National Defence Committee on June 3rd, 2024

[Viviane LaPointe, Liberal, Sudbury, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

We're making excellent progress on the space study. We've heard from a number of witnesses about the importance and timeliness of the study. So far, we've heard from 16 witnesses. We have about 20 witnesses yet to be heard.

I'd like to engage my colleagues in a discussion about adding additional meetings by moving the following motion:

That, given the Standing Committee on National Defence has heard 16 witnesses, with 20 to be heard, in relation to its study on the Defence of Space, the committee add two additional meetings.

That's in accordance with the flexibility built into the original study motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

The motion is in order. It's relevant to the subject matter being discussed here today.

We have essentially two motions, one that Mr. Bezan has given notice of, which is in order, and yours, which is in order. We can debate them. Given that, I want to release the witnesses, if that's acceptable. Then we can proceed in order, first with Mr. Fillmore and then with Mr. Bezan.

I want to thank you for your contribution. This has been a really interesting study, and I have a feeling that we've just scratched the surface. In conversation with other people off-line, shall we say, there has been quite an interest in the study, so thank you, Dr. West and Dr. Fergusson. I anticipate we may see you both again.

With that, I will release you as witnesses, and we'll deal with Mr. Fillmore's motion, which, as I said, is in order.

Mr. Fillmore, do you wish to speak to it?

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

No. I think my position is known. I welcome other people's feedback.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

In terms of next steps, I'd like the clerk to tell us what the committee's calendar looks like from now until the House recesses in June.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Andrew Wilson]

Of course, Ms. Normandin.

Our next two meetings will be devoted to drafting instructions for the report on rising domestic operational deployments and challenges for the Canadian Armed Forces.

Then on June 12, 17 and 19, we planned for the defence policy update. However, as always, I am at the mercy of the committee, and if the committee wishes to prioritize other things, we can move things around.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Pat.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

Just briefly—because I don't want to argue this for long—I think we've probably had enough on this. We've heard from diverse witnesses. I think we have enough for a report. I wouldn't want to get to the point of redundancy or satiating some curiosities without getting to material pieces that would go into solid recommendations. I think we've probably had enough on this study.

Mr. Chair, since it's material to the comment in your introduction on the relationship to Mr. Bezan's motion, and to the clerk's point about the number of meetings left, we have a report to consider on Wednesday, which we'll finish considering in the second hour. We'll have four meetings after that, one of which we'll probably need in order to finish the other report, leaving us three meetings, which we were already planning to use for the DPU. The threat analysis contained in Mr. Bezan's motion is related to the DPU and is material to the timing of that.

I would just as soon conclude the space study with the witnesses we've heard—we probably won't get to a report till the fall—and carry on with using the remaining meetings we have to deal with the threat analysis and the DPU and how they relate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

I'm of like mind. I think we've had some very good witnesses. We had a lot of great testimony.

I'm not sure if the witnesses who are left will add any more value to the study. I think all of us are getting, through the questions we've had, a pretty good idea of what we expect to see in a report: where the deficiencies are in space from a Canadian perspective and where we can add value. I'm not sure if Mr. Fillmore has specific witnesses he didn't get to call or who weren't available. That's always part of the calculation. Not every witness put on the list is available or willing to come before committee.

I think we can close on a very strong note today with the witnesses we've had. It's time to start pulling the report together.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll go to Ms. Mathyssen, then to Mr. Fillmore.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Thank you.

I don't have any problem with potentially two additional meetings. I am interested, obviously, in sticking to our calendar. We worked well together in the subcommittee to ensure that we agreed to move forward in the way we planned. I also have the concerns Mr. Kelly raised about getting to the other reports and making sure they are finished. They've been outstanding for quite some time. However, I don't have any problem with the extension by two meetings, and I would suggest there's no specific timeline for ensuring they're in the fall.

I would like a bit of an update. We agreed that we would try to travel for this study to broaden our understanding of it. Whenever that's happening and however it plays into those future meetings, I think travel could be quite helpful. However, I think this is a conversation we could have in the meetings in the fall. Let's finish off what we already agreed to finish off, as per the subcommittee's recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Just for the committee's consideration, we applied for travel on this study. We have not heard back as to whether we're going to receive the funds.

For argument's sake, we can disaggregate the timing of the extension from the merits of the motion. I don't know whether Mr. Fillmore was thinking of this, but certainly the chair was not thinking that we'd try to get it in the remaining time frame in June. It would be pushed off to the fall sometime.

Anyway, Mr. Fillmore, do you want finish it off? Then we'll have a sense of that.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you.

I appreciate the perspectives of members—very much so.

If we think back to the content of the original motion, it talked about the importance of space in protecting Canada's national security and northern sovereignty. It pointed to the way we work and fulfill our obligations with our international partners. It also pointed to the importance of Canada building and maintaining strong leadership in industry when it comes to space.

We've heard some perspectives on those three categories. I would never say that we've heard the full, rounded-out perspective on all three of them. However, what we have heard very clearly from witnesses so far is the tremendous urgency and importance of this study. In fact, a witness today, Dr. Fergusson, said that if we don't get space right, all the other things we're trying to do don't matter, because they all hinges on space and we're behind on space.

To me, there's nothing more important this committee could be working on. To make it one of our shortest studies and lightest reports would I think be a mistake we'll come to regret quite quickly. I would be happy to move the meetings into the fall session to make sure we do other things.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Perfect, that answers my question. I too was wondering whether it was necessary to prioritize the meetings at the expense, in particular, of the discussion we need to have on Canada's defence policy update. Given that this will be a hot topic at the summit in Washington in July, it would have been a shame not to stick to the calendar the subcommittee had already succeeded in establishing, at Ms. Mathyssen's request.

If it has to be postponed until September, after our trip, then we'll determine whether the committee needs to hear from any particular witnesses. If it's confirmed that it will happen once we return in the fall, I agree with the proposal, but I wouldn't want it to undo the work we've already done on the calendar.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are there any other contributions? No.

(Motion agreed to)

We will try to shape this to accommodate as many needs as we possibly can.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Chair, how likely is it that we'll get the witnesses some of us have requested? It's going to take more lead time than what they've been given, that's all.

I'll defer to my colleague.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

If I am to understand this motion, you'll have plenty of lead time. We're not going to do this for months.

Mr. Bezan.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to move to the following motion, which I gave notice of in writing:

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) and the motion adopted by the committee on January 31, 2022, the committee receive threat analysis briefings prior to the summer recess regarding the recent activities in the Baltic region by Russia and the recent destabilizing efforts of the People's Republic of China in the Indo-Pacific region.

I think this is current. We want to make sure that, as committee members, we're always aware of what is happening in the world and how it could affect the Canadian Armed Forces and national security here at home. We have been receiving the threat analysis, and we're about to start the study on the defence policy update, which technically got under way when the minister briefed us on the DPU about a month ago.

Based on Russia's activities in the last two weeks in the Baltic region.... Some of us on the committee were in Estonia last year on the bridge over the Narva River that separates Russia from Estonia, and all the navigation buoys that delineate the border between Russia and Estonia were removed by the Russian coast guard or their operatives. They are disputing that line within the Narva River, which has upset, of course, the Estonians and others. Additionally, they tabled a motion at their foreign affairs committee, and then took it to the Duma in Moscow, that said they were going to redraw the borders within the Baltic Sea, which would affect navigation for Finland, Sweden, Estonia, Latvia and others. It would ultimately give them a clearer way to protect St. Petersburg and get them greater access to Kaliningrad. I think we should get updated on what's happening there.

In the Indo-Pacific, we see the People's Liberation Army Navy being very aggressive in the South China Sea, especially around the east Thomas Shoal with the Philippines. They've made some advances toward islands in the Sea of Japan that are controlled by Japan. Of course, after the swearing in of Taiwan's new President, Lai Ching-te, they have been challenging and actually entering the economic zone, airspace and maritime space of Taiwan in the Strait of Taiwan. Also, the rhetoric that has come out of Beijing has been very toxic towards Taiwan, and it's something I haven't seen before. I'm suggesting that we have those briefings.

For your consideration, Mr. Chair, when we call witnesses, instead of going with departmental witnesses or witnesses from embassies to brief us on what's happening, it might be interesting to receive briefings from some of the international think tanks, like the Royal United Services Institute or RAND. They have offices around the world, so they can provide their policy analyses of what's happening within those two main regions and how they impact the Canadian Armed Forces. Of course, we have troops in Latvia, and we're sending another frigate off to the Indo-Pacific as part of the Indo-Pacific strategy.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

At the risk of repeating myself, it's certainly not because I consider it uninteresting, let alone pointless, to undertake a study of the situation in the Baltic or Indo-Pacific region, but I wouldn't want it to happen at the expense of the planned meetings on the defence policy update.

We're heading into the NATO summit in Washington. On a national level, we will no doubt want to make certain recommendations for this summit. I wouldn't want us to fail to do that because we won't be studying the defence policy update. I like the idea of doing a risk analysis study. On the other hand, it concerns a region that is a little further away and where we have less leeway in terms of what we can do, from a domestic point of view, and in terms of the position we take in anticipation of this summit, which is just around the corner.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Kelly.