44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 5, 2022 10:00AM
- Apr/5/22 4:24:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood for sharing his time with me today. I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak to the opposition motion on national defence spending.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: February 24 was the end of the post-Cold War era. While nobody can claim to know exactly what will happen next, I expect the foreign policy landscape to be altered for decades to come.
As such, this is an important time for all parliamentarians to reflect on how we want to see Canada and its role in the world. I believe this is a crucial moment in our country's history, and I want to reiterate my support for increased defence spending. I also want to use my time to point out other areas where I think Canada should be a world leader.
I have a number of family members who have served in the Canadian Armed Forces, from my grandfather, whom I am extremely proud of, to my aunt, who just recently retired. I want to make sure her name gets on the record. My aunt, Mary Blois, served 30-plus years in the Canadian Armed Forces. My fiancee's sister Kylie and her husband Keith both are service members stationed here in the Ottawa area, and her father Hamish was a member who served in the United Kingdom, so I know fully the important contribution that our service members make every day. Let me go on the record for thanking all members of our Canadian Armed Forces for their contribution and their service here today.
I was reminded of that when I joined the Minister of National Defence for the deployment of HMCS Halifax from Halifax. We were able to engage with the families and the service members. It was an important reflection for all of us on how important those members are, particularly in the times in which we see ourselves today.
The war in Ukraine has heightened the continued importance of our ability to respond militarily with our NATO partners. Our government has made important investments to strengthen our military capacity through “Strong, Secure and Engaged”. We are increasing defence spending by 70% between 2017 and 2026. I will echo the comments of my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood that I do not want to make it a partisan debate, but this is a marked departure in terms of the investment that we saw under the last government, when spending actually fell below 1% of GDP.
I think all members of this Parliament will join me in recognizing the importance of our men and women in uniform. As such, I think we should also focus on ensuring that they have the equipment and materiel they need to do their job well and be as well-protected as possible.
As I said, I had a chance to visit the Irving shipyard and Maritime Forces Atlantic in Halifax. While I was there, I saw a major acquisition for our Coast Guard and one in the works for our navy, the Canadian surface combatant, which will replace our frigates. We must not underestimate the importance of renewing and investing in our military equipment.
Beyond our immediate military needs, continued partnership with the United States on continental security will and should be a top priority. I understand the Minister of National Defence is exploring options on NORAD upgrades. I appreciate the fact that she is doing so and that the government's attention on this file is moving forward, because it is warranted and it is beneficial.
The Arctic will also be an important region in the days ahead for many reasons. First and foremost are the impacts of climate change. The impacts are being felt, and they will continue to be felt in this region in the days ahead.
Of course, the Arctic is also our border with Russia. We need to continue to focus on working with territorial governments not just to improve infrastructure but also to improve our capability to respond to events in the Arctic, whether they are related to transportation, our military or climate change. I have heard many members of Parliament in this House speak about this. The government is working in this domain, but the events of the last six weeks warrant that the work continue and be expedited in this area.
I would also like to suggest to my colleagues in the House that beyond the immediate threat posed by the war in Ukraine, the effects of climate change also warrant an important conversation about military spending. Our Canadian Armed Forces must be equipped to respond to events at home and abroad with our allies. We know that the instability caused by global climate change will lead to political and social volatility that could threaten regional and international security.
Beyond the important discussion on military commitment and capability, I believe the time has come for Canada to position itself on three fronts where we have the capacity to help serve the world.
First, we can think about food production. As the proud chair of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I might be a little biased. However, I think Canada's capacity to produce food has become even more important since the war in Ukraine began. Ukraine and Russia produce a significant amount of the world's food. As I mentioned earlier, when war is being waged on their lands, farmers find it increasingly difficult to cultivate their fields.
We have that capacity, and we need to start thinking about how we can tie our capacity in the agriculture sector to our foreign policy. Let us talk about fertilizer, for example. We have heard comments in the House about some of the implications that are going to be happening. This is not a six-month problem. This is a next-10-years problem. The genie has come out of the bottle. Europe, our allies and indeed countries around the world will be looking for alternative routes, vis-à-vis some of these crucial inputs.
We have a responsibility, I would argue, morally and ethically, but also an economic opportunity that should not be passed up, to be part of helping to ensure that there is global food security. I would welcome all members of the House having this continued conversation in the days ahead. I really think it is important on that side.
We can also think about energy security. Russia produces natural gas and oil.
I am going to turn to English because I only have one minute.
On energy security, Canada has a lot to offer. I know that, for some members in the House, there will be a contention between fossil fuels and looking to the future. The world is not black and white: It is grey. We have to do both at the same time.
I would argue that we have a responsibility to look at ways that we can respond on the natural gas and oil side. It would not be easy to turn something overnight, but is there an ability there? Let us talk about critical minerals, hydrogen and small modular reactors. Those are going to be really important to energy security in Canada. I would argue that we could use those technologies and export that capacity to the world.
Finally, on critical minerals, we are making really important investments in the automotive sector but we have to have critical minerals be those key inputs to make sure we have capacity in this country. I wish I had more time. I look forward to hearing from my hon. colleagues.
1285 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for bringing this important discussion to the House. She articulated in her speech how we really do need to have important conversations about cryptocurrency in the future and how it works. Again, in that spirit of trying to be not partisan, I have read through the bill. I think, by and large, the framework and the idea of forcing those conversations and making sure that we are addressing, as legislators and as lawmakers, how we position this industry in the days ahead is really important.
I looked at subclause 3(1), in terms of the fact that the framework is to “encourage the growth” of the sector. I may agree with that. I certainly have to get my own head wrapped around it, and this will be an important discussion about where I stand on this issue.
Would the member be open to an amendment around, as opposed to saying pro-growth in this sector, at least exploring ways on the administrative burden? She mentioned about not trying to be too partisan one way or the other. Would she address that point on the language and whether we can have something perhaps a little more neutral in saying how best to move forward with the sector writ large?
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
