SoVote

Apr/5/22 11:19:59 a.m.
Watch

I have to say, as the representative for 14 Wing Greenwood, that it was great to see that you had a good time in the beautiful riding of West Nova. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

38 words

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

Apr/5/22 11:20:08 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's speech and I really reflected on the part about how the Conservatives have been all talk and no action. When he said that, I was immediately reminded of Stephen Harper's interaction with Vladimir Putin back in 2014, when Stephen Harper said Putin had better get out of Ukraine, or something to that effect. We all know how that turned out. That was basically pointless and did not serve any purpose, while at the same time the Conservative government was spending less than 1% of GDP, as the member indicated. I am wondering if he can speak to how important it is that we make sure that our spending level is where it needs to be and also, as he noted earlier, make sure that we are doing the proper diplomatic measures so that we are handling our impact on the global stage from both a monetary perspective and a dialogue perspective.

160 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Apr/5/22 11:21:06 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am hoping to get one extra minute for that mention of Greenwood. As I said, diplomacy, defence and development are three prongs of what we need to be doing. We need to engage diplomatically around the world. We need to make sure that we have intelligence, that we have information and that we have appropriate relationships to build alliances and build allegiances while we are also working on our military alliances and while we are also continuing to develop and provide humanitarian assistance. We will do that. Ukraine is one example of election monitoring, of Unifier and of diplomatic relationship of which we have been very proud.

110 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Apr/5/22 11:21:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou. I am pleased to rise to speak to a Conservative motion on this opposition day because it will give members of the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to explain our position on defence and especially on defence-related spending. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois intends to support today's motion. However, I will be using some of my time to point out that there should be some caveats to this because, if all we do is vote yes or no to increasing the budget, as though this is a black-and-white issue with no real grey area, then we are not really addressing the main issues currently affecting the Canadian military. If we are talking about increasing spending on national defence to 2% of GDP, which is what Canada promised NATO it would do in 2014, then the issue for the Bloc Québécois is not really “how much”, but “how”. For the past several weeks, this issue has come up in different ways during the Standing Committee on National Defence's study of the various threats to Canada's security. On March 21, I asked a panel the following question with regard to the budget increase: “Should the question mainly be ‘how much’ or shouldn't it also be ‘how’?” I would like to quote some excerpts from what three of the witnesses said in answer to that question, because they presented two caveats that I want to talk about. First, James Fergusson, a professor at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies in the department of political studies at the University of Manitoba, said the following. The quote is a bit long, but I think it is quite relevant. It's not really a question of increasing the defence budget per se. The question is, how much, over what period of time and, particularly, dedicated to what acquisitions independent of operations and maintenance, and independent...of the problems of recruitment. If you want to punch this money into or funnel it into expanding the Canadian Armed Forces, recruitment and retention are a big problem, and you're probably in a real difficulty. However, unless we know where they're going to invest, that becomes a different problem. It raises the question, which this government doesn't want to do—no governments want to do it once they do defence once—about the need for a defence review. Mr. Fergusson went on to add the following: Remember that National Defence, over the past many years—I think in every year I can remember—continues to give back money to the central agency. I might be wrong about the number, but I think last year it was $1.1 billion that was returned. Well, that's a problem. You can commit money, but the question is, where do you spend it...for what ends? That's an open question to this day in Canada. Associate professor Robert Huebert of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary had this to say: Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. Once again, what we're really talking about is, what is the need for the effect of the Canadian Forces going into this new environment? It really comes down to the ability to deter growing aggressor states and fight in a collective security environment should that deterrence break down. When we went into the immediate post-Cold War period, we of course went through what many democratic countries saw as the ability to save money on defence, because there wasn't a fear that we had to deter anyone and we weren't going to be called upon to fight. That has obviously changed since at least 2014—I would argue 2008. The question is, okay, 2% sounds good in terms of making a commitment, but it's really getting to that capability...in terms of having the types of forces that you will be able to recruit and bring in to actually give effect to it. It really gets to the heart of what you're asking, and that is that we need to have an ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers. Professor Stephen Saideman, who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, said, and I quote: I would just jump in here and say that we also have to think a little more about how we do our procurement, because it's often seen as a jobs program for electoral political benefit, as opposed to what is best for what we need. For instance, we're seeing in Ukraine a variety of defence systems that are working really well.... Should we build our own anti-tank weapons when there are very good ones out there? Should we build our own anti-aircraft weapons when there are very good ones out there? We need to be a little more realistic about what our own defence industry can do and what it should do, and this leads to a challenge that we've had in our country. We feel that once we start building up a defence industry, it must be kept busy with a variety of projects: “Well, we need to sell LAVs [light armoured vehicles] to Saudi Arabia.” If we think about our defence industry for a minute, we need to think about whether it makes sense for us to have domestic producers of all the stuff, because it puts us in the difficult position of trying to find ways to keep them busy in between our own major projects. We need to think a little more about buying from other folks. Essentially, when I asked at the meeting whether we should, or should not, increase the defence budget to 2% of the GDP, the three witnesses made it a point to take into account two important aspects, namely the human resources issue, which includes the pressing problem of personnel recruitment and retention, and the procurement issue, which is currently impacting the Canadian Armed Forces. With respect to procurement, as James Fergusson mentioned in his testimony, year after year, National Defence generally returns more than $1 billion of its budget because it has not spent the money. This is symptomatic of a cumbersome, slow, inefficient and extremely politicized procurement system. Broadly speaking, the Bloc Québécois is not particularly concerned about the Liberal government’s ability to spend, or, more aptly, to throw money out the window, and that is precisely what we do not want, spending for the sake of spending. A recent example of the government’s ability to spend for the sake of spending is the dithering over the acquisition of the new fighter jets. After saying “anything but F-35s” seven years ago, the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to extend the life of our old CF-18s. In the meantime, it paid a premium to purchase Australian F-18s that needed millions of dollars in upgrades. All that to finally go back to square one and announce the purchase of the F-35s. In addition to spending, there are problems like the naval strategy, obsolete military equipment, the lack of air defence capability and the fact that the army was long unable to provide its members with something as simple as boots, asking soldiers to buy them themselves and then apply for a reimbursement. One of the questions we should ask the government in the future about the various procurement projects is whether the regional benefits have been maximized. Given that, in the mid-2010s, the government abolished the “regional” aspect of industrial and technological benefit obligations, and that more than 50% of aerospace production comes from Quebec, it is to be expected that the Bloc Québécois would pay close attention to anything relating to the acquisition of military drones, for example, especially since this is a burgeoning industry in Quebec. With respect to recruitment and retention, the Standing Committee on National Defence is currently examining that issue. This is a study the Bloc Québécois called for. The question that arises is the following: What is the point of increasing the National Defence procurement budget if it does not have the personnel needed to manage it? For example, the Royal Canadian Air Force is paying a high price for its low personnel retention rate. It has a shortage of experienced pilots and technicians. Because of our old aircraft, each hour of flight requires more than 35 hours of maintenance. In 2018, the Auditor General released a devastating report on the state of the air force, revealing that it has only 64% of the qualified CF-18 pilots it needs and that 22% of technician positions are either vacant or filled by unqualified technicians. The personnel shortage also impacts the support we can provide our allies, and Canada is becoming less and less of a credible partner in this respect. For example, NATO countries are currently taking part in Operation Cold Response in Norway. Some 30,000 allied soldiers are participating. Canada is sending a grand total of 10 people. I asked Major-General Paul Prévost about this on March 9. Not only did he confirm that the fact that we were sending only 10 people had nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine, since the decision was made long before the conflict, but he also added something quite troubling. He said, “Currently in the Canadian Forces, some of the threats to our operational readiness are related to the number of people we have.” In short, the National Defence budget cannot and should not be increased without a review of the procurement processes. We also need an in-depth review of the recruitment and retention issue. That is unavoidable. I will make a brief aside here before concluding, because the question of how to finance the increase to the National Defence budget may be raised, since we are talking about an additional $16 billion per year if we want to reach 2% of the GDP. My colleagues can decide whether it is fair to see a connection between the two, but I will simply mention that, on average, the federal government finances fossil fuels to the tune of $14 billion a year. In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is focused far more on the “how” than on the “how much,” and the “how” will inevitably require some serious soul-searching about the army’s procurement methods and short- and medium-term solutions to recruitment and retention problems.

1849 words

All Topics

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/5/22 11:31:45 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, with a warming climate, we are seeing the impacts of climate change: raging forest fires, flooding and other types of natural disasters. In my home province last year, over 350 military personnel had to go to the interior to fight forest fires. We saw what happened to Lytton, B.C. I really believe it is time for Canada to provide not just the manpower to tackle climate emergencies, but also the proper equipment and technology. In the U.S., it is common practice to use C-130s, CH-47s and Black Hawks to support aerial firefighting capacities and we are not doing that here in Canada. There is a company in my riding, Coulson Aviation, that is supporting the Argentinian, Chilean, Bolivian, American and Australian militaries, yet Canada is not doing that. Could my colleague speak about this? Does she believe that the Canadian Armed Forces are not well equipped to deal with these natural disasters in Canada and that there is going to be further demand with a warming climate? Does she agree that improvements need to be made so that the Canadian Armed Forces are able to respond to these incidents here in our own country?

200 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/5/22 11:33:03 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is a very interesting question that we will have to consider. It is likely that we will be seeing an increasing number of extreme climate events in the future. Who will respond? Will it be systematically up to the regular forces, because they are the best equipped? Maybe not. Perhaps we should consider another model, for example a paramilitary militia dedicated to this type of response. It could be made up of people who are less interested in combat and the more traditional nature of the army and might be more interested in this type of response, like the Rangers. We could train them accordingly.

108 words

Mrs. Anna Roberts (King—Vaughan, CPC)

Apr/5/22 11:33:50 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague mentioned recruitment in her speech and the struggles we have. Does she think this is due to the fact that when our veterans complete their duty of service, the government does not provide them with the health services they need to transition back to regular life?

51 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/5/22 11:34:13 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, that is not the only issue with recruitment and retention. There are many others. One of the problems that comes up the most often but that could be resolved quickly and practically is the issue of housing. Forces members struggle to find housing or run into high housing prices in the places they are relocated to. Some make a bit of money, but others lose a lot. There are fewer and fewer military housing units where families can stay. Forces members are increasingly being asked to transfer when it is not necessarily justified. That is one of the issues we can address. That being said, the entire veterans file is obviously important. My colleague from Rivière-des-Mille-Îles does a lot of work with francophone veterans on the processing times for their claims, which are much longer than average.

146 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Apr/5/22 11:35:10 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what a magnificent speech. I am captivated. If I did not know the hon. member for Saint-Jean, I would ask her for her phone number. Fortunately, we know each other well. She referred several times to a regional distribution of benefits. I am from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, which has the largest military air base, where the aging CF-18s are kept. However, I would like to point out that we did not receive the promised drones, which will probably go to another military base. I would ask my well-informed colleague if, in her opinion, Quebec is receiving its fair share of military investments.

109 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Apr/5/22 11:35:55 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question that unfortunately I cannot answer, because, around 2014, the federal government abolished the regional aspect of industrial and technological benefits. As a result, we no longer know where the money goes. We can guess that it goes where it is more helpful for election purposes. What we are hearing through the grapevine is that, since then, Quebec has not been doing anywhere near as well, although it accounts for 50% of aerospace production.

81 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Apr/5/22 11:36:31 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to cite a Latin proverb. My Latin is not very good, but long live Astérix. Si vis pacem para bellum, which means, “If you want peace, prepare for war.” I never liked this proverb, but I have to say it is still necessary, even in 2022. I hope that one day we will manage to live in a world where conflicts will be resolved through diplomacy, intellectual skills, open-mindedness, collaboration and consensus building. National defence is a means of ensuring not only our own security and safety, but also the security and safety of populations under threat, whether those threats are natural or political and human. Today, we are talking about fulfilling our commitment as a NATO country to devote 2% of our GDP to national defence spending. My colleague eloquently explained that the Bloc Québécois agrees, but we still need to know how to manage our groceries. I was trained as a teacher, and I like to make things simple, to explain complicated things using simple words. When I say that we have to know how to do our groceries, we must know what we have in stock, see if it is still good, and then determine what we need before we go out shopping. According to the Auditor General's report 3, released in the spring of 2020, National Defence does not know exactly what it has in its inventory and does not know how to account for it. There is a lot of confusion. As my colleague stated earlier, National Defence returns more than $1 billion per year to the central budget as a result of underspending. That is problematic. The commitment was made in 2014, but we have yet to meet it. We must ask ourselves questions. What is military spending? What should it include? Military procurement is fraught with problems. What is going on? There are other problems we must examine as well, because it is all interrelated. What is considered military spending? Naturally, it includes arms, which my colleagues spoke about at length. That said, we need arms and military means of transportation that are up-to-date and functional. For example, the CF-18s are outdated. They require more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour. How much maintenance do the Australian F/A-18 Hornets need? It is difficult to know. I asked the question several times in committee and did not get an answer, so I do not know how many maintenance hours are required for every flight hour on the F/A Hornets. It would be nice to have helicopters that do not crash and submarines that do not catch fire. Our submarines spend more time under repair than under water. Canada ordered six Arctic and offshore patrol ships, but they cannot go to the Arctic in the winter because the ice is too thick, so they patrol the St. Lawrence and the Great Lakes. If they are called “Arctic” ships, maybe they should be able to patrol the Arctic. We have “polar” ships instead, except that two polar ships for all of northern Canada is not a lot. The government bought C6A1 machine guns, first introduced in 1958, for $28,000 each. We have Browning Hi-Power pistols, first produced in 1935, which was before the Second World War. Our anti-tank weapons are not much better. Canada has the Carl Gustaf 84 mm and the M72, both of which have an effective range of approximately 300 metres and fire straight, right at where tanks are best protected. That 300-metre range is not much compared to other countries' anti-tank capacity. Our radar systems are also outdated, and I could go on. All of this falls under procurement. No one is checking and upgrading the equipment. I remember hearing about how, a long time ago, our soldiers were sent into battle in the desert with green uniforms. That is also something to be considered with respect to procurement. How about training, which is also part of the 2%? Training needs to be done with new equipment. We need to ensure that our students are training with the same equipment they will be using, not with outdated equipment. Retention also involves ensuring that our soldiers can use the equipment they were trained on. Young people these days are very tech savvy. They want technology. They cannot get enough. I am sorry, but they will not be interested if they are given technology from 1935 or 1958, no matter how noble the mission may be. As I said, military procurement is fraught with problems. The military does not know what is in its inventory and is unable to respond to emergencies, even during training and exercises. The Auditor General of Canada wrote about this in report 3 from the spring of 2020. The military does not always seem to know what it has in stock. The report also mentions requests submitted to a warehouse that turned out not to have the equipment in stock. It was requested from another warehouse but was not available there either. It had to be purchased. Imagine the delays. There are men and women waiting for training, and they need this in order to be up to date. The request was even marked “urgent”. In one case, the request involved parachutes. How can someone train to jump out of a plane if they have no parachute? Urgent means urgent. The delays are unbelievable. The tracking systems are as outdated as the equipment. If defence spending is to be increased to 2%, it must include a major overhaul of both the supply systems and the supply sources. The challenges of knowing where the equipment is and making it available also create other problems, including not being able to use the military's equipment transportation system and being forced to ask private carriers to do the military's job. This adds to costs, and I have not even touched on the mistakes of dithering over the F-35s and the national shipbuilding strategy. Another problem with procurement and obsolescence is recruitment. I mentioned this briefly. Another recruitment problem has to do with the Canadian Armed Forces' reputation when it comes to its treatment of women and certain minorities and genders. That needs to stop. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of someone who is being harassed and touched against their will. Imagine this is happening to a member of Parliament or one of their children. This cannot be tolerated from members of the Canadian Armed Forces, no matter how much stress they are under. I want to get back to the obsolete technology, which is something we hear all the time. I am not a fan of the Latin expression Si vis pacem para bellum, which makes me uncomfortable. However, we are behind in terms of our technological and industrial defence capabilities. This means that not only are we unable to defend those who need it most, but we also cannot defend ourselves. This investment will yield returns because it involves training in engineering, welding, shipbuilding, aircraft manufacturing, information technology and more. We have the brains here, and the government needs to stop calling on Silicon Valley. Let us invest for ourselves and for others. Most importantly, let us improve our procurement system, which might as well be from the Middle Ages.

1251 words

All Topics

Mr. Ron Liepert (Calgary Signal Hill, CPC)

Apr/5/22 11:46:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think it is no secret that Thursday's budget is going to give the Liberal government quite a windfall on the revenue side because of increased oil and gas revenues, corporate taxes and personal taxes, all from the oil and gas sector, which every member of the House outside of the Conservative opposition is trying to phase out. Because of this windfall the government is going to be receiving, an unexpected windfall, would this be the right time to meet the objective that has been laid out in this particular motion?

94 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/5/22 11:47:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the oil industry will completely disappear. I think that there are some things we will always need. However, the oil industry must be drastically downsized if we want to maintain our environment for future generations. Yes, the industry brings in money. Part of this money could be used to achieve the 2% target. It is up to us to decide as members of Parliament. Reducing our oil consumption can only help, maybe not us, but our children and grandchildren. A real statesperson thinks about the future and future generations, not about the next election.

101 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/5/22 11:48:21 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, here we have a Conservative motion. I find it very fascinating for the simple reason that, when I was in the opposition back in 2013, the Conservatives' spending as a percentage of GDP was actually less than 1%. That was in 2013. Now, we have advanced considerably further than that, and we will wait and see what takes place in the budget. Does the member not agree that there is a bit of irony there, with the Conservative Party saying 2%? Back in 2013, when the Conservatives were in government and I sat in the opposition benches, their spending was actually at less than 1% of the GDP.

110 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/5/22 11:49:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I began my speech with proverb. I will now begin my answer with another proverb: Only fools never change their mind. That being said, when we make a decision, whether it is personal, general, political or governmental, we choose one of the best solutions at the time. It may not be the best decision in hindsight, but, under the circumstances, it was the best choice. Today we are realizing that we made a mistake that we need to correct. Let us not be fools; let us simply correct it.

91 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

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

Mrs. Julie Vignola

Apr/5/22 11:50:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we need to support victims of harassment and sexual assault. We talk a lot about women. They are incredibly strong, they get through it, but the impact, the images and the flashbacks are there for life. Let us also consider the other victims of harassment, bullying and sexual assault we rarely talk about: men. Men can also be victims. All of these people need support. What we really need is a major change in mentality. Assaulting someone is not being manly, and I will keep my insults to myself.

96 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

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

Mr. Marty Morantz (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, CPC)

Apr/5/22 12:01:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Russia has a population of about 145 million people and a GDP of $1.7 trillion. Canada's population is 38 million with a GDP of $2 trillion. Russia spends 4% of its GDP on its military, or about $68 billion. In that context, and in the context about the brutal assault of Russia on Ukraine, does the member not agree that a 2% target is a reasonable target, given the state of the world in which we currently live?

82 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 53