- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Conservative
- Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,195.70
- Government Page
- May/2/24 7:13:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague. I thank her for her question and for her years of commitment to the Standing Committee on National Defence. She is also extremely committed to NATO. Her riding is home to a Canadian Forces base, including a special forces unit, so she knows what she is talking about.
As I said in my speech, what is needed is for the government to stop spouting empty rhetoric and to start taking real action. Considering what we heard yesterday from the Minister of National Defence and the entire cabinet's lack of interest in the Canadian Forces, I would say it is a lost cause.
The next Conservative government will fix this.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:28:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was not in government then, but to my knowledge, the Conservative government at the time spent more on international aid.
That 2% target is part of what NATO expects of its members. Of that 2%, 20% is used to purchase military equipment. I think we can make a pretty good case right now for why we need to be ready. With guys like Putin invading Ukraine, we need to make sure our armed forces are ready and supplied with state-of-the-art equipment. At the moment, Ukraine is able to fight Putin and the Russian army because it has been supplied with cutting-edge equipment, which is taking a toll on the Russian invaders.
If we want peace, we must prepare for war.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:26:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague for her good and long question.
As I mentioned in my speech, from what I and my other NATO colleagues can tell, at present, there is virtually unanimous support for the principle of admitting Finland and Sweden. The only exception is Turkey, for the reasons that I mentioned.
What is Canada's role? Given the war in Ukraine and the supply of gas, which could become problematic for those cutting ties with Russia, I noticed that several European countries have their own problems. Countries are nervous about the issue of supply. For example, Hungary told the European Union yesterday that it did not agree with imposing new sanctions because it wants to protect itself. I believe that Europe is currently under stress.
As Canada is somewhat removed, it has a diplomatic role to play. It is up to our government to intervene with the best possible diplomacy, which I hope it can do, by talking with Turkey and finding ways to calm the waters and ensure the consensus of NATO countries.
178 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:23:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, this membership will strengthen our collective ability to address threats, for example in the Arctic. By having Finland and Sweden as NATO partners, we will be politically and militarily united under the NATO umbrella. They are two major partners. In addition, Sweden and Finland are countries with very efficient and well-equipped armies. These partners will also be able to participate in NATO missions, as we are currently doing in Latvia or as our other partners are doing in Lithuania. The Swedes and the Finns will be able to participate with us as members of NATO.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 8:13:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, by happy coincidence, I recently returned from a four-day stay in Vilnius, Lithuania, where I attended a meeting of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization that included discussions about whether or not to bring Finland and Sweden into NATO. My speech this evening could therefore not be more timely for me.
The Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security has tabled its fourth report. We are debating concurrence in that report and, specifically, two important points, the two recommendations in the report: expressing our strong support for Finland and Sweden's NATO membership, as Finland and Sweden are among NATO's closest partners; and calling on all NATO members to approve their application for NATO membership as quickly as possible.
I am happy to speak to this topic in the House today and to express my support for the committee's recommendations. I will also talk about comments on the subject that were made during the meetings in Lithuania.
The admittance of Finland and Sweden to NATO has long been debated. We heard arguments from Matti Vanhanen, Speaker of the Eduskunta Riksdag, Finland's parliament, and Andreas Norlén, Speaker of the Riksdag, Sweden's parliament. First of all, it is important to note that Finland and Sweden formally submitted their application for NATO membership on May 18, 2022. During the speeches from the Speakers of the Finnish and Swedish parliaments, the message was very clear: Both countries are formally asking to become NATO members. In recent decades, they have not wanted to be militarily involved and have always chosen to maintain their independence. However, with Russia's sudden violent aggression towards Ukraine, both countries see that they really have no choice. They felt an urgent need to ask to join NATO.
As my colleagues know, Canada has been a member of NATO for 73 years. Canada is a founding member. The most important article of the North Atlantic Treaty is article 5. That article deals with collective defence and states that an attack against one NATO member is an attack against them all. Considering what is going on right now, Sweden and Finland realize this. They really understand the importance for their respective countries to be part of a group like NATO.
I feel compelled to point out that there have been times over the past few years when some have questioned NATO's relevance. The former U.S. president questioned it. In the end, what the former U.S. president was doing was more about rattling the organization. I know this from experience, having attended several NATO meetings over the past few years. It was a way of rattling the organization, telling everyone to wake up, to invest more in defence and to be prepared. Indeed, one never knows what might happen. This was proven on February 24 with Russia.
That is why Finland and Sweden are applying for membership. Finland is especially anxious to join, because it borders directly on Russia for just over 1,000 kilometres. The two countries could not be any closer together. Finland is a country that has always managed to preserve its sovereignty through military means by maintaining a strong military posture. However, having seen what is happening in Ukraine, the Finns realized that NATO membership would give their country a major strategic advantage. It would give them additional security guarantees.
It is sad for Ukraine, but this explains why we are here today: For many years, Ukraine has been asking to join NATO, but it has never been admitted. The decision has always been put off. The same goes for joining the European Union, although that is a European issue. When it comes to NATO, Ukraine never managed to get in, despite what happened with Crimea in 2014 and then what followed this year, despite Russia's microaggressions and the fact that Ukrainians were scared. NATO did not accept their application.
Everyone knows that it is impossible to admit Ukraine now because it is at war. This would automatically become a war for NATO. This is a complicated issue, but unfortunately, that is how things stand for Ukraine. That is why Finland and Sweden quickly held a vote in their respective parliaments. They demonstrated that they had the necessary capabilities, and they provided proof. That is why they are calling on NATO and the member countries to admit them.
The other advantage for NATO, and for Canada in particular, is the geographical location of Finland and Sweden. Norway is already a NATO member, but having Sweden and Finland as NATO partners in the Arctic region is extremely appealing and important to Canada. These two large Arctic countries could work with Canada, the United States and Norway for NATO-style mutual protection.
When it comes to admitting new members, consensus among the 30 existing members is a problem. Turkey has already expressed significant concerns about allowing Sweden and Finland to join. When I was in Vilnius on the weekend, I spoke to three colleagues who agreed that this was a problem. Allow me to explain why.
Al Jazeera reported that Turkey's foreign minister is demanding that Finland and Sweden amend their laws, if needed, to win Ankara's backing in their historic bid to join NATO, threatening to veto an expansion of the alliance. Echoing recent comments by President Erdogan, minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu said on Tuesday that Turkey, which has been a NATO member for seven decades, would not lift its opposition to the two Nordic countries' accession unless its demands were met.
The reason is that Ankara, Turkey's capital, is accusing both countries of harbouring people linked to groups it deems to be terrorists, including the Kurdistan Workers' Party, or PKK for short, and takes issue with their decision to halt arms exports to Turkey in 2019. Turkey is demanding that Finland and Sweden end their support for the PKK and other groups, bar them from organizing events on their territory, extradite individuals sought by Turkey on terrorism charges, support Turkey's counterterrorism military operations and resume arms exports.
Clearly, geopolitics has always been complex, and the current NATO situation is no exception. The vast majority of NATO members want to bring Finland and Sweden into the fold, but for its own reasons, which are largely related to domestic terrorism, one member has issues with that.
That is why the Conservatives are very much in favour of these two countries joining NATO, but we also have to understand where Turkey is coming from, so the government needs to make an effort to find a diplomatic solution that will satisfy the Turks and expedite the process of bringing these two countries into our great organization.
It is complicated. At the end of the day, I would not like what is currently happening in Ukraine to happen in Finland, for example, because there is no telling what Vladimir Putin might do. He might suddenly decide to send some tanks into Finland for fun because that country is not a member of NATO. It would be easy because the two countries share a 1,000‑kilometre border.
What happened in Ukraine must not happen anywhere else. We must work on getting the Turks to soften their stance and find a way to get along. That is a role our government can play.
Based on my experience at the meetings with my colleagues, I realize that it is easy for us, as Canadians, to form an opinion on what is happening in Europe and to tell other countries that they should do this or that. However, while I was over there, colleagues from every European country told me that the dynamics are different and that we need to understand that.
The role Canada can play is the one it has always played: using diplomacy to find a way to help the different European countries get along in a Canadian way.
1332 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 2:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think the notes are a few months old, but I have another question.
If military spending is to continue, the leader of the NDP must agree to it, but he has already vowed to oppose increased defence spending related to Canada's NATO commitment, while the Liberals have said they will increase spending. The new confidence and supply agreement with the NDP, the third opposition party, guarantees support for the Liberal minority government in exchange for new investments in other areas. With this deal, the tail is wagging the dog.
Will the Prime Minister insist that the leader of the NDP ask his troops to vote for an increase in military spending, yes or no?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 10:34:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to joining the debate on this motion. As a former member of the military, I understand the importance of adequate funding for national defence and the importance of Canada's role on the international stage.
The purpose of the debate is to bring all parliamentarians to a clear consensus on our defence posture. The motion specifically calls for an increase in the defence budget to reach the NATO target. However, we also need to find another time to discuss the state of the troops and lack of members. There is a reason for all that, but we will come back to it another day.
From the outset, I must say that the Liberals' rhetoric about military spending has never translated into concrete action, and that is very disappointing. Most frightening is this recent partnership between the Liberal Party and the NDP socialists. It is no secret that the NDP has never been in favour of a healthy and well-funded Canadian military. Under a NDP government, the Canadian Armed Forces' budget would basically be eviscerated. As a result of this romance between the Liberals and the NDP, there is uncertainty among our troops across the country and abroad.
When Russia invaded Ukraine, all NATO partners were again challenged to meet or maintain the defence spending requirement of 2% of GDP, 20% of which must be allocated to military equipment. This renewed commitment had actually been discussed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the unrest in the Middle East at that time. NATO leaders agreed to reverse the downward trend in defence spending and decided that the allies already meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending would strive to continue doing so and that the allies spending less than 2% of their GDP on defence would strive to increase that spending in real terms within 10 years.
That commitment was made in 2014, and now, eight years later, Canada ranks 25th out of the 30 NATO countries in terms of military spending. NATO's latest annual report shows that Canada spent just 1.36% of its GDP on the army and new defence equipment in 2021.
In contrast, the Conservative Party of Canada declared in its policy statement that a Conservative government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended 2% of our GDP on national defence. Furthermore, in our latest platform, in 2021, we said, “Canada’s Conservatives will renew Canada’s commitment to NATO by increasing spending on national defence to move closer to our 2% aspirations”.
The large-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, accompanied by mounting evidence of war crimes in full view of anyone on social media, clearly gives Canada good reason to considerably increase its defence spending.
There is no doubt that Canada's biggest challenge has always been its procurement system, which involves too many departments and not enough political responsibility. This system essentially created a bottleneck that prevents even the current budget increase from being spent effectively. The lack of political leadership keeps projects from moving quickly. Every independent procurement expert who testified before our committees has said as much.
According to the most recent public accounts, $1.2 billion of 2021 defence spending was not invested, despite the fact that the Liberal's 2015 election platform explicitly states, “We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year.” However, last month the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report detailing how the Liberals are constantly pushing spending to coming years. In other words, the Liberals have consistently broken their promise to invest in new equipment.
To be honest, when the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy was published in 2017, I was impressed. During a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence, at the time, I remember saying to the chief of the defence staff and the Minister of Defence that 80% of what was in the white paper advocated a Conservative approach. I asked how they were going to fund it. The told me that the decision was not theirs to make. We saw what happened next.
At the same time, Canada's defence policy entitled “Strong, Secure, Engaged” demonstrates how the Liberals calculate defence investments so as to meet NATO criteria. It is as though they are comparing this year's 1.34% with the Conservatives' percentage, which the Liberals estimate at just under 1%. We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.
The Liberals added elements to the NATO calculations. There are ongoing discussions about applying the same yardstick. Certain elements have been included, such as payments made to veterans. They were not part of the NATO calculations, nor were peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, defence-related IT support, centrally funded defence personnel expenditures, or support for defence programs.
The Liberals took a look and, anywhere they saw the word “defence” or “veteran”, they decided they would take that and put it all together to inflate the percentage so they could say that they are doing more. That is the big difference between what was done by the Conservatives at the time, in other words, real and actual defence work, and the other things that the Liberals picked at here and there.
We know that the Liberals are sneakily trying to cover up their failure. However, Canadians are not fools. They see what the Liberals are doing. The only major project that the Liberals have completed in nearly seven years is buying a bunch of rusted-out CF-18s from Australia for $360 million. We congratulate them on that.
With regard to Ukraine, Canada can and must do more. We have a lot of surplus military vehicles that could be dispatched around the clock with our C-17s. However, the government has not indicated whether it has even considered such action. We could also call upon third parties to buy air defence equipment, such as Stinger missiles or drones and send them to Ukraine. Once again, the senior officials who appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates repeatedly suggested that these ideas are not even being considered right now.
Furthermore, all military purchases under this Liberal government are or have been delayed. For example, when will Canada sign the notorious F-35 contract? We have been in the consortium for decades. Why do we have to wait seven months to enter into dialogue with Lockheed Martin? We have already been talking to them for quite a while now. In addition, when will construction on the polar icebreakers begin? Why is the Davie shipyard still not officially part of the national shipbuilding strategy? What is this government waiting for? How are we going to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic? The NORAD alert system is totally obsolete. Has the government considered purchasing airborne warning and control system aircraft? What are we doing to speed up the procurement process? What is the status of the submarine replacement program?
In addition, this partnership between the Liberals and the NDP is a pretty good indication that this government is unlikely to increase investments in the Canadian Armed Forces in the short term. Indeed, how many times have we heard NDP statements or resolutions calling for Canada to withdraw completely from NATO?
When we, the Conservatives, were in power, we finalized the purchase of five C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, 17 CC-130J Hercules transport aircraft, 15 Chinook helicopters and some Leopard 2 tanks. We modernized the CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft and the Halifax class frigates. We approved the construction of the Asterix auxiliary supply ship, which the Liberals tried to cancel at their first cabinet meeting in 2015, despite Admiral Norman's objections. We established the national shipbuilding strategy, which, despite all its problems, is finally starting to produce some ships, such as the Coast Guard's science vessels and the Arctic offshore patrol ships.
The Conservative government has always taken the need to provide adequate funding to our Canadian Armed Forces seriously, whereas the Liberals are known for spewing empty rhetoric. I will close by saying this. Let us do better in military procurement, let us be efficient and let us ensure we have the means to do so.
1410 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
