44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 5, 2022 10:00AM
I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on March 1, 22 and 28 by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for La Prairie regarding Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.
During his intervention, the sponsor of Bill C‑237 argued that it entails no new expense and does not change the transfer amounts or its purpose nor does it change the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. He continued by saying that all C‑237 does is reduce federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions.
The member added that his bill seeks to exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the application of the Canada Health Act. The member for La Prairie added to these arguments that a bill that amends a condition or qualification of an existing act should be accompanied by a royal recommendation only if that amendment entails an increase in these costs or changes the purpose, which he argued is not the case with C‑237.
For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the bill seeks to eliminate conditions and qualifications associated with the legislative spending power enacted by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. He thus contended that a new royal recommendation is needed for the purposes of the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces as proposed by Bill C-237. I reviewed the bill and I have reached the following conclusions concerning this impact on the royal recommendation.
Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subject in order to receive the Canada Health Transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.
The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament.
On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:
A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.
As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.
When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate.
I thank all members for their attention.
759 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:01:01 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of securing the supply chain, which has been weakened during the pandemic.
I would like to talk about something that is very important for Quebec. The government is set to spend a huge amount of money on F-35s, but there is no guarantee of any industrial or technological benefits. Quebec accounts for more than 50% of Canada's aerospace industry.
When will the member's government adopt a real aerospace policy that recognizes the importance of this sector, in particular in Quebec? This could help secure our supply chain.
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:52:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to split my time with the member for Mount Royal.
I would like to start by commenting in regard to what is happening in Ukraine today. What we see on the nightly news and throughout the day are the horrific pictures and the horrors of war clearly demonstrated in what is happening in Europe today. Reflecting on that, we get a better understanding and appreciation of why NATO as an organization is so incredibly important to world peace. Would it not be wonderful if we did not have to spend any dollars, whether here in Canada or any other country in the world, to have to deal with military buildups and equipment and machinery? However, we need to be realistic. There is an obligation to provide citizens around the world and us here in Canada with a sense of security, and more than just a sense. It has to be tangible.
Canada is a nation of 38 million people. If there were no allied countries or organization such as NATO, I would argue we would have to spend a great deal more money than 2% of GDP to protect our sovereignty. However, because our forefathers brought NATO forward as an organization, we are now in alliance with 29 other nations. Including Canada, there are 30 nations in total. As I pointed out for my friend across the way, it is important to recognize that Canada has been there from the very beginning of NATO. We are one of the 12 founding countries of NATO. The makeup of NATO is in essence 28 countries in Europe, and Canada and the United States. NATO was formed because of World War I and World War II, when we saw the need for allied countries.
One of the members opposite made reference to President Obama coming to Canada. I remember well that he presented to all of us, including you, Madam Speaker. He talked about that special friendship between Canada and U.S.A., but in that speech he also made reference to the need for Canada to do more in terms of its contribution to NATO from a financial point of view and a budgetary perspective.
I raised the question in the manner in which I did because I understand why President Obama raised the issue. Just three years earlier, Stephen Harper actually had military expenditure per capita at less than 1%. In the dying days of the Conservative government, less than 1% of GDP was going toward the Canadian Forces. There were, in fact, cuts under the Conservative government, and that was at great cost.
I had the honour of serving in the Canadian Forces for just over three years. I was posted to Edmonton. I was associated with 435 Squadron, which was search and rescue, and I assisted at times. If I was not in the tower, I was in the hangar assisting 435 Squadron pilots to file their flight plans. At that time, we were flying the C-130 Hercules aircraft, a beautiful aircraft still in use today. I am talking about the early 1980s. I am a little older than I look, perhaps.
About four years ago, I had the privilege to be with 435 Squadron again. It was in the city of Winnipeg, because it had relocated from Edmonton to Winnipeg. There was an announcement, which I had the privilege of making, that we were replacing our Hercules aircraft with the new Kingfisher aircraft.
From the C-130, we went to the C-295. It is an amazing aircraft. I had the opportunity to tour it. I had been in many C-130s, and this was the first time I had been in the Kingfisher. It is an incredible aircraft. If we want to talk about modernization, there are computers not only in the cockpit but also in the fuselage. Aircrew could actually see very minute details of the ground from thousands of feet in the air.
I say that because as a government, whether through our current minister or the minister before her, we have recognized how important it was to invest, in real terms, in the Canadian Armed Forces. We often hear members of this House on all sides talking, and justifiably so, about how wonderful our armed forces members are. We have to make sure that when they go on NATO missions or search and rescue missions, they have the right equipment, whether it is through reconstructing or building a ship, purchasing search and rescue aircraft, providing the armaments that are necessary for our men and women in the field or, in the most recent announcement, procuring and purchasing the F-35s.
Again, when I was in the tower, I saw those beautiful F-18s, and they are a first-class aircraft, but they do need to be replaced. The F-35 is our future fighter plane. It went through a process that will ultimately deliver a world-class fighter jet to the members of our forces. I listened to the comments, and just before I stood up there was reference to our military industries here in Canada. Magellan Aerospace, which is based in Winnipeg, manufactures wings for the F-35 today, at least in good part. They have been doing that for years under an international agreement that allows for that industry to continue to grow here in Canada.
Some members here might remember the Avro Arrow, an aircraft that never materialized because the then-Conservative government killed the program. We had incredible leading science and technology in that aircraft, and it was all lost because the plane was cancelled. The technology went to the United States.
When I talk about the F-35 and the procurement process, I know we value our aerospace industry, whether it is in the province of Quebec, Manitoba, Ontario, B.C. or other jurisdictions. We understand the relation between building up our military and supporting the development of that technology here in Canada, and there are ample examples. The best sniper weapons in the world are manufactured, arguably, right here in Canada. All sorts of armaments actually come from Canada.
In terms of expenditures, we have consistently been investing more in our forces and we have substantial commitments going forward, and in a couple of days we will hear even more tangible numbers coming from the Minister of Finance. I assure Canadians that the Government of Canada understands the importance of NATO and the leadership role we need to play, and we understand the industry here in Canada.
1095 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 1:19:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank one of my favourite members on that side of the House for raising this issue. I completely agree with her.
The labour shortage is a problem not only in Quebec, but across Canada. We need to find ways to get employees. We have to make the immigration process easier since that seems to be an excellent solution to this problem. Training people is another excellent solution.
Part of this budget should certainly be devoted to hiring so that we can ensure that we have the necessary number of employees to carry out all the possible roles. I will give the example of veterans to process veterans' files more quickly.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 1:35:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with respect to the member, I will say two things. One, the reality is that resource development is provincial jurisdiction. As I respect Quebec, I ask that he simply respects Alberta. Two, if he is concerned about the $14 billion being invested in our oil sands, maybe Quebec could give back the $13 billion in net transfer it received because of the prosperity the province of Alberta has seen.
When it comes to ensuring my province and all of Canada are secure in the midst of the challenges we face in the world, we need to be a country that simply says yes again. We need to say yes to resource projects, yes to green technologies and yes to manufacturing and development. We need to finally say yes again.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 2:26:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we presented a responsible plan that is one of the most ambitious of its kind. The Bloc Québécois should understand the importance of working with Quebeckers to create new economic opportunities and sustainable jobs.
That is why we encourage our friends in the Bloc to talk to people like Bruno Marchand, the mayor of Quebec City, Valérie Plante, the mayor of Montreal, and the Union des municipalités, all of whom have commended our plan.
Our priority is to work with Quebeckers, not to stir up quarrels, in order to provide them with clean air and a stronger economy.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 2:28:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we often point out that the Bloc Québécois stirs up trouble, but today it is insulting the integrity of the mayor of Montreal and the mayor of Quebec City, who are very sincere in their desire to ensure that their citizens and the entire country have a cleaner environment and a more prosperous future.
We are here to work with all Quebeckers, including the Bloc, on the files that are important to all Quebeckers and Canadians. We will continue to be a constructive and ambitious government in the area of climate change as we help families across the country.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 3:05:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Pontiac for the question.
Our plan allocates $9.2 billion in additional investments. The plan also includes an ambitious and achievable sector-by-sector approach for Canada to reach its climate target by 2030. The plan has been in development for months and reflects submissions from more than 30,000 Canadians.
I want everyone to know that we have received a lot of support for this plan from various sectors across the country. The mayor of Quebec City, the mayor of Montreal, and a number of environmental groups and businesses have commended this plan.
Our government is there to respond ambitiously to the climate crisis, to stimulate a clean economy, and to create sustainable jobs. We are there for Canadians.
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 5:06:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, money does not grow on trees in Quebec, nor does it anywhere else in our country, or anywhere for that matter. We know it is a very expensive endeavour to do this, but it is an accurate response. Indeed, the government is spending a lot of money, but is it spending it in the right direction? That is a huge question mark. We would disagree on how the government is spending money. It is one thing to throw money at a problem. However, to do it in the proper way to get things done, that needs to be done efficiently with the proper procurement process, with the right targets set and the right timelines. That is where we differ from the government across the way.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would answer my colleague's question in the context of my Bloc colleague's question. The industry itself is not inherently bad or good. It is what we as a country choose to make of it. Any province, including the province of Quebec, would have huge investment opportunities chased away if we overly politicize this. I hope that does not happen.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
