SoVote

Apr/5/22 4:35:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not pretend to be a policy expert in the domain the member just asked the question about. On the principle of working with the United States, particularly, in a continental approach, in terms of approaches on coastal elements, I think cybersecurity is an element we also have to be focused on. I believe that now is the time to be looking at these investments. We still have to maintain fiscal balance. I have said that before in the House. These investments, to the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, are crucial to the underpinning of our success in this country and to the rules-based international order.

110 words

Ms. Monique Pauzé (Repentigny, BQ)

Apr/5/22 4:35:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, let me begin by complimenting my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. It was very nice to hear him. He said that the government already started making investments in 2017, but there are three major problems in the armed forces: procurement, recruitment, and retention. For example, with respect to procurement, forces members have been asked to buy their own boots lately because the government has been unable to provide them. As for recruitment, the target is to have 25% women, but with all the sexual misconduct cases, which the government tried to cover up, it will not be easy to recruit women. Finally, with respect to staff retention, the family structure has changed, and the constant moving around does not entice people to join the armed forces. Has my hon. colleague considered these three major problems, which require investments?

143 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois

Apr/5/22 4:37:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, or rather her questions since there were several components. First, I have confidence in the leadership of the Minister of National Defence, and we will work with the Canadian Forces to change the internal culture. Of course, as I said, as far as investments in the Canadian Forces are concerned, it is also about supporting them on the human resources level, by funding recruitment and retention programs, for example. It is not just equipment and combat gear, but also human resources that are needed to continue to improve the culture within the Canadian Forces.

103 words

All Topics

Mr. Don Davies (Vancouver Kingsway, NDP)

Apr/5/22 4:38:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is quite clear that this 2% figure of GDP for military spending has no real basis in sound military thinking. Of course, it was coined by Donald Trump. I understand recent testimony before the defence committee has made it clear, from a number of academics and experts, that the 2% has no grounding in any real figure. What is important, of course, is effective spending. I am curious about my hon. colleague's thoughts on the 2% as an arbitrary figure. Does he think it is effective? My second part is this. We know that, in 2015, the Liberals said that they would not purchase the F-35 fighter jet. Last week, the Liberals announced that they were pursuing a fighter jet that does not have Arctic capability and is unlikely to create jobs here in Canada. Two things the member touched on in his speech were the importance of Arctic sovereignty and creating jobs in Canada. Can he rationalize that for me?

166 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Apr/5/22 4:39:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, I do not think it was Donald Trump who put forward the 2% benchmark. I think that was established in 2014 at the Wales Summit. To the member's question, whether or not it is 2%, I think it is a benchmark for governments and countries that are involved in NATO to aspire to. To continue to support that type of investment in our security, on that principle, I agree with it. He mentioned, of course, the F-35. My point to him is that it is seven years later. The world changes, and I am a little bit disappointed in some of the principles from the NDP. They do not understand that the foreign policy landscape has changed. Canada has a role in the international community. We need to be there with these critical investments and I think, at the end of the day, I believe in what Procurement Canada has done in terms of the pathway on this jet.

166 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie (Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:40:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies. It is an honour today to speak to this important motion on behalf of my riding of Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan. For anyone who is just tuning in, the motion reads: That, given that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance has made an immeasurable contribution to peace, security, and prosperity for all its members, the House call on the government to increase spending on national defence to at least two per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, in accordance with NATO's 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. It would be useful to start by discussing how much Canada spends on defence compared with other members of NATO. Canada sits in 25th place among the 30 member organizations when it comes to defence spending as a share of gross domestic product. We spend 1.36%, which is more than Slovenia, Belgium, Spain and Luxembourg. Some of the countries that spend more on their militaries are Croatia, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Bulgaria, Albania and Denmark. Canada is a founding member of NATO. We signed the North Atlantic Treaty in 1949 because we saw this alliance as an important tool in preserving global peace. Being part of an alliance such as this, especially as a founding member, means something. It means that Canada must keep up a certain level of operational readiness and be prepared and equipped to help our allies, our friends, in times of crisis. It does not mean that we can just rely on the United States for security. Continuously underfunding our military and not meeting our commitments to NATO means that we are failing our allies, our friends and more importantly, our own national sovereignty. It is worth noting that the Liberals are playing a shell game with the way that defence spending is reported to NATO. They now report many things as defence spending that most people would see as having very little to do with operational readiness, such as payments to veterans, peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, and information and technology support. Even including those numbers, we still fall sadly short of our commitment. We all know the proud history of Canada's armed forces. This is especially important this week with the anniversary of Vimy Ridge, where so many brave young men paid the ultimate price. It is worth remembering that we once had a strong and well-funded military. We can name any number of important battles from the 20th century, and Canada was an integral part of so many of them. The bravery and ability of the men and women in our fighting forces has always been second to none, but under the Liberals, they are forced to use old equipment. Who can forget Jean Chrétien sending our men and women to Afghanistan with green fatigues? On the topic of procurement, and as a former member of the Royal Canadian Air Force, I am happy to see the government finally discuss the possibility of potentially awarding an F-35 contract later this year; that is, if negotiations go well. This seems to be a theme for the government when it comes to military procurement. The Liberals push everything back and it gets more expensive through delays, bureaucratic studies and increased costs. Be it F-35s, polar icebreakers or the Joint Support Ship program, programs just grow in cost when the Liberals get involved. I should give them credit for their one and only successful purchase. They bought 40-year-old F-18 Hornets from Australia. What good did that do us? These were delivered after Australia purchased its own modern F-35s. Last month, the PBO released a report explaining just how broken our military procurement system is, and with so many other policies, the Liberals say one thing and do another. They claim they are spending more on defence, but the PBO exposed that these commitments are continually pushed back to future years. This risks overloading our procurement system and casts serious doubts on its sustainability. While there is an urgent need to increase Canada's defence spending, it must be done in a manner that gets results for dollars spent, a foreign concept to the government. I wonder how much of the current DND budget is spent on focus groups, cancelled contract fees or just wasting money on the inflated cost of projects that they have delayed for a decade. In 2014, following Russia's first invasion of Ukraine in Crimea, NATO members all agreed to spend 2% of their GDP on defence to bolster our defences against Putin. Some may choose to believe that these are European problems and that this is all happening far away, but the truth is that Canada shares a border with Russia. I remember Prime Minister Harper making annual trips to northern territories. This was important to show the world that we take our northern sovereignty seriously. Now the Liberals are postponing Canada's polar icebreaker program, just like every other procurement program. I do not know if the current Prime Minister has even bothered to visit Canada's north outside of election campaigns. It shows where his priorities lie. Today, with the obvious war crimes being perpetrated against civilians in Ukraine, it is time for us to honour our commitment to our NATO allies. Members of the House may know that Saskatchewan is home to one of the largest populations of Ukrainians in Canada, making up 14% of our population, so we can understand why the reports coming out of Bucha are so heartbreaking and hit so close to home for so many in my province and in my riding. We could be doing so much more to help Ukraine. We could ship our surplus army vehicles to Poland with our C-17s. We could look to third parties to purchase air defence equipment, such as Stinger missiles or UAVs, to send to Ukraine. We could even send our CF-18s to NATO's eastern flank in Romania, Poland or the Baltics instead of having them do exercises in the Netherlands. Ukrainians need our help now, real help, to repel an invasion, not just more sanctions. We heard last week from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. He addressed the House and asked each of us for help in protecting his people from Putin. If his pleas cannot convince the government to finally honour our NATO commitments, I do not know what will. It is time to back up our talk with action. Before closing, I would like to point out that my grandfather served. He was a British soldier from Glasgow, Scotland, who served with Canadian soldiers when they landed in Europe and started to fight their way through to Germany. At that time in my family's history, my grandfather was inspired by the Canadians and their efforts, men who had left their homeland and travelled halfway around the world to defend others. My grandmother saw the kindness of Canadian soldiers as they brought food and things that my family members, who were living on rations, did not have. We have the ability in the House to do so much more. We have more to do and this is the time for our nation to stand up and do its part in this world.

1236 words

All Topics

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

Apr/5/22 4:49:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, some of what the member said is factually incorrect. He accused the Liberal government of playing shell games and specifically referenced the fact that the percentage of GDP includes veterans' pensions. Is he aware that in 2018, NATO amended its definition of the 2% to include veterans' pensions? They are part of the calculation now, despite the fact that he uses that as an example to suggest that there is some kind of “shell game” going on. More importantly, to address one of the comments toward the end of his speech, he said that we need to back up our talk with actions. What is that? Is he referring to when Stephen Harper was a tough guy with Vladimir Putin and told him to get out of Ukraine? Was he backing that up with action at the time? I ask because at the time he was spending less than 1% of GDP on our military.

159 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/5/22 4:51:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will address the comments that I made earlier on. My comments were concerning operational capability, which has obviously gone right over the head of the member across the way, who is obviously not focusing on the issues at hand. We have to focus on our operational capability, and that is what this is about. It is the 2% going directly to procurement and to sustain our military and its operational effectiveness.

74 words

Mr. Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/5/22 4:51:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. NATO is asking its members to allocate 2% of their GDP to military spending. That is the subject of today's motion. However, another international organization, the UN, has also proposed that wealthy countries such as Canada allocate the equivalent of 0.7% of their GDP to the international development of impoverished countries. Under the Liberals, this percentage is 0.27%, but it was 0.32% under the Stephen Harper government. This percentage is now lower with the Liberals in power, even though they boast that they are champions of international aid. That is just laughable. The Conservatives say that we must agree to the request of an organization to which we belong. In this case, it is the NATO request concerning military spending. Do they support the UN request for international aid? In my opinion, they go hand in hand.

150 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/5/22 4:52:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my colleague across the way. When I spoke earlier on, I shared about my family's values and the generosity that my family received from Canadians. It is disheartening to see that our government is not focusing on other things and thinking beyond our own borders. The whole point of this discussion is to see that we do have a role and responsibility as the nation of Canada not only to stand up and protect our neighbours, but also to look after those who are facing challenges and economic austerity.

98 words

Mr. Kevin Vuong (Spadina—Fort York, Ind.)

Apr/5/22 4:53:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for my hon. colleague is informed by my lived experience. I am proud to have served seven years now in our country's largest naval reserve division, and of my role in being appointed, as one of 14 individuals, by the Secretary General of NATO to advise on what the future of NATO and our alliance will look like. As the only Canadian, it did bring me quite a bit of sadness to see that we were not spending at 2%. Would you support the investment in an enhanced Arctic presence to fight for our Arctic sovereignty, to enhance our capabilities to defend that sovereignty and to modernize our submarine fleet?

115 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 4:54:14 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member needs to address all questions and comments through the Chair and not directly to the member. I would like a brief answer from the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan.

36 words

Mr. Fraser Tolmie

Apr/5/22 4:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, 100%. I am disappointed that we have to rely on our British allies, who are contacting us and saying that if we are having problems with Arctic sovereignty, they can help us and we can use their submarines. We should be upgrading our submarines. I see this as a good opportunity for Canada to speak with Australia, Britain and the United States and look at upgrading our submarine fleet so that we can actually have the capability to protect our northern waters.

85 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer (Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:55:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is important that I thank the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, and it is also important to read out what the motion is about. It states: That, given that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance has made an immeasurable contribution to peace, security, and prosperity for all its members, the House call on the government to increase spending on national defence to at least two per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, in accordance with NATO's 2014 Wales Summit Declaration. For the folks out there watching today wondering why we put the motion forward, it is because this simply was not getting done. I am going to focus my arguments on Arctic sovereignty and security. The reason I will do that is we need to understand in Canada that Putin has even made aggressive moves toward our own country. He has made claims to the Arctic seabed, which would add just under a million square kilometres to his existing claim. It is concerning to us as a nation, but it is especially concerning to our residents in the Arctic, and frankly to our allies as well. The threat is real. We have seen Putin deliver on that threat in Crimea and Ukraine, and he is very capable of delivering on it with others as well. I will start off my arguments with what the experts are saying. We hear rhetoric from the Liberals, but we also hear some good comments from members who have been on the committee for many years. They give an accurate assessment, and I commend them for that. I will start with my first article, “Canadian Forces in desperate need of new spending, procurement follow-through, experts say”. This is an article posted on April 2, 2022, which is very recent. Dave Perry, the president of the independent foreign policy and defence think tank, had these comments: Perry said the image of the military used to be one focused on peacekeeping, but the direction the Forces are supposed to take is less clear now. After that, Perry said the first step “would be for the government to actually make a decision about whether or not spending the money is a priority or not. I don't think there's been much evidence that it has been for this government.” All we are asking for this afternoon is to bring spending up to the 2% commitment, that promise, especially considering the threat is very real in our north, especially in the Arctic. It is one thing for us to have a rhetorical battle here in the House of Commons, but I am going to speak to what some leaders in the Arctic are saying about their concerns around their own security and sovereignty. This is in another recent article, from March 24, 2022: N.W.T. Premier Caroline Cochrane said Russia's aggressive actions should serve as a wake-up call to shore up safety and resiliency in the North. “Now with Russia invading Ukraine, it does show that we are vulnerable,” she said. “We need to make sure that we have the structures, the infrastructure in place, the services in place so that our people can not only thrive but that we can maintain Arctic sovereignty.” Here is a leader of one of our territories who is very concerned about this. I will go to a mayor in the Arctic as well, Clarence Wood, who is the mayor of Inuvik. The article notes: He says he's not worried for the safety of people living in Inuvik right now, but he also thinks locals would be “foolish not to be worried” about Arctic sovereignty, in light of current events. “Russia has ambitions,” he said. “They've always had ambitions in the Arctic, and with the expansion of their military to their Arctic regions, it puts us even closer. So, yeah, I'd say we have concerns. We have a very limited military presence. I don't think it would take the Russians very long to go through here if they put their mind to it.” Here again is a mayor on the front lines in the Arctic who has concerns and obviously represents the people of his region. I have heard this. I have been to several Arctic conferences, and a common comment I hear from residents is that this is their front yard and they are seeing a potential threat coming across the Arctic and the North Pole. I know time is limited and always is in this place, so I will speak to the motion and what is actually being done. I think 2% is an aspirational goal. Obviously it is something that has been aspired to by previous governments. It is one thing to aspire to it in word, but it is another to aspire to it in actual delivery. What I am getting at is that it is one thing to make big promises and say, “Hey, we are going to do this”, but then not deliver. An example of that would be in the estimates around Arctic sovereignty. We have seen comments from the government, again talking big. Speaking to what the member from Saskatchewan said before regarding accusing former prime minister Stephen Harper of talking to Putin and not having done anything, at least we had a prime minister who would stand up to him, and aggressively so. He understood the threats to Ukraine and other nations around Russia, and he spoke to Putin in a way that he needed to be spoken to. I think our country wishes our Prime Minister would do similarly, but that just is not happening. In getting back to the estimates, we looked at what the government is actually spending on this. We know the commitments of NORAD. We have heard from many experts that billions are necessary to upgrade our northern defence system. The government had only committed $163 million as of last year to even try to attempt to fix the system. General VanHerck, a leader of NORAD, as an example, has said that billions are necessary to upgrade the system in the north to get it to the standards of 2022 and beyond. To me, the government is just not delivering. I am going to speak to an article by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, entitled “On the Arctic Watch: Why we need to protect Canada’s sovereignty and security in the Far North.” The article states: The [Liberal] government, right before the 2021 federal election, issued a joint statement with the Biden administration on the need to modernize NORAD but there are no timelines, financial commitments, or shopping list of desired capabilities. The statement acknowledges Arctic geopolitical competition, the impact of climate change, and advances in conventional missile threats (e.g., Russian hypersonic missiles) and leaves it open to both parties on what those capabilities can be. The whole premise of why we are here tonight is that it is necessary but it is simply not being delivered. I think we could agree, probably members from both sides, that all we want to see is this stuff delivered. We want to see boats in water. We want to see defensive capabilities actually purchased and acquired and the procurement process fixed. I think we want to get this thing fixed. We do not want to just have an argument where we poke each other in the eye. We really do want to get this across the line. The budget is coming up this week. This is a call deliberately ahead of that, so that the Liberal government can make some good decisions and put that money into the budget. Our wish would be that it actually gets done.

1315 words

All Topics

Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)

Apr/5/22 5:03:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree almost entirely with the member's speech. I am also against eye-poking. Generally people end up blind when there is eye-poking, and in this particular file, it is not a good idea to be blind. The early warning system is massively expensive. It has also yet to be invented. Bits and pieces of it are invented. It is extremely difficult to see where this is going. I do know that this is going to cost literally billions of dollars. As General O’Shaughnessy would say, “I can't defend what I can't see.” I am asking the hon. member to cut the government a little slack on this. He should not be cutting the government a little slack on some of the other procurements though. I would be interested in his thoughts as to where we move first, because we need to up the game.

155 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:04:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is that whole “fail to plan, plan to fail” analogy. However, I would say, even going back to former president Kennedy, there was not the infrastructure to go to the moon at the time when he made the call to say that they were going to get there, but he made the call to say that they were going to get there. I think we need to have the leadership, from the entire House, say that we need to get there. Let us find out what we need, in terms of procurement. I have heard, first-hand, the problems with some procurement, some of the never-ending plan changes, that a shipbuilder could never keep up with the changes from the bureaucracy and different ministries around that stuff. We need to set the course to get there and set a timeline to do it, rather than just pontificate in the clouds about some aspirational goal that we will get there someday. We need to set a timeline, back it up with the funds that are expected, that 2% being part of that, and then we will get there.

193 words

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

Apr/5/22 5:05:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, although I agree with the substance of the motion, I am somewhat uncomfortable with the motion itself. It talks about increasing spending. We have been here for weeks, and I have heard my Conservative friends criticize the government for spending too much. If we were to increase military spending from 1.37% to 2% of GDP, that would represent $16 billion in additional annual spending at a time when we need to help seniors, increase health transfers and invest in housing. Where will this money come from? Money does not grow on trees. My question is simple: Must we choose between social housing and tanks?

108 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:06:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, money does not grow on trees in Quebec, nor does it anywhere else in our country, or anywhere for that matter. We know it is a very expensive endeavour to do this, but it is an accurate response. Indeed, the government is spending a lot of money, but is it spending it in the right direction? That is a huge question mark. We would disagree on how the government is spending money. It is one thing to throw money at a problem. However, to do it in the proper way to get things done, that needs to be done efficiently with the proper procurement process, with the right targets set and the right timelines. That is where we differ from the government across the way.

127 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Apr/5/22 5:07:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, following up in that vein, last week we were debating a Conservative motion that called for no new taxes and a return to balance. Today, we are talking about a motion that would represent about $30 billion, give or take, in new spending. I am just wondering about what we often hear from Conservatives. I know the member is saying we would spend differently, but where is the $30 billion of spending that he thinks ought to be cut in order to make room for these priorities? While I am on my feet, I would mention that I was part of a foreign affairs study in 2019 of Canadian sovereignty in the north. I know some members are looking for examples of where New Democrats think we could spend in military spending. That report, which was a unanimous report, is a great place to start.

147 words

Mr. Bob Zimmer

Apr/5/22 5:08:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have read that report. It is 28 recommendations, and it is a great report and a place to start and really build our defences. I will go back. The NDP premise today has been all about priorities for money and other things that are important. I do agree with the member that things are important, but if we cannot defend our own borders and our own country and our own people and, where premiers are asking to be defended in the north if we cannot do that to start, then I do not know where we will be if somebody else decides to set up their shop on our shores. I would say that is where we need to spend the money.

125 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 53