[Inaudible—Editor]
Evidence of meeting #111 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spending.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #111 for National Defence in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was spending.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
That still means we're going to have to cut back time to three minutes in the first round.
Go ahead, Mr. Bezan.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Mr. Chair, because of how constrained things are getting here, I think it's unfair to our witnesses that we're cutting back on their time, especially since they've had to cut back on their testimony. I don't think that's fair.
I move the following motion, for which I gave notice last Monday:
Given the large workload the committee has on the docket, the committee instructs the chair to book five meetings over the months of July 8 and September 13, to deal with unfinished business, such as the RCAF pilot recruitment, training, and retention and other pressing matters as they emerge.
May I speak to that motion?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As we are dealing with this DPU, today has turned into a rushed day. We know that we'll probably lose the meeting on Wednesday with the visit of NATO Secretary General Stoltenberg. We have the DPU study that we want to dive into.
We have a housing crisis. It was mentioned in our last panel that we're short 6,700 residential housing units, yet there's no money in the budget to back up the building of new houses for our troops. We have a housing study that we should be completing and getting tabled to provide insight to the government. We have a transparency study that we're also working on that needs to be dealt with. We have stories of our troops who are living unhoused, living rough. We have stories of our military families having to go to food banks.
Through all this, we have this huge recruitment crisis. I have another motion that I tabled last week that we'll deal with at another time. We're facing a pilot shortage, especially with our fighter pilots. We don't have enough to fight and to fly the old aircraft we have, never mind the F-35s that will be coming on stream.
Mr. Chair, I don't think we need a lot of debate on this. I ask colleagues here to support this motion and to take time out of their summer to come back to Ottawa and allow us to put together policy that will help our Canadian Armed Forces and put together policy that will provide better resources to those brave women and men who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I think the way we can do that is by having a few more meetings. I don't think five meetings out of our summer is a big ask. I would ask colleagues to support this.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Marie-France Lalonde Liberal Orléans, ON
I won't debate, I'm just going to say it's very interesting that this particular member has wasted time twice throughout the past two hours.
I would call the vote.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
All those in favour of the motion?
(Motion negatived)
Mr. Bezan, you have—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB
Thank you.
I want to thank both of our witnesses. I apologize that you're not going to get the amount of time you deserve to put your concerns on.... We could have had more meetings to actually dive deeper into what you're saying.
I'm going to start with you, Dr. Boutilier. You were unequivocal and you pulled no punches in your criticism of the defence policy update. You're also quite well known for your advocacy for a strong Royal Canadian Navy.
Can you speak to the fact that all the DPU talks about is exploring the importance of replacing our Victoria-class submarines and what Canada should be doing right now to get the underwater capabilities we need to defend our coastlines and work with our allies?
12:25 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Thank you very much, Mr. Bezan. I certainly appreciate your question.
The DPU does refer, in a brief passage of half a dozen lines, to some specific requirements with respect to underwater sensors and so forth in the Arctic and elsewhere on the Canadian coastline. That's one issue on which the DPU is uncharacteristically specific.
With respect to submarines, this is a national tragedy. Submarines are the coin of the realm, and we should be moving with enormous rapidity and commitment to address this issue. What we have to think about, without risking getting into a long dissertation on submarines, is the colossal distances that separate us from the areas in which we're likely to be operational. From Victoria to the western Arctic is 4,500 miles, the same distance that Victoria is from Tokyo.
The talk about conventional submarines, I think, is in many ways misplaced. We should, in fact, be going down the nuclear route. I realize there is a long legacy of nuclear submarines in the Canadian experience, but if you wish to proceed undetected, at speed, and to have the endurance to perform in the Arctic or elsewhere, this is the sort of submarine we need. We will have to buy it in collaboration with the Americans and the Brits in the way the Australians have done.
This is a matter of enormous urgency. A navy without this capacity in this day and age, when there are over 200 submarines operational in the Indo-Pacific, is a navy that is in fact operating with only half of the force it should have available.
Thank you.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Dr. Boutilier. I think it's Mr. Collins now.
You have three minutes. Go ahead, please.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
Dr. Charron, you caught my attention immediately with your opening statement when you said that you didn't believe Canadian sovereignty was at risk. Did I hear you correctly, and can you expand upon that?
12:30 p.m.
Prof. Andrea Charron
Yes.
We're talking about de jure sovereignty. Nobody is arguing that the Arctic is not Canadian. Even if we have Russian bombers that are in the Canadian air defence identification zone, that's still international airspace. That is not losing our sovereignty. I think the problem with using a term like “sovereignty” is that we aren't talking about discussions of how we detect threats, how we defeat threats and how we make sure the whole of government is integrating its efforts.
The fact is that sovereignty can be used by anybody to be a short form for “I have a concern I can't articulate, but let me use sovereignty,” rather than talking about the issues that need to be addressed.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Why, then, do you believe that now's the time? Even though to your mind it may not be related to sovereignty, why is now the time to invest in the Arctic?
12:30 p.m.
Prof. Andrea Charron
I've been arguing for a decade that we need to invest. I do a lot of research on NORAD, and the NORAD modernization and continental defence projects are going to be essential.
We are in an era of deterrence by denial, which means we need to be able to get a common operating picture that can be shared securely with all of the necessary partners to understand what is happening, and that's not going to happen unless the NORAD modernization projects, the satellites and the land-based and sea-based sensors, are in place, connected, and protected, and we start to consider the defence of North America as a wider contribution to NATO in general.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Chad Collins Liberal Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON
Thanks.
You talked about the great strains that will come to communities in the north in relation to investing $15.6 billion specifically in infrastructure. We think about all of the roads that need to go in and the housing that needs to be constructed in order to have a greater presence in the north. All of those investments need to happen in consultation, as you highlighted, with our partners and other stakeholders, including first nations and our provincial and territorial partners.
Can you talk about how that happens and about the importance of having those conversations ahead of those investments?
12:30 p.m.
Prof. Andrea Charron
When it comes to the indigenous governments, especially the Inuit, we're talking about rights holders, so they absolutely have to be at the table: It's nothing about them without them.
This is where Joint Task Force North is so essential. They are the connectors for the Government of Canada to indigenous governments and to other government departments, and with the increased tempo of activity that's happening in the Arctic, they need more resources to be able to make those connections so that consultations are significant and not ad hoc and after the fact.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal John McKay
Thank you, Mr. Collins.
Madame Normandin is next, for three minutes, please.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much.
My questions are mainly for Mr. Boutilier.
In the first part of the meeting, we were told that, starting in 2029, there would probably be—
12:35 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Pardon me. I am sorry to interrupt you. Is there a translation available?
12:35 p.m.
The Clerk
Dr. Boutilier, this is the clerk speaking to you.
If you go to the bottom of your Zoom screen, there should be a globe that you choose for interpretation. If you choose English, it will give you the interpretation there.
12:35 p.m.
Professor, As an Individual
Thank you so very much, Andrew.
I apologize.
12:35 p.m.
Bloc