure that people are wearing the proper body armour, that they're going to be comfortable and that they're able to march.

Stephen Kelsey :

I agree.

James Bezan :

What about body armour that's contoured to the bodies of women? When are we expected to start receiving those?

Stephen Kelsey :

We will have to get you the answer.

Heather Sheehy :

I don't have the dates on all elements. I recall that we have already put in place some new base layers, and they are being delivered, as I recollect. They are specifically designed for different genders, so we are advancing the program and that is the first that I recall in terms of the deliverables. I think those are being delivered now.

James Bezan :

In 2022, the U.S. announced that they were increasing the production of 155-millimetre shells in Canada using both General Dynamics OTS, as well as the.... What's the name of the other company that does the shell casings? It's IMT. They announced theirs in 2022 and, of course, they ramped up production to help Ukraine and to build up U.S. stocks. They're Canadian-based companies. We just announced in 2026 we would ramp up our own. How soon will it be that we see that production increase and we're able to have those shells delivered to Canada?

Christiane Fox (Deputy Minister, Department of National Defence) :

Thank you very much for the question. I think that ammunition is absolutely a core capability that we need to advance as quickly as possible. It is part of our 10 focus areas of the defence industrial strategy. We are trying to fast-track as much as we can to increase the ammunition supply. With those investments made, as you noted in your question, we are working with industry to get them as quickly as possible into the hands of the military.

Heather Sheehy :

I would say that the most recent acceleration that we have done is the $1.4 billion that the minister spoke about, and that is trying to increase the industrial capacity here in Canada in order to advance our ammunition delivery. There was money there for GDOTs and also nitrocellulose. It's a significant investment, and it will allow us to have more domestic capacity, but more needs to be done for sure.

James Bezan :

In the defence industrial strategy, is the Department of National Defence responsible for going out there and doing a survey, an inventory, of what defence companies are out there, which ones have capacity and which ones are being underutilized? I think about the propellant plant that Magellan has in Stony Mountain, Manitoba, that hasn't been busy with Canadian orders since we quit building the CRV7 rockets. It's one of the biggest footprints for building explosive devices in North America and maybe within NATO.

Christiane Fox :

Definitely. As part of the defence industrial strategy, industry partnership is one of the pillars, and we have to advance. In doing that, we have to be clear about what capabilities the military needs for our sovereignty and be clear about where Canada has potential opportunity, both domestically and in export markets, so we are having those discussions with industry to have a greater sense of what they can produce but also for us to be sharing information about what we need so there's greater clarity. I would say that's not limited to industry. I think it's something that we have to do with academia as well and in the R and D space, because it is about all of those pieces coming together.

(1755) James Bezan :

We are talking about building at speeds not seen since World War II. That's what the government likes to throw around. We haven't seen any major increases in defence procurement or production over the last decade. How do we go about ensuring that things are actually getting built? Is the Department of National Defence now writing contracts? We talked about how we're finally getting 70,000 new rifles. The Danes are ahead of us. They ordered 50,000. They'll get their C8s before we get ours. Are we going to actually get contracts out there now to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the kit they need?

Christiane Fox :

Absolutely. It is about having a good sense of what the production capability is here in Canada at the moment. It's also about exploring opportunities in the context of build-partner-buy. If we identify a supplier that could produce in Canada, that's also part of our reflections in terms of ensuring that we increase productivity. We have some procurements that we're doing through the defence industrial strategy. Those are things that we're doing at defence. There are also things that our regional development agencies are doing with small and medium-sized businesses across the country.

The Chair :

I'm sorry. I have to stop you there. I should have clarified that Deputy Minister Christiane Fox is here replacing the minister in the second half of this question portion. Mr. Bezan, your six minutes are done. I'm going over to Sherry Romanado.

Sherry Romanado (Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, Lib.) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Through you, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here today. This is on two issues. We heard a bit about how SMEs get through the door. We heard that a little earlier. In my riding, for instance, we held an all-day seminar with local businesses to say this is the defence industrial strategy, this is what we're looking for and this is how they can partner with Canada to address some of the needs that we have. Could you elaborate a bit on that? Deputy Minister, you alluded to that regarding academia.

One of the exciting parts of this is the fact that we are going to create what we call a DISH, or a defence innovation support hub. We're asking SMEs, companies, academic researchers and the Canadian Armed Forces to collaborate in a secure location to come up with solutions to some of the issues we have, whether they be a product or problem-solving. I think this is the first time we are bringing all of these three pillars together to do that. Can you elaborate a bit on that? That's how some SMEs might be able to be part of the solution.

Christiane Fox :

Engagement with SMEs is absolutely key. There was a lot of engagement pre-DIS in order to get a sense of how people wanted to get involved and for us to communicate some of the capability requirements we were looking for. I would say there are a number of ways that we can engage SMEs across the country. There is engagement through the BDC and the investment that's going into the BDC for them to get some financing to allow them to develop their ideas and products. Our regional development agencies can target specific small and medium-sized businesses so that we have a good distribution across the country.

We're seeing examples of that with PacifiCan investing in the University of British Columbia and some SMEs to come together on quantum and other things that are listed as our capabilities. You mentioned the DISHs. They're a great example. The maritime one can bring together Dalhousie University with a small sized business that is working on sensors, for instance, which will help our navy and Coast Guard be able to develop.

The final point I would make is around the importance of ensuring, as we talk to the bigger industry players about our expectations around that Canadian supply chain, that our messages are clear about the need to engage small and medium-sized businesses in what they put forward for their procurement strategies.

Sherry Romanado :

That's fantastic. Most members around this table probably know that CANSEC will be happening at the end of May here in Ottawa. I've been suggesting to a lot of small businesses that they come to CANSEC and speak to others to see if they can find some opportunities to sell their wares and become part of those supply chains. That's something we've been recommending a lot. We heard a little earlier some questions about articles that my colleague brought up. I think there was some confusion about an

article that referenced the AWACS versus the question about the CF-18 replacement jet. Could you please explain and make sure that everyone understands that the AWACS is definitely not the fighter jet replacement? Could you make sure that everyone knows what we're doing in those two projects?

(1800) Christiane Fox :

For the fighter jet capability, I would confirm that is still under review, so the government will review and make decisions. The airborne early warning and control aircraft is the sixth generation. This has been a plan as part of our future planning of what our military capabilities need to be. There is a reflection on how over the next 20 years we can advance the airborne early warning and control aircraft. There are some preliminary reflections on the capabilities and industry engagement to have a good sense of what various platforms will offer. That work continues. It is in fact separate from the fighter jet. Thank you.

Sherry Romanado :

I know there were some questions on whether or not we've actually seen anything happen, as my colleague was referencing. The submarine procurement project is a clear demonstration of our capacity to move quickly and to get the necessary equipment that we need. In terms of whatever product we decide to choose in making sure the navy has what they need, could you elaborate on how that will help local businesses and economic drivers here in Canada?

Christiane Fox :

Absolutely. I can start and then my colleague Heather may want to jump in. The down selection to two allowed us to really focus on ensuring that we had the number one requirement in the case of the subs for our navy, which is the capabilities, and ensuring that both platforms could respond to those needs. Then it allows us to really work on ensuring Canadian content and Canadian suppliers as we look at the merits and the benefits in making our selection. That economic benefit is weighted quite heavily in the context of the supply chain and activity in Canada.

We were able to demonstrate a different process to move faster to allow us to get to a place where we are reviewing bids, we're looking at what the benefits are for Canada and we're maximizing those discussions. Heather, is there anything else you want to add?

Heather Sheehy :

In addition to the purchase of the submarines—and we've been quite forthcoming in terms of our interest in having economic benefits in Canada as part of that procurement—let's not forget about the in-service support and the maintenance. We've been clear that we want to have that capability in Canada. That actually aligns very closely to the defence industrial strategy, which has in-service support and maintenance as one of the sovereign capabilities. In addition to the actual purchase, we are looking at that in Canada as well.

The Chair :

Thank you both. Mr. Savard-Tremblay, we'll go over to you for six minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Ms. Fox, if you don't mind, let's now discuss the export component mentioned in Canada's defence industrial strategy. One of the objectives is to increase Canada's military exports by 50%. Currently, we know that nearly 69% of exports go to the United States. It is our main partner. It's actually enormous. Canada is even the only country with national supplier status in the United States. Consequently, Canada automatically grants export licences to the United States.

We discussed this recently; there was a bill that likely had too many flaws, but the intention was still to highlight a certain lack of oversight and monitoring regarding humanitarian considerations, which allowed for the authorization of arms exports to several countries without the ability to know exactly where they were going and without any oversight whatsoever due to U.S. control over the matter. Is there a strategy to find a way to reconcile this with peace objectives and to ensure that these weapons don't fall into the hands of declared adversaries or countries and regimes officially condemned by Canada?

(1805) Christiane Fox :

That's a very good question. Thank you. We are working closely with Global Affairs Canada to ensure that we have an arms export system that takes into account our export objectives, but also the importance of peace objectives, as you noted. There is work that will need to be done with our colleagues. We offer our advice, but the decisions ultimately rest with the Department of Foreign Affairs. However, I believe it is necessary for our sovereignty to diversify our exports. As a member of NATO, we have partners among the Arctic nations, with whom we have an opportunity to diversify our exports.

So, this is something we are looking at closely. We really need to focus on the work of our defence attachés and the work of international trade advisers. We are working closely together to refine our response to these challenges and to ensure that we achieve export diversification. That's the goal.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I'd still like to ask you how we can find that out. What can we actually do? What kind of system could we put in place to improve tracking? It doesn't seem easy to track where a weapon ends up.

Christiane Fox :

I'm not an expert in this area. Our colleagues at Global Affairs Canada would likely be better suited to answer these questions. That said, we have measures in place to assess our partners and their conduct on the international stage, which gives us a certain level of confidence.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Unless someone else here is somewhat familiar with the issue, this will indeed need to be verified. I have another example. In 2022, 18.6% of arms exports went to Saudi Arabia. We know that this is not a country that respects human rights; that much is clear. Yet we are talking about increasing exports. Isn't there a danger here?

Christiane Fox :

As I mentioned, this also involves increasing our exports and working with partners such as the Arctic nations, NATO countries and new partners in the Indo-Pacific region. We still have a responsibility to ensure that the arms export system is robust and reliable. We will continue this work and we will review opportunities to export arms on a case-by-case basis.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

A review of Canada's defence industrial strategy reveals that the government has several objectives. These include “raise maritime fleet serviceability to 75 per cent, land fleets to 80 per cent, and aerospace fleets to 85 per cent.” According to a report from the Department of National Defence, in 2023, 55% of aircraft, 54% of ships and 46% of army equipment were inoperable. That was three years ago, not ten. The goal is ambitious, to say the least. Is there a timeline?

Christiane Fox :

We hope to reach the targets of 75%, 80%, and 85% over the next ten years. We will track the progress made over the next ten years.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

An internal audit of the Department of National Defence carried out in December 2025 found that even straightforward and relatively simple projects took an average of 10 years from identification through to completion. You're saying here that the goal is to drastically increase the percentages in 10 years. Given that a simple project can take 10 years, how can we quickly improve equipment serviceability in this time frame?

Christiane Fox :

Depending on the service, the strategy will change. I think that the objective of the Canada's defence industrial strategy is first to facilitate and accelerate procurement and then to assess the capabilities needed in Canada, such as service and support. Apart from this, the goal is to ensure that we meet the deadlines set out in the strategy.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

We know about reports of staff shortages, data issues and inefficient project management. I'm not making this up. This was demonstrated at the time. You said that the strategy is there to make improvements. However, what do you think is the main reason for the current rate of equipment availability? Is it a matter of money, bureaucracy, lack of skilled workers or dependence on foreign suppliers? What's the reason? What's the strategy's priority? If you tell me that it's more or less “all the above”, let me know which one takes priority.

(1810) Christiane Fox :

It should be noted that underinvestment over a long period led to the current situation. Here we have the investments, and now we need to make sure that we have enough workforce capacity. In some circumstances, there may be a transition period to develop the Canadian workforce while we rebuild our industry. I would say that the workforce and procurement are key to our success.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Ms. Gallant, you have five minutes.

Cheryl Gallant :

Thank you. I want the answer to the question I asked with respect to the April 1 Treasury Board ruling that a CSOR-type special operator's support allowance is not protected. If you're injured while training for a higher level, your entitlement reverts to whatever category you still qualify for or stops entirely, rather than being frozen at level one.

Lieutenant-General Erick Simoneau (Chief of Military Personnel, Commander Military Personnel Command, Department of National Defence) :

Mr. Chair, I will take this one. This allowance in particular is called an environmental allowance, and the pitfall of having a monthly allowance is that, when members are not operating in said environment.... We have the same for the navy with the sea duty allowance and the land duty allowance. This is the CSOR allowance. If they get injured and are not called to go on operation for more than 30 days, that is when they lose this allowance. It is problematic, and it's something that we've solved with the sea duty allowance and the land duty allowance, by making it per day. When you go on operation, you get it.

If you don't go on operation, you don't get it, so it's fair. It's based on a concrete action that needs to be compensated. Now, specifically for the special forces and search and rescue, we are looking at embedding these allowances inside their salary just like we've done for pilots. For example, pilots in the Canadian Armed Forces don't get an air crew allowance because it's embedded in their salary. Whether they get injured or not, they still retain it. This, to me, is to ensure that they get compensated in the way that they should, as well as getting them on par with the industry.

We're trying to achieve the same, working closely with Treasury Board Secretariat, on the accrual both for special forces and for the search and rescue communities.

Cheryl Gallant :

That's fantastic, and it's pensionable then too.

LGen Erick Simoneau :

It would be, yes, ma'am.

Cheryl Gallant :

On the supply chain nexus with Canadian drones, Canadian companies can't get on the DOD blue UAS cleared list, so they can't get vetted as producers of cyber-secure drones. It makes it hard to break into the U.S. defence market and access Canadian DND contracts. Will they have a Canadian version of cleared drone companies, a Canadian regiment cleared for CSE?

Wendy Hadwen (Assistant Deputy Minister, Policy-Industry, Department of National Defence) :

Thank you. That is the objective. We are mindful—and certainly, this came up in our preparation of the DIS—that security clearances and the contract security program require us to be more proactive in clearing companies and operators, enabling them to access the international market.

Cheryl Gallant :

I have some SMEs in my riding that want to sell outside the country. They have told me that in order to sell to Europe, they have to provide at least one sample, often two, one being for destruction purposes. For an SME, this would amount to at least tens of thousands, more probably hundreds of thousands and even millions of dollars. They just can't handle that. Is there a special exemption for Canadian military or defence-related products so that these SMEs can get their products into Europe as well?

Christiane Fox :

Thank you for raising that question. I wasn't aware that this was a requirement for them to get into the European market. We can absolutely look into it. We're now a member of the SAFE agreement, the only non-European country that's part of that, which is to access procurement. Perhaps through that vehicle or others, we can take a look at how we can facilitate. I think part of it is also having the Government of Canada be a purchaser of these drones, these domestically manufactured drones, because there's confidence built into the system when the Canadian government or the military purchases. I think you've raised a very good point. I'll take a look at that and come back to committee.

(1815) Cheryl Gallant :

We're told that the SMEs will be included in the major defence contracts, but we have some major defence contracts under way already. What the SMEs tell me is that if they're working under a prime, the prime will demand a kickback in some way. What measures are you taking to prevent that from happening? How can we get these SMEs dealing directly with the DIS and procurement as opposed to having to go through a prime, which will exact this demand?

Christiane Fox :

I would say that it's twofold. Perhaps there are opportunities where we can have, you know, a major capability, and then a number of contracts to achieve what we're trying to achieve from the major capability. That is kind of an option. The second option is for the Government of Canada to be clear, as they sit down with primes, that the expectation is that there's no kickback, and then we actually see this through.

There are two mechanisms for doing it, and I think we have a responsibility to keep engaging with the SMEs so that we hear this directly and so that they're a part of the conversations and the capability. I was quite encouraged, when we had our military outlook days. There were a lot of SMEs that were there that would not have been there a few years before. I think it's about investing in the relationship, and it's those two examples of mechanisms that we could use.

The Chair :

Mr. Danko, we'll go over to you for five minutes.

John-Paul Danko (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.) :

Thank you, Chair. Thank you for joining us this afternoon. It's not lost on me that we're talking about the defence industrial strategy within the context of a trade war that was launched against Canada by the Trump administration. We're talking about our sovereignty in terms of defence capabilities but also economically. I'm a representative from Hamilton. I represent an area that has been the heart of Canada's industrial capability, whether you're talking about steel-making, shipbuilding, advanced manufacturing or all the associated industries.

There are significant industrial capabilities in Canada, but they're not necessarily in the defence industry. There are all kinds of things that are extremely specialized for defence that we could do. Right now, we're not necessarily making things specialized for defence. How do we leverage the industrial expertise and capacity we have in Canada to secure those supply chains, make sure we're buying Canadian and build up those industries so we can take advantage of global export markets?

Christiane Fox :

Thank you very much for the question. As part of the defence industrial strategy and the investment going into defence, it really is about shifting the economic activity happening across the country. The steel sector and auto sector have felt, as you know very well, the impacts of the tariffs and on the relationship we've had with our traditional partners. We have identified our top capabilities. We've taken into account the industrial strengths of our country—like the steel industry or the biotech industry—to try to match them with some of the capabilities we need.

If you're Algoma Steel, making a particular type of steel for a vehicle versus a River-class destroyer is very different. We need to match these investments we're making as part of national shipbuilding to the capabilities we have. It's not going to be done overnight, but I think it's absolutely the track we're on—trying to reconnect the work being done across our country with the defence investments the government is making at this time.

John-Paul Danko :

Thank you. I think that's great news for Canada and Canadians, especially for those in industrial centres. I want to talk about labour if I have a chance, and the skilled trades, but I want to expand, first, on the answer you gave about that industrial capability. A lot of things required for defence are technologically advanced. That means intellectual property. We're building up those industrial capabilities. These are very specialized ways of producing things, very specialized equipment and very specialized materials. How important is it that we maintain intellectual property domestically in this increasingly sophisticated world?

(1820) Christiane Fox :

Thank you for the question. I'll turn to Heather, who may want to add to this, but first I will say that it's going to be a really important balance. Some IP—intellectual property—will be enormously important for our sovereignty and our capabilities on the military side. We also have to be conscious of this: If a business wants to export, it needs to export to different customers. In doing so, it may need to retain some of its IP in order to sell the product abroad. It's going to be a balance. It'll be a consideration as we work through various contracts and procurements. It's important, in certain areas, that it remains with Canada.

John-Paul Danko :

My last question is on the skilled trades. Our government just launched a $6-billion investment in hiring and training the next generation of workers in the skilled trades. If we're investing in defence at the size and scale we're talking about, we're going to need tens of thousands of workers specifically in those industries. Per the defence industrial strategy, how are we going to train that next generation of workers to do the work required to deliver on what we're talking about here?

Christiane Fox :

There are two ways that I would answer that question. First, there is the actual infrastructure and the building that's happening, particularly in the north. We're going to need a skilled workforce to do that. Right now, we are mapping out all of the infrastructure builds that we have across the country, particularly in the north, and identifying the types of skills we need to complete these projects, such as welders, etc. Second, there are the specialized skills in developing satellite capability and quantum research.

As we look at the totality of our efforts, we will need, as you noted, a skilled workforce, whether for the infrastructure build or military housing and other types of expertise. We will have to work in partnership with others. I don't think we can do this alone. We will have to work with indigenous organizations, unions and provincial and territorial governments, and we'll have to fast-track and think about creative ways to do that. The investments matter. Apprenticeship programs and developing the talent we have matter. It's not going to be an easy solution, but we have to put our minds to all of it. Thank you.

The Chair :

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Monsieur Savard-Tremblay, it's back to you, sir, for two and a half minutes.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Thank you. Ms. Fox, another one of the strategy's objectives is to “boost government investment in defence‑related research and development by 85%.” We know that Quebec is a leader in a number of fields, including aerospace and artificial intelligence. Can we receive assurance that companies, especially Quebec's small and medium‑sized businesses, will get their fair share in this new phase of defence expansion?

Christiane Fox :

Yes. Investments have already been made in certain companies, in particular Héroux Devtek, through programs. We must continue to do this. Yes, the government announced investments in the National Research Council of Canada and in our institutes. I think that we'll need to look at how we can partner with the Université de Sherbrooke and other institutions to achieve the necessary goals. However, we already have a list of Quebec companies and institutions covered by the initial investments.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Are university partnerships part of the plan? You said that you thought that you should do this.

Christiane Fox :

Partnerships are already moving forward. However, we're in talks with institutions across the country to do more.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

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

Christiane Fox :

In certain circumstances, yes. As I said, exports can sometimes be more complex. We want to give companies the opportunity to export. However, I think that opportunities do exist. For example, we can use satellites to look at possible ways to prevent forest fires, but also for military investments and applications. So, I think that opportunities do exist for Quebec, for the industry and for the government.

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

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

Christiane Fox :

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

(1825) [ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Kibble, you have five minutes.

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My first question is for Ms. Fox. I reviewed the DIS and I could not find how it deals with non-kinetic threats, specifically coercive trade, foreign interference and supply chain weaponization. I note that in the “State of Canada's Defence Industry Report”, it doesn't even include steel and aluminum as factors. Could you help me understand how it deals with, say, coercive trade?

Christiane Fox :

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

Jeff Kibble :

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

Wendy Hadwen :

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

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. I'm glad the intention is there, but I'm just not seeing it in the plan as part of the strategy. My question is now for General Simoneau. The department authenticated the January 27 evaluation from Lieutenant-Colonel Kieley, commandant at the recruit school. Do you accept these findings as the institutional view of the CFLRS period that it covers?

LGen Erick Simoneau :

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

Jeff Kibble :

Do you accept the report, then?

LGen Erick Simoneau :

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

Jeff Kibble :

Thank you. In The Globe and Mail , in 2025, the minister declared a recruitment goal of 12,000 to 15,000 per year. Earlier this year, it was announced that the goal is now 6,900, approximately, and then it was announced, for this year, that there were 7,300 enrolments—not successful passes but enrolments. We know, from Kieley's report, that almost 25% are not passing, so we're clearly not meeting our goals, despite the positive announcements about them. What are the recruiting numbers needed to achieve trained effective strength in the Canadian Forces? What was that path forward?

How many do we need this year, next year and the following year, and not recruits but the ones who actually make it through and pass?

LGen Erick Simoneau :

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

Jeff Kibble :

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

LGen Erick Simoneau :

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

Jeff Kibble :

For next year, the target is 8,200. It's a 12% increase from this year. The Auditor General reports that the school is already operating at 80% of its capacity, and that there are instructor and critical equipment shortages, even uniform shortages. By what mechanism does the capacity-constrained school absorb a 12% intake increase, and then even more the next year?

LGen Erick Simoneau :

There are three things related to that question. First of all, we're increasing the bed capacity, both in Saint-Jean and Borden. I received a picture today of 420 beds being built at a camp, ready to go for this summer. That is going to increase our capacity. In terms of instructors, this is the number one priority of the Canadian Armed Forces. In those schools, 100% staffing is being achieved already and will continue to be achieved.

(1830) Jeff Kibble :

Quickly, if I can, in eight seconds—

The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Kibble. You're not quick enough. I'm sorry. Ms. Idlout, I go over to you for five minutes.

Lori Idlout :

Qujannamiik, Iksivautaq . Thank you, Chair. First, I want to acknowledge just how impressed I am that our Government of Canada officials, the leaders, are all women. How amazing is that? That's so wonderful. I'm going to ask a two-part question about the implementation of the defence industrial strategy. The first one will be on how the Government of Canada will work with territories and indigenous partners to implement the objectives of the strategy. I know you partially answered that, which I really appreciate, but can you elaborate more on that?

Second, how will Canada's industrial strategy support defence-related research, development and innovation in Canada? Then I'll just ask the chair to monitor your time and cut you off when it's the end of my time. Thank you.

Christiane Fox :

Okay. I'll start, and then my colleagues may want to add something. What I would say first, to your first question on how we are working with the territories and the indigenous organizations in the north, is that we've set up various tables so that we can sit down and get to a level of specificity by territory. We've done a lot of engagement through the Inuit-Crown partnership. We have a special table that's dedicated to defence and security to talk through some of the issues.

There are particular military capabilities that we need to share with our partners in the Arctic and Inuit Nunangat, but we also need to hear from them about their priorities and maybe where we can work together. We're making big investments in the north, in some cases on important infrastructure, but that infrastructure will require power and broadband. How can we look at the needs of communities and the needs of the military and come together for those investments? We've had several conversations that will continue to develop.

One of the things we're trying to do is to be more transparent about our plans and to get input early. On key issues like the workforce, which your colleague raised, it's an important place where we want to make sure that we can work with local communities on employment opportunities and also on safety and security in the context of communities that will be next to an operational hub. How can we factor in some of those considerations? We'll continue that engagement.

We are also meeting with land claim organizations and some of the environmental decision bodies around some of the projects that will be coming their way. It's going to be an ongoing discussion. From a kind of country ride, we held our first federal-provincial-territorial meeting to talk through everybody's priorities, and the territories were part of that conversation as well. On your second point, I think this is a real opportunity for Canada to really think about R and D, technology and innovation in the context of, yes, defence but also dual use.

As we think about some of the quantum experts we have across the country, the AI centres, the drone capabilities that we're seeing become more important in the future of military capabilities, how can we invest and how can we partner? I think that perhaps in the past, there was a lot of activity that would happen at DRDC and separate activity that would happen maybe in an institution. Having an opportunity to bring people together to do that research, some of it in a safe space and a secure location and some through that dual-use technology....

The DIS allows us the funding investments to generate that activity in the country, and I think we will have to be clear on what R and D opportunities are linked to some of these sovereign capabilities that have been identified in the DIS. I think those are some of the conversations that we've having with research institutions. Wendy, I don't know if you want to add anything.

Wendy Hadwen :

Thank you so much. If I may, I would also note that the defence industrial strategy puts us in a new position of offering some of our ranges, training areas and operational environments to be able to test and evaluate things that Canadian industry produces. Some of these are formal, and some of these are yet to take place. We imagine industry days, where there is a location where we have a big military presence and we also have industries. Even more to the point, the Canadian Armed Forces is making a big effort to be present at trade shows in Canada, or industry shows.

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

(1835) The Chair :

Thank you for your questions and answers. Mr. Bezan, it's over to you. I'm sensitive about the time. We have about 10 minutes left. I have five minutes for your questions. Take your five minutes, and then we'll see what happens next.

James Bezan :

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to go back to some of the comments that General Simoneau just made. There is a memo out there from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School. One of the recommendations is based upon the lowering of standards on the aptitude test. They're saying that there needs to be a re-establishment of some form of aptitude testing during the recruiting process. It's saying that there are probably downstream impacts on training.

I'm hearing anecdotal evidence from people in places like Gagetown that the recruits showing up are not at the same standard and quality that we've had in the past. We see that more are getting released on mental health and other physical shortcomings because of the lowering of the standard. Based upon this report that came out that's quite concerning, we want to make sure we continue recruiting the best of the best, putting them through and putting together a military that is strong. We're hearing stories that one platoon had over a 50% failure rate.

We're hearing stories of racism and misogyny, things that we're trying to change in the culture of the Canadian Armed Forces, to get away from the problems that we've experienced in the past. It sounds like we might be going backwards. I gave notice on Friday, May 1. I want to move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on National Defence undertake a study of six meetings regarding the Canadian Armed Forces recruitment and training programs, specifically looking at the changes outlined in the 27 January 2026 memo titled “Initial Observations – Impact of Changes to CAF Recruiting Policies at Basic Training Over 2025”, that the committee invite the Minister of National Defence, the Chief of the Defence Staff, the Commandant of the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School, the Chief of Military Personnel, and other expert witnesses; and that the committee report its findings to the House.

The Chair :

The motion has been put forward for a debate. Monsieur Malette, it's over to you.

Chris Malette :

Thank you, Chair. I have an amendment to the motion. It is that the motion be amended by (

a) replacing the word “six” by the word “four”; (

b) replacing the words after “training programs” and before “that the committee” with the following: “given that the Canadian Armed Forces reached a 30 year high in recruitment this year”; (

c) replacing the words after “the committee invite” and before “and other experts” by the following: “the relevant officials from the Department of National Defence”; and (

d) adding after the words “to the House” the following: “and that pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response.” I have copies of the amendment.

The Chair :

The copies are being circulated. Are they in both English and French?

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

That's what I wanted to ask you, Mr. Chair. Is it available in both official languages?

[ English ]

Chris Malette :

They're in both official languages.

The Chair :

Okay. We'll get that distributed. Do you want to read out the actual...?

Chris Malette :

How the motion would read?

The Chair :

We'll suspend the original motion. We're going now into the amendment. We're going to debate—

James Bezan :

We should deal with one amendment at a time. It's rather—

(1840) The Chair :

That's why I'm asking him to read it. Read the amended motion.

Chris Malette :

All right. I will read the actual amended motion. It would say, “That, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), the Standing Committee on National Defence undertake a study of four meetings regarding the Canadian Armed Forces recruitment and training programs, given that the Canadian Armed Forces reached a 30-year high in recruitment this year; that the committee invite the relevant officials from the Department of National Defence and other expert witnesses; that the committee report its findings to the House; and pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a government response.”

The Chair :

Mr. Bezan.

James Bezan :

I believe that part (

b) changes the intent of the motion and should be ruled out of order. In the original motion, we're specifically talking about the memo that is titled “Initial Observations - Impact of Changes to CAF Recruiting Policies at Basic Training Over 2025”, and by removing that you remove the intent of the study. Changing that to add in some sloganeering from the Liberals changes the intent of the motion.

The Chair :

This is obviously around recruitment. The amendment has been put forward and I need further debate. I find that the ruling being requested, in terms of intent, which would be the case.... I believe the intent still exists with the amendment made, because it's still requesting the standing order to review the recruitment and the training programs. That has remained, as far as I can tell.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Chair, I would like to have the floor.

[ English ]

The Chair :

I have Mr. Savard-Tremblay and then Mr. Kibble.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

I'm not asking for it for right now. I'll eventually manage to decipher the text. However, when I receive the text like this, it's extremely complicated. In the future, would it be possible to have a version that includes the new wording and that keeps the track changes in the old version? It would be much easier to understand. This is a real puzzle.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Does the French version not have track changes available?

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

We just have the amendments. We'll need to take the time to incorporate them into the old motion. It's the same thing in English.

[ English ]

The Chair :

We have a request to illustrate the track changes of the motion in both languages. Is that available, Mr. Malette?

Chris Malette :

I do not have those at my disposal. I can ask staff. One moment, please....

The Chair :

I have Mr. Kibble up, but I think we're now—

Chris Malette :

Mr. Chair, if we could suspend for one minute, I will be able to get that.

James Bezan :

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair :

I guess I'll deal with the point of order. I was going to suspend for just a moment, but go ahead.

James Bezan :

Just on process, while they're doing that, we could go through the (a), (b), (

c) and (

d) one step at a time. It makes it a little clearer exactly what they're doing, instead of one big amendment.

The Chair :

The amendment is as he read it. It's the amendment as preceded by.... It deals with the entire motion. I'm going to suspend, then, for just a moment. To the witnesses, yes, I apologize. You're dismissed. Thank you very much for your testimony.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

Mr. Chair, I would like to have the floor.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Savard-Tremblay, it's over to you.

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

In a minute, the meeting will be over.

The Chair :

Yes. [ English ] Mr. Savard-Tremblay—

[ Translation ]

Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay :

We were supposed to finish the meeting at 6:30 p.m. I've already slightly postponed my next commitment.

[ English ]

Sherry Romanado :

We can then maybe circulate it and make track changes.

(1845) The Chair :

If I understand correctly, if I suspend, we'll deal with your amendment at the next meeting. Is that acceptable to the committee?

Sherry Romanado :

We'll circulate both in track changes so that we can talk and proceed.

The Chair :

Let's suspend, and we'll deal with this first thing at our next meeting. [ The meeting was suspended at 6:45 p.m., Wednesday, May 6 ] [ The meeting resumed at 11:03 a.m., Monday, May 25 ]

(46700) The Chair :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome back to meeting number 36 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence, which was suspended on Wednesday, May 6. When we suspended, the committee was studying an amendment from Mr. Malette to the motion of Mr. Bezan. You've all received copies of said motion and the amendments. We did that so we could facilitate our discussion process. Mr. Kibble, you are next in the speaking order. We will proceed.

Jeff Kibble :

I will waive.

The Chair :

Mr. Kibble has waived. Yes, Mr. Bezan.

James Bezan :

I'm going to speak to the amendment as presented by Mr. Malette. I'd like to make a subamendment to that amendment by deleting part (b), which asks to replace the words after “training programs” and before “that the committee” with the following: “given that the Canadian Armed Forces reached a 30-year high in recruitment this year”. I wish to delete it. If we can delete it, I think we can have consent to go ahead with the changes.

That would keep the intent of the motion, which is to look at the report that came from the Canadian Forces Leadership and Recruit School and went to the chief of military personnel about the challenges they're having in basic training. This is about basic training. It's not just about recruitment.

The Chair :

Thank you. That subamended has been posted. Ms. Romanado, go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

Thank you, Chair. I want to make sure I understand this. The subamendment is to remove (b). We don't have it in writing, so I want to make sure I'm following exactly what Mr. Bezan said. Could he repeat it, for the sake of the committee?

James Bezan :

We have a working document here that was provided by the clerk.

(46705) The Chair :

Yes, there's a working document out.

James Bezan :

The amendment proposed had parts (a), (b), (

c) and (d). I'm suggesting the deletion of part (b).

The Chair :

Are you also taking out (c)?

James Bezan :

No, we're leaving (c).

The Chair :

You're leaving in (c). Okay.

James Bezan :

It's just (b). I'm okay with the other amendments.

The Chair :

Ms. Romanado, I'll go over to you.

Sherry Romanado :

Is the proposal, then, that after removing (b), you're basically keeping the original motion as it is?

James Bezan :

No. The amendment reduces the number of meetings to four. It still provides invitations to other witnesses and says that the committee requests a government response. That all stays. The subamendment just removes the proposed words “30-year high in recruitment this year” and leaves in place the name of the report that we wish to study.

The Chair :

Mr. Malette, go ahead.

Chris Malette :

I understand, politically, what the intent of that might be, but is there a question about the validity of the statement “given that the Canadian Armed Forces reached a 30-year high in recruitment this year”, or is it superfluous at all to the motion? Is that the idea?

James Bezan :

One, that part deletes the purpose of the original motion. Two, it's a 30-year high because they've only been collecting data for the last 30 years on what recruitment numbers are. It's actually an irrelevant number. If you want to go back to World War II and Korea, then we can really look at what recruitment numbers are. It's a metric that was only recently done, over the last three decades.

Chris Malette :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Romanado, go ahead.

Sherry Romanado :

Since we don't have the subamendment in writing, I just want to make sure I understand it. I understand that we're keeping parts (a), (

c) and (

d) of the amendment, but by removing (b), we go back to the original motion, which reads, “specifically looking at the changes outlined in the 27 January 2026 memo titled ‘Initial Observations — Impact of Changes to CAF Recruiting Policies at Basic Training Over 2025’”. Is that correct?

James Bezan :

That is correct. That is the intent of the motion. It's about basic training. It's not about recruitment. Although I was ruled out of order by the chair, the question is around basic training at Saint-Jean. It's not about the 30-year high in recruitment numbers, which had been suggested by Mr. Malette.

The Chair :

Is there further debate?

An hon. member: Call the question.

The Chair: Okay. We're dealing with a subamendment to the amendment of Mr. Malette, with the change to remove item (b). We'll put it to a vote. (Subamendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Amendment agreed to: yeas 6; nays 5 [ See Minutes of Proceedings ]) (Motion as amended agreed to on division)

The Chair: As the motion has been passed and adopted, we'll now resume our study on the impact of the defence industrial strategy, pursuant to Standi