44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 5, 2022 10:00AM
- Apr/5/22 10:31:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget officer, for Canada to meet that 2% of NATO spending that the Conservatives are calling for, we would have to spend an additional $54 billion to $56 billion annually on defence, which is approximately double what we spend now.
Can the member clarify which government programs the Conservatives would cut in order to justify that increase in spending?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:02:26 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his work on the Standing Committee on National Defence. It has been quite an honour. In terms of the procurement of the new fighter jets, of course, there must be fiscal impact assessments. However, I want to ask and ensure that the government will be performing an environmental impact assessment on this procurement process and also, under our obligations regarding the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, be doing an indigenous impact assessment as well.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:49:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague spoke, she addressed the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. I sat on the status of women committee when we heard testimony from the incredibly brave, strong women who came forward.
Two per cent is a huge increase, but certainly there are increases to military spending that could happen in terms of support for women: for those survivors of sexual misconduct in the military. Where would the member like to see some of those increases to military spending go for supporting those women?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:51:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona.
Today, I rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion proposed by the Conservatives about Canada's future defence spending requirements under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have much respect for my colleagues, especially the member for South Surrey—White Rock who introduced this motion, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence. I have enjoyed working with her thus far; however, I cannot agree with her today.
I want to be very clear and ensure that New Democrats are on the record for being in favour of adequate federal government spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. New Democrats have long pushed for the government to make sure that our troops have the equipment, training and support they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to undertake. We support upgrading outdated equipment and providing a clear mandate, while also providing a realistic and responsible spending plan to deliver on these goals. We need to make sure funding is adequate to support our national and international roles, but should not adopt an arbitrary target for spending.
Therefore, we cannot support a call for the federal government to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of 2% of GDP, as we believe this request from the international military alliance is just that: arbitrary. Members do not have to believe me on this. I will quote Dr. Robert Huebert, associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who said:
“Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. We need to have the ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers. They don't mean anything.”
I could also quote Dr. Kimball, associate professor of political science from the University of Laval, who said:
One thing that is clear is that 2% is clearly a political target. Two per cent does not come from any sort of quantitative analysis. It doesn't come from any sort of strategic analysis or anything like that, and I can say that relatively confidently because, in doing my NATO research, I've looked at over 200 pieces of research published on NATO burden sharing—policy papers, books, articles and all of that. The first thing I can say is that 2% is something that politicians created, which defence budgets had to very much react to and try to attain afterwards.
If 2% is arbitrary, why specifically demand that it be spent? The Conservatives are demanding a huge increase in military spending based on an arbitrary political target. Currently, Canada spends $24.29 billion on the Department of National Defence. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, hitting NATO's 2% target would mean spending $54 billion to $56 billion a year on defence.
The PBO recently reported that the Department of Defence struggles with actually spending the current allocation of $24 billion, and it delays planned expenditures until later years. Former Liberal MP and retired general Andrew Leslie commented clearly on this inability for the Department of Defence to spend its full allocation, saying:
The department has a chronic problem with actually using the funds. You can promise the moon and the stars. If you can't get the money out the door, then it's of no value.
The department cannot spend what it has now, so how can the Conservatives expect it to spend double? I do not believe that we should be spending double our current budget, but there are reasons why we should increase defence spending.
We in the House know that the Canadian Armed Forces have a significant recruitment and retention problem, and it is absolutely something the federal government needs to address. Each year, the Canadian Armed Forces must select and train thousands of recruits, and retain a substantial number of its trained personnel to maintain operational readiness.
The CAF comprises approximately 65,800 regular force members, 27,000 reserve force members, 5,200 Canadian rangers and more than 27,000 civilian employees, who support the CAF. At the end of February 2022, we were almost 4,000 people short of the 69,750 funded positions that would make up the CAF's authorized strength. At approximately 37%, the largest portion of DND's budget is allocated for personnel, but of course if it does not have the personnel to pay, it is unable to spend that money that is allocated.
A lack of inclusion is also a major barrier to both retention and recruitment. The CAF must attract, recruit and retain talent that is representative of Canadian society.
New Democrats have called on the government to create and fund a special program within the Canadian Armed Forces aimed at the recruitment of women and under-represented groups, as recommended by the Auditor General in 2016.
In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We studied the horrific problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. This has, of course, impacted the CAF's ability to attract and retain individuals. Articles in Maclean's and l'Actualité in 2014 estimated that 1,780 sexual assaults per year occurred in the CAF.
New Democrats continue to call on the Canadian government to fully implement all recommendations of Justice Deschamps's 2015 report. Despite having the Deschamps report, the Justice Fish report and two other reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, this Liberal government has delayed action and stated that it will wait yet again for another report from Justice Arbour. It continues to wait. It continues to make women in the CAF wait, and the solutions are already known.
All women, including women who serve, deserve much better from this government. We need to ensure that women who serve can do so equally. We need to adequately fund the supports for women who serve, and adequately fund the educational programs needed to change the toxic culture within the forces.
I would add that the Canadian Armed Forces must do a better job of responding to mental health issues among its members. This plays a huge role in retention as well, and it is something that the federal government must invest in for its members. On average, the Canadian Armed Forces still lose one serving member per month to death by suicide.
My colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a bill, Bill C-206, that would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence. By making this change, the government could show leadership and mark a major shift in attitude and policy on mental health. In addition, it could provide more funds for mental health supports to all forces members. It needs to start by recognizing that although not all injuries are visible, those invisible injuries are injuries all the same.
Again, I say yes to responsible spending for the Canadian Armed Forces, but I return to the question of the arbitrary 2%. If spending was increased to 2%, this would make military spending the largest expenditure of the Government of Canada, even compared with the Canada Health Transfer of $45 billion per year.
I find this a bit strange for a party that touts fiscal responsibility. Why would the Conservatives push so much for such an incredible increase? When the NDP calls for a national pharmacare program, a national child care program or a national dental care program, they scream bloody murder. When we call for the federal government to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of services and programs, they say that we are being unrealistic, irresponsible and, dare I say, socialists. This increase in spending that the Conservatives are calling for in today's motion is equivalent to a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program combined.
New Democrats certainly agree that Canada needs to spend more on defence to make sure we can meet our international obligations and to make sure the Canadian Forces have the support, training and equipment they need. The war in Ukraine, and the growing tensions around the world, demand that we take a serious approach to upgrading and equipping our military. Our armed forces stationed in Latvia and protecting us at home certainly deserve it. Canada needs to be a force for stability in this increasingly unstable international climate, but I do not think we get there by choosing an arbitrary figure. We must plan efficiently, effectively and reasonably.
Canada can be a stabilizing force by increasing our funding to international humanitarian aid and increasing resources to our diplomatic efforts. We could take a leadership role in fulfilling NATO's goals of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. Canada could support the agenda of the NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security with a commitment of additional resources to that agenda, including measures to promote increased recruitment of women in peacekeeping.
We can increase military spending wisely by streamlining our defence procurement system and ensuring that we get better value for our money by ensuring that money is spent domestically. We can invest intelligently by stopping the outsourcing and privatization of Canadian Forces maintenance and repair work: This is work that has traditionally been done by either DND employees or regular serving members. We can provide those stable, public jobs as part of that domestic economic health. We can invest in the programs and services needed by members of the armed forces, such as supports the department used to provide for members to secure affordable housing, family and medical services.
All of this is necessary and is a valid argument for responsible defence spending, but to double the budget based on an arbitrary political figure to simply appear as though we are contributing to the international defence community is unsound, and New Democrats will not support such fiscal folly.
1700 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:02:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, throughout my entire speech, I talked about the increase in funding. I talked about smart procurement. I talked about ensuring we have the equipment to fulfill our international role, but 2% is a political and arbitrary figure. I said that repeatedly. It has been said by experts repeatedly. I say yes to planning long term and yes to ensuring that we have what we need to fulfill that international role, but I say no to a political and arbitrary figure.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:03:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, again, this is a political and arbitrary figure that has been pulled out of the air. In order to meet what we need to fulfill those international obligations, ensure we are keeping people safe around the world and fill those gaps, we have to spend it in a smart, reasonable and responsible way. We need to absolutely invest in terms of recruitment and retention. We need to ensure that the Armed Forces are moving ahead to provide the educational support, training and equipment. Again, 2% is arbitrary, and that would be up to $56 billion. That is a huge amount of money, and that needs to be done in a very smart, responsible way.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:05:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, and through my speech I talked about increasing spending, doing it smartly and doing it in a way that will have significant impacts for the people in the Armed Forces. I also talked about other ways that Canada can play a huge leadership role. In terms of the ending of nuclear weapons, Canada could sign on to the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons or increase nuclear disarmament. I do not have the exact terminology for that treaty, but these are key ways that we can show leadership. Canada has not signed on yet, and it should.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 1:20:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way discussed procurement difficulties and streamlining the process, and one thing has been put forward on that. The Prime Minister has mandate letters to the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Procurement and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans directing them to establish a centralized procurement process under a new department called “defence procurement Canada”. This has yet to be fulfilled.
Can the hon. parliamentary secretary indicate to us when this might be expected?
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
