SoVote

Apr/5/22 3:14:10 p.m.
Watch

All those opposed to the hon. member moving the motion will please say nay. Some hon. members: Nay.

18 words

Apr/5/22 3:14:35 p.m.
Watch

We left off with the hon. member for Davenport, who had three minutes left, and I want to make sure that everybody takes their conversations outside. The hon. member for Davenport.

31 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz (Davenport, Lib.)

Apr/5/22 3:14:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, NATO allies' response to Russia's aggression has also accelerated NATO's transformation as it adjusts to a more dangerous strategic reality, including through the adoption of the next strategic concept at the NATO leaders summit in June. Canada is unwavering in its commitment to the NATO alliance, to the defence of Euro-Atlantic security and to the rules-based international order. I would also say that as Canada, we understand the need to invest in defence to be agile and adaptable in the space of evolving threats. In 2017, Canada released its current defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which considerably increased defence spending and put in place—

113 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/5/22 3:15:46 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt. Folks, if we could take our conversations outside, that would be wonderful. Is that the hon. member's point of order? We have a point of order from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

47 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/5/22 3:16:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was the one who shouted that out. It is almost impossible to hear the member speak. She is trying to conclude her speech. Perhaps you can ask members to leave the chamber if they want to have conversations so that we can hear what the member is saying.

51 words

The Deputy Speaker

Apr/5/22 3:16:16 p.m.
Watch

Thanks for that. Also, I did forget to do one thing after question period, which was to remind members not to introduce people in the gallery when they are asking their questions or what have you. It is against the rules of the House of Commons. We are going to go back to the member for Davenport, and I am going to give her the three minutes because it is hard to get started again. The hon. member for Davenport.

80 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/5/22 3:16:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, NATO allies' response to Russia's aggression has also accelerated NATO's transformation as it adjusts to a more dangerous strategic reality, including through the adoption of the next strategic concept at the NATO leaders summit in June. NATO will further develop the full range of ready forces and capabilities necessary to maintain credible deterrence and defence. These steps will be supported by enhanced exercises with an increased focus on collective defence and interoperability. Canada is unwavering in its commitment to the NATO alliance, to the defence of Euro-Atlantic security and to the rules-based international order. We also understand the need to invest in defence to be agile and adaptable in the space of evolving threats. In 2017, Canada released its current defence policy, “Strong, Secure, Engaged”, which considerably increased defence spending and put in place a plan to equip the Canadian Armed Forces for the rapidly changing security environment. Canada will exceed the aspirational guideline of spending 20% of defence budgets on major equipment. This does not include expenditures associated with NORAD modernization and continental defence or the planned purchase of 88 next-generation fighter aircraft. The steps we are taking to ensure the security of our alliance and of the Euro-Atlantic area will require adequate resources. Canada is substantially increasing our defence expenditures, and we continue our efforts to fulfill commitments to the defence investment pledge. Canada is also clear-eyed about the potential threats in the Arctic and has committed to enhancing situational awareness in this domain. We will increase training and joint exercises with our Arctic allies and partners while promoting intelligence sharing in the Arctic, including with NATO. Our contributions to NATO demonstrate Canada's unwavering commitment to the alliance and to strengthened allied capacity to respond to the evolving security environment. Our contributions maintain and strengthen the transatlantic bond. In conclusion, Canada, Europe and NATO—the entire transatlantic community—is speaking with one voice. We will continue to engage the broader international community to maintain strong condemnation and pressure on Putin. The Russian leadership will answer for Russia's horrifying attacks on Ukraine. We will continue to work with our allies and partners in NATO, the G7, the OECD, the UN, the EU and the international community to support Ukraine as it fights for its country, democracy and freedom. We call on Russia to withdraw all of its troops from Ukraine and its illegal invasion and turn to fact-based diplomacy and dialogue. Ukraine has the right to be free and secure, and every Ukrainian deserves the right to dignity and peace.

437 words

All Topics

Hon. Michael Chong (Wellington—Halton Hills, CPC)

Apr/5/22 3:19:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech with great interest. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the government is committed to meeting the NATO commitment of spending at least 20% of defence expenditures on equipment, and that would not include NATO modernization or the acquisition of F-35 jets. Could the member tell the House where she thinks the additional equipment spending should be allocated and what types of equipment the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of, in addition to the F-35 jets and the modernization of NATO that she already outlined?

101 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/5/22 3:20:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member is right in terms of what I had said in my speech. I will say that I am not sure if I have the full list available of what it is that we are planning to do. I will just remind everyone in this House that we have already started moving on purchasing some of that equipment. We have delivered the first Canadian ship built in 20 years. We have acquired six Arctic offshore patrol boats, and two have already been delivered to the navy. We have begun construction on a joint support ship that will provide sea replenishment as well as 4,000 jobs in Canada, and we have already delivered rifles for our Rangers, so I know we have already gotten started. I think the list will become clearer in the coming weeks and months.

141 words

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/5/22 3:21:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, meeting the 2% of GDP target called for in this motion would mean increasing our military spending from about $24 billion a year now to over $54 billion. That is an extra $30 billion per year. While I think all Canadians want to make sure that our military is well equipped and properly funded, I want to get my hon. colleague's take on this quote from President Eisenhower. He said: Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. Would the member agree that this is the best use of $30 billion, or would she like to see that money instead put into dental care for seniors and children and into expanded health care and housing for Canadians who cannot find it in this country?

159 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/5/22 3:22:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I would say is that we are facing the greatest threat to international peace and stability in decades. As such, NATO is again looking at its strategy. It is about deterrence and it is about defence; it is not about war. We also have to step up as a NATO country to also look at how we are going to continue to increase our investment in NATO, because in the end that will protect us. We also have to step up and make sure that we are able to properly defend Canada, including our Arctic boundary. That is not to say that we, in any way, should not continue to move forward aggressively on our commitment around implementing national pharmacare as well as dental care.

128 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/5/22 3:23:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question will be brief. After seven years of bungling, we are back at square one, even though millions of dollars have been spent. Can the member explain these seven years of bungling, job losses and wasted money?

40 words

Ms. Julie Dzerowicz

Apr/5/22 3:23:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not quite sure I understand the mix-up the member is talking about, but I will say once again that we are living through unprecedented times with the pandemic the world has had to grapple with for almost three years now and with the unprovoked and illegal invasion of Russia into Ukraine. We are now facing the greatest threat to international peace and stability in decades. We have to step up. We have to look forward, not backwards. We have to look forward, put together a plan and work with our allies, not only to protect Canada but also to play our role in NATO.

109 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Apr/5/22 3:24:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for his enthusiasm about listening to me for the next 10 minutes. I want to thank the member for Davenport for sharing that time with me today and for the opportunity to provide some input into this opposition day motion. I am very pleased to see that the Conservative Party is eager to spend 2% of our gross domestic product on our military. It certainly is not in keeping with what it was doing during the last Conservative government, but perhaps its members have turned a new leaf and have decided this is in fact the way we should be moving forward. First I would like to address where the 2% of GDP comes from and perhaps some of the challenges that are associated with it. In 2014, at the Wales summit, NATO leaders came together and made a decision collectively. It was a formal pledge to spend 2% of their nations' GDP on military expenditures specifically. This was done in order to ensure there would be fairness throughout countries in their participation and what they were putting toward NATO and the protection it offers NATO countries. It was therefore decided this would be a fair and equitable way of moving forward. One of the problems with that 2% figure is that different countries, at least in the beginning, were calculating their 2% differently. For example, some countries were including pensions being paid to veterans, whereas others were not. Also, in the way the program is set up, or the way it is supposed to be measured, is that any armed service a country has would be included. One of the problems Canada would face in that scenario is that our Coast Guard is considered a civilian service, whereas in the U.S., the coast guard is considered an armed service. As a result, the U.S. would include in its 2% calculation its coast guard, whereas Canada would not necessarily do that. After my time on the Standing Committee on National Defence and after we had an opportunity to study this 2% issue and the NATO contributions of Canada specifically, I was pleased to see in 2018 that at least NATO did update some of the ways it recommended to countries to calculate that 2%. Particularly, it did indicate that pensions, for example, would be included. It is important to establish a baseline and to be consistent across different countries. Canada was of course one of the founding partners of NATO, as we have heard in the House throughout the day. Canada has been in every NATO mission as a partner with our allied countries, because we see the value in making sure that NATO has the proper resources to keep its member countries safe. As I indicated earlier, I am very pleased to see the Conservatives supporting this. However, the problem is that— Mr. James Bezan: Well, you're supporting us now. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just heckled me and said that we are supporting them. I am happy to tell the member that I support his motion today, so if the member is looking for me to say that, I thought he could read between the lines in what I said so far. He heckled me a few moments ago and said that we are supporting them. That member was part of the former government. I believe he was the parliamentary secretary to defence in the former Harper government, when we saw a decrease year after year in the percentage of GDP spent on the military. I know I cannot use a prop in the House, but I am looking at my notes right now and I have an actual graph of the percentage of GDP— Mr. Garnett Genuis: Table it. Mr. Mark Gerretsen: Madam Speaker, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan wants me to table it. Now he is saying he does not. I was willing to do that. This graph is very interesting to look at, because if we go back over the last 10 years, we see a continual decrease in the percentage of GDP until it bottoms out in 2013 at less than 1%. That was the climax, so to speak, of Stephen Harper's contribution to ensuring he was properly living up to the commitment we made in the Wales summit. After bottoming out at less than 1% of GDP, what did the graph do? It did the exact opposite. Since this Liberal government came into power in 2015, every year the amount has gone up, and the trend line is pushing up and toward that 2%. I am a big supporter of making sure we hit that 2% mark. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman earlier on heckled and was surprised that I would support that. I have no idea why he was surprised by that. He and I sat on the defence committee together for four years, and we unanimously approved a report from the defence committee calling on the government to spend 2%. I think it should have been very clear to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman exactly where I stood on it. I hope I was memorable enough for him to remember me being on the committee with him when we both spoke in favour of that. We travelled together to Ukraine and Latvia to study the work that NATO was doing abroad, in terms of Operations Reassurance and Unifier. He would know that I very much support this, and that is why I plan to vote in favour of this motion. However, for the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to try to project himself from the position of being a strong advocate for spending 2% of GDP on our military, he certainly did not do that when he was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence during his time in government, albeit quite a while ago. If there is any indication from what is happening within the Conservative Party right now, it will probably be quite a while until that happens again. Nonetheless, I think this motion and what it is calling for are the right things to do. I think that it is important that we spend. I even remember going a step further, when I was on the committee, and suggesting that Canada should actually be part of the ballistic missile defence program in North America within NORAD. The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and I both visited the NORAD facility in Cheyenne Mountain, and we both saw the awkward situation in which Americans and Canadians worked incredibly well together in 95% of the room, but then there was 5% of the room where the Canadians basically were not allowed to go, and that was the part of the room that specifically looked over ballistic missile defence. I am on the record as having said that, in my opinion, this is something we should be doing. I can understand that prime ministers of the past have not been interested in that and have shied away from doing that, and I respect that. It is not my position, but nonetheless I can appreciate the fact that positions have been taken over the years. I see that my time is running out, but I want to say that I plan to support this motion and I will vote in favour of it, because I think it is the right thing to do. More importantly, if we just look at the trajectory since this government came into power, we will see that we are on our way to getting us to a point where we are spending 2% of our GDP on national defence.

1311 words

All Topics

Mr. James Bezan (Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, CPC)

Apr/5/22 3:33:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I did not realize the member for Kingston and the Islands had such an obsession with me. He referred to me so often in his speech that I am not sure if I should be flattered or concerned. I want to just point out that we are the ones who brought forward the motion, and when I heckled him it was because he had said it was his motion. This is the Conservative Party of Canada's motion to make sure the government is committed to spending 2% in the upcoming federal budget. The Liberals talk the game, but they do not play it, and the only thing they have delivered on time and on budget is 17 used F-18 fighter jets. The member talks about going into ballistic missile defence. Will he commit that the Liberal government will actually sign to ballistic missile defence as part of NORAD modernization? Will he also admit that, by adding in the Coast Guard and veterans' pensions, the Liberals have padded the numbers they have today versus the numbers we had when we were in government, when we were spending to meet our commitments at NATO and in Afghanistan?

199 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/5/22 3:34:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was very clear in my speech that my position on ballistic missile defence was my own position. Does the member wants me to commit the government on behalf of something? I am certainly not going to do that, nor am I in the position to do that, and he knows that. More importantly, to the rhetoric we just heard there, he said the Conservatives would actually do what they said they were going to do and that they walk the walk as well as talk the talk. They should explain how, at the same time as Stephen Harper went up to Vladimir Putin and told him to get out of Ukraine like a big tough guy, he was spending less than 1% of GDP on national defence. Does that sound like a government that is walking the talk and doing exactly what it says it is going to be doing?

153 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Apr/5/22 3:35:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yesterday evening, at the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development's Subcommittee on International Human Rights, we heard from three women who are advocates for human rights in Ukraine. They were in Ukraine and it was the middle of the night. It was a rather unique meeting because we could sense that they were practically in bunkers. They talked about the situation, which is very tragic. Oleksandra Matviichuk, of the Center for Civil Liberties, has been advocating for human rights in Ukraine for many years. She has made many demands, but one of them is extremely unusual. As a lawyer, she finds it unusual. The situation was so terrible that, as an advocate for human rights, she had no other choice but to ask western countries to send more weapons. Can my colleague comment on that?

141 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/5/22 3:36:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada will continue to do everything within our power to support those who are in Ukraine right now. More importantly, what is happening on the other side of the world is giving us a perfect illustration as to why it is so incredibly important that we live up to our 2% commitment that we established in the 2014 Wales Summit. By doing that, we will have the proper deterrents in place to prevent countries from acting as we have seen them act lately, in particular Russia. More importantly, we will have the resources all ready to go because we will have built up the resources and assets that we need so we can utilize them in a time of need.

122 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/5/22 3:37:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in light of our talking about increasing spending to National Defence, I wonder if the member could speak to the Liberals and their continued expensive trend of contracting out the work to repair Canadian ships and planes, which results in greater expense to the military and to Canadians. In light of this motion, does the member believe that his government is doing enough to fully understand the impacts of contracting out work?

74 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Apr/5/22 3:37:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to contracting out work, there are certainly going to be different opinions and different things to weigh when making those decisions. I can understand. I certainly feel as though, from time to time, we need to focus on making sure that Canadian service providers can do work on behalf of Canadians. It makes the most sense. I can also appreciate that, at times, that might not be the case. I do not think any responsible government could ever commit to 100% never contracting out, but I also think that any government needs to focus as much as it can on making sure it keeps doing things within our country.

114 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 53