SoVote

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

Apr/5/22 4:06:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound. This member has first-hand experience in this area, compared to most of us. We have not experienced what he has, so when he speaks to an issue like this one, we should listen to what he has to say. One thing that stood out to me in his speech was how he talked about the need to invest in the members of the Canadian Armed Forces. As members already know, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion. However, we do not know what that will mean for the budget, in light of the NDP‑Liberal alliance. What does the member mean when he says that we need to invest in people, in the members of our forces? Is he referring to recruiting or retaining military personnel?

150 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Apr/5/22 4:07:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, it is not an easy answer, but it is all of the above. We need to invest in our recruiting. Almost a decade ago, I tried to write a master's paper, and I failed miserably at that too, specifically about why we need to invest our best people within the Canadian Armed Forces into the recruiting system so we have that flexibility to recruit the best. As we all know, the huge labour shortages the country is facing, it is a shortage across most of the western world, so we have to get those right people. The other key aspect the government could do to help fix this is on the procurement side. One of the things that we are actually lacking within the government, in my opinion, is enough expertise within defence procurement alone. If we can invest more to get those quality people into that, it would allow the procurement cycle to improve. By investing in training, investing in support for families and investing in our members, we can never go wrong.

178 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/5/22 4:08:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his service and for his speech today. According to the Parliamentary Budget Office, for Canada to meet the 2% NATO target, we would have to spend from $54 billion to $56 billion annually on defence, doubling what we spend now. Could the member share how this is justified while pharmacare and dental for Canadians, which would cost one-third of this, are not supported by the Conservatives?

74 words

Mr. Alex Ruff

Apr/5/22 4:08:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, again, this is not an easy answer. It is justified, from my opinion, and we are obviously supporting putting 2% into our military, because as I explained in my speech, the world is a volatile place and people dying around the globe. I am not trying to take away from dental care or pharmacare, which are primarily provincial jurisdiction, but the point is that national defence is a federal jurisdiction issue, and it is what we should be focused on in the House.

85 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/5/22 4:09:17 p.m.
Watch

Order. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, The Economy; the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, Disaster Assistance. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood has the floor.

79 words

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

Apr/5/22 4:09:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. and very capable member for Kings—Hants. It is an honour for me to participate in this discussion, and I like to see it as a discussion as opposed to a partisan debate because this affects us all. Security is a universal problem, regardless of where one falls on the political spectrum. I am going to take an unusual tack and take us back to 1940. At that point, Canada had something in the order of the third or fourth largest navy in the world, probably one of the larger armies in the world and a growing air force. In fact, Canada was considered a place where a lot of the training took place for people in the air force. It was not a good time for the allies. The Germans were making really good progress right across Europe, literally taking over quite a number of countries, and the British were rightly concerned. The British gold reserves had been moved to Canada. There was talk that the royal family might need to be moved to Canada. The situation was pretty grim. President Roosevelt was trying to help as best he could with the allies, but he was hampered by domestic politics. Of course, Canada was involved in that war at that point in 1940 very extensively. Prime Minister Mackenzie King realized early on that Canada was going to need to transfer its security arrangements from the declining British Empire to the ascendant American Empire. To that end, he met with President Roosevelt in Ogdensburg, New York, in a railway car, and he negotiated with President Roosevelt the transfer of those security arrangements. Both the prime minister and the president saw that the defence of North America was going to take a mutual effort. President Roosevelt was concerned about the upscaling of Japanese aggression in the Pacific, and he saw the British Columbia coast as an easy entry point to North America. German subs were lurking in the north Atlantic, sometimes in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and President Roosevelt felt that something had to be done. The initial position of President Roosevelt was to simply make the Canadian military part of the U.S. north command, and that was a position that was rejected by Mackenzie King, who wanted to keep the Canadian military as a separate stand-alone military under the direction of the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada. Out of the Ogdensburg agreement came the Permanent Joint Board on Defence. It was, has been, and still is the senior advisory body to develop defence architecture for North America during the past 80 years. However, the working presumption has been that Canada would have a fully functioning stand-alone military capable of defending Canada and contributing significantly to the defence of North America. That was very true 80 years ago, and for a long time it continued to be true. Canadians like the idea of being independent of the American military adventures. However, what they do not like is paying for it. Members will recall in this very chamber President Obama, in the nicest, kindness and gentlest way, saying that they would appreciate some help with burden sharing. Members will also recall that President Trump, in his own irritating way, said much the same thing. Secretary General Stoltenberg has also said much the same thing and has taken note of our contribution to NATO, yet the entire premise of Mackenzie King's argument with President Roosevelt was that Canada would have an independent military that was capable of defending Canada and contributing significantly to the defence of North America. NORAD was the most significant outcome of the permanent joint board on defence, and it has been a valuable point of collaboration between the two militaries. Canada has been a huge beneficiary of that treaty. That was then, however, and now is now. Over the years, through all Canadian governments, military capabilities have declined, along with our percentage of GDP spent on military spending. We have, as a previous member said, enjoyed a prolonged peace dividend. What he did not add, and I add it here, is that it has been at the expense of our American cousins. As John Manley, the former foreign affairs minister, once said, we cannot always go to the bathroom when the bill arrives. We have spent too much time in the bathroom, and the bill has arrived. “Strong, Secure and Engaged” contemplated about $163 billion of additional spending over 20 years. Unfortunately, even this relatively modest goal has proved to be difficult, as the military has lapsed about $5 billion in the last three years. The military's own readiness report makes for some depressing reading. Then along comes February 24, when, as others have said, everything changed. Our entire threat assessment accelerated the timeline way beyond anyone's previous expectations. At that time the defence committee was engaged in a threat assessment. When we began the threat assessment, none of us had anticipated that Russia would actually carry out an invasion of Ukraine. If we are to defend our own sovereignty and, as importantly, contribute to the sovereignty of others, we have to step up with real fiscal firepower. It is in equipment and personnel, and it is in personnel and it is equipment. Witness after witness after witness at the defence committee keeps telling us about CAF's problems with recruitment and retention of personnel. Military personnel are expensive. It costs literally millions of dollars to train and retain a pilot. Retaining a pilot is as difficult as training a pilot. Cyber-specialists are a hot commodity, and private companies can offer generous salaries and benefits that are very attractive. Witness after witness tells us of a procurement system that is broken. Journalist Gwynne Dyer once said that the next war will be a “come as you are” war. There will not be any time to fix anything and there will not be any time to buy new stuff, and the bills will be huge, in part because we kept kicking the decisions down the road. I am glad to see a decision has been made on F-35s, but the all-domain warning system is going to be a hugely expensive acquisition. Russia has been showing that it has hypersonic capability and that it has militarized the Arctic. If we cannot defend our sovereignty on our own, then we will have to rely on others, and if we have to rely on others, we have to hope that their interests align with ours. Prime Minister Mackenzie King intuitively understood the desire for an independent sovereign nation, and he further understood the cost of being that independent sovereign nation.

1136 words

All Topics

Mr. Garnett Genuis (Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:19:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member opposite clearly understands the importance of making vital investments in our national defence to get up to our NATO commitments. It is also clear from the debate today that the government's partners in the NDP simply do not. They have an ideological opposition to making the investments that are required in defence and they do not understand that investing in our security is fundamental to anything else that we want to do as a country. I asked the foreign affairs minister at committee whether the agreement with the NDP involved any commitments with respect to foreign policy or security policy, and she said no. That is good news, I think. It also shows that the NDP is not as engaged in these issues as it should be. However, then I asked the minister if she was confident that the agreement between the government and the NDP would hold if the government chose to increase defence spending, and she could not answer that question. I am concerned that the NDP agreement with the government will limit our capacity to invest in defence spending and will hold the government back in doing the things that it needs to do. Does the member share my concerns that the partners that the government has in the NDP are going to put those required investments at risk?

227 words

Hon. John McKay

Apr/5/22 4:20:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the short answer is “no”. I will just point out to all members of the House that without security, we have nothing. What we watch on our television sets every night shows that security in Ukraine is illusory. Therefore, talk about other spending in other elements of government becomes illusory. I make the core point that a government needs to provide security for its nation before we can talk about anything else.

76 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Apr/5/22 4:21:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberal government avoided making any decisions on the F-35s for seven years. In the meantime, it spent hundreds of millions of dollars to maintain the old CF-18s and purchased old FA-18s from Australia. It spent money bringing these jets up to standards and maintaining them. After this seven-year boondoggle, it has finally decided to buy the F‑35, the jet that the government swore it would never buy. Could my colleague expand on that?

82 words

Hon. John McKay

Apr/5/22 4:22:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the F-35 is a terrific platform, particularly in the elements of interoperability. If in fact we do get ourselves involved with the all-domain awareness system, the F-35 would be a major contributor to that, as will be ship-based information systems, and as will be land-based systems. That will all be integrated, because as General O'Shaughnessy once said, “If I can't detect it, I can't defend against it.” Yes, it has been a long time coming. I hope this is a decision that will be executed quite quickly and that we will get on with the integration into the all domain awareness system that is contemplated by NORAD.

119 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/5/22 4:23:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when it comes to military spending, there are different aspects, one of which is making sure that maintenance dollars are made available as well. The Liberals have continued the expensive trend of contracting out the work to repair Canadian ships and planes, resulting in greater expenses to the military and to Canadians. Does the member believe that in order for Canada to ensure it is getting the greatest value for its money, we should be ensuring the qualified personnel in our armed forces do this work instead of contracting it out?

93 words

Hon. John McKay

Apr/5/22 4:23:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am agnostic as to whether it should be personnel within the CAF or exterior personnel. Some of this equipment is highly sophisticated, and we simply cannot keep people in the military to fix a particular part of a particular plane, so there are times when contracting out makes more sense than actually having a full-time employee or employees look after that particular equipment. This is very sophisticated equipment, so I leave that decision ultimately to the officers involved.

82 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

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

Ms. Raquel Dancho (Kildonan—St. Paul, CPC)

Apr/5/22 4:34:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for his speech. I particularly appreciated his remarks on critical minerals and the importance of developing them in Canada. I want to get the member's thoughts on whether he feels it is important to use national defence spending to upgrade our early North Warning System, in particular expanding it to include coastal surveillance, maritime and underwater surveillance, and even space surveillance. Does the member feel it is important? Does he feel this would be a good use of taxpayer dollars in the upcoming budget?

95 words

Mr. Kody Blois

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

SoVote

House Hansard - 53