- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Conservative
- Wellington—Halton Hills
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 65%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $120,269.09
- Government Page
- Apr/20/23 3:04:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the object over Canadian airspace was shot down by an American F-22 on February 11, the defence minister said at the time that the process was sound and that it was NORAD doing what it is supposed to do. Yesterday, The Washington Post reported that, according to the Pentagon's assessment, Canada's military response was delayed by one hour, necessitating U.S. assistance.
How does the defence minister square her public comments with the Pentagon's assessment?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/20/23 3:02:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, according to The Washington Post, the Prime Minister privately told NATO officials that Canada will never meet the military alliance's defence-spending target. However, that is not what the Prime Minister is telling Canadians publicly. Instead, he is saying that Canada is a reliable partner to NATO and a reliable partner around the world.
How does the Prime Minister square his private comments to NATO officials with his public comments to Canadians?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 7:59:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Russia's war in Ukraine has actualized something that was once only theoretical. An authoritarian state led by an autocrat has attacked a democracy: It has demonstrated that it is willing and able to attack a democracy. It has made clear that democracies that stand alone and are not part of military alliances are most vulnerable. That is why it has become necessary to bring both Sweden and Finland into the NATO alliance.
This is an urgent matter. It is urgent because Sweden and Finland are now very vulnerable. They sit in between a period when they were neutral states and full NATO membership, which would guarantee their security and protection by other NATO members under article 5. That is why this debate is so important and why I hope the House will add its political support to the Government of Canada's decision to support Finland and Sweden's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.
It is also an urgent matter because now that Sweden and Finland have indicated that they wish to join the NATO alliance, Russian disinformation will no doubt accelerate through media sympathetic to Russian disinformation and through political actors sympathetic to Russian disinformation. That is why it is important that we here in the House speak clearly and categorically about our support for both Finland and Sweden's entry into the NATO alliance.
It is also important that the Government of Canada puts pressure on NATO members that are resistant to Finland and Sweden joining the NATO alliance. Both Turkey and Croatia have indicated concerns, if not outright opposition, to Finland and Sweden joining NATO. The Government of Canada must make clear, through its ambassadors as well as through discussions between foreign ministers and heads of government, Canada's position.
Canada supported Turkey's accession to NATO in 1952, and Canada should now ask Turkey to clearly support Finland and Sweden's accession to NATO in 2022. Canada should note that it supplies military equipment to Turkey, particularly key technology for Bayraktar drones. Canada supported Croatia's entry to NATO in 2009, and now Canada should ask Croatia's President Milanovic for his support for Finland and Sweden's accession into the NATO alliance in 2022. The government should note that continued opposition could have negative repercussions for Canada-Croatia relations, which could impact everything from youth mobility arrangements to the promotion of two-way trade and investment.
The Government of Canada also needs to make clear to Finland and Sweden that both Canada and Turkey work together to combat terrorism, and it should indicate that there are groups that both Canada and Turkey consider terrorist entities as listed under the Canadian Criminal Code.
The Canadian government should do as the United Kingdom government recently did, and provide interim security guarantees to both Finland and Sweden in the interim period where they are the most vulnerable before their accession to the NATO alliance to counter any plans that Moscow may have to try to block and intimidate these two countries.
I had the pleasure of meeting Ann Linde, Sweden's foreign minister, on May 5. We discussed Sweden's application to join NATO, Russia's war in Ukraine and its implications for defence, energy and Arctic sovereignty. It was clear during our discussion that it was in Canada's interests as well for Finland and Sweden to join the NATO alliance. Their membership would help bolster Arctic defence and security in a region that Russia considers its most strategically important. It is a region in which Russia has invested considerable resources in recent years.
Finland and Sweden also have robust militaries that could bolster Canada's contributions to the military alliance. Finland demonstrated its fighting spirit during the Winter War of 1939 and 1940, when brave Finns fought back advancing Soviet tanks by running up to the tanks with tar-coated bombs and slapping those bombs onto the track treads of those Soviet tanks, disabling them.
They used nothing more than their bodies and simple, homemade, handmade bombs to stop the Soviet army in its tracks and they eventually repelled the invaders.
The Swedes have a robust domestic military industry. They produce the Gripen fighter jet. Therefore, it is in Canada's interests that both Sweden and Finland join the alliance, helping us to bolster our military capabilities both here and abroad.
Finland and Sweden and their desire to join NATO have demonstrated how much the world has changed since Russia's invasion of Ukraine on February 24. For some 200 years, Sweden has had a policy of neutrality. This is longer than the confederation of Swiss cantons. It is longer than Switzerland's policy. Its position of neutrality dates back to 1812, when it lost territory to Russia as a result of the Napoleonic wars.
The fact that after two centuries of neutrality Sweden has formally applied to join a military alliance reveals how much the world has changed in the past three months, and that should be a wake-up call for the government. The world has changed, but the government has been slow to react to that change. Russia's invasion of Ukraine makes it urgent that the Canadian government meet its commitment to spend 2% of Canada's gross domestic product on our military. This is something it committed to before the most recent budget. It is something the most recent budget fails to deliver on, and our allies are increasingly making note of our failure to uphold our defence spending commitments.
Just this past week, U.S. Ambassador to Canada David Cohen said, “In the public discourse leading up to the release of the budget, the rhetoric from senior Canadian government officials implied that there would be a significant increase in defence spending.” He added, “It’s fair to say that although $8 billion is more money, it was a little disappointing as matched against the rhetoric that we heard leading into the release of the budget.”
Finland and Sweden understand that the world has changed, and that is why they are urgently seeking to join NATO. Germany understands that the world has changed, which is why Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who heads a centre-left coalition, announced on February 27 a dramatic U-turn in decades of German foreign and defence policy by immediately committing to increase German defence spending to well beyond 2% of gross domestic product, with an immediate commitment to spend $140 billion Canadian on German defence spending. Other NATO allies understand that the world has changed, but the government has not and it has been slow to react.
Let me finish by stating clearly and categorically that we as Conservatives support Sweden and Finland’s accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I encourage all members of the House to do the same to ensure that the Parliament of Canada adds its clear voice of support to the Government of Canada's decision to support Finland and Sweden's accession into the NATO alliance.
1177 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are no contradictions at all. In fact, when the current government took office on November 5, 2015, it inherited a budget surplus. The previous government had balanced the budget by the time the current government took office. In fact, it then spent an inordinate amount of money until the fiscal year end of March 31, 2016, that actually pushed the country back into deficit. It was under the Liberals' watch that the country went into deficit in early 2016.
With respect to our NATO defence spending commitments, it is true that defence spending did not meet that commitment during much of the aughts, nor did it during much of the 1990s, but that was in the context of the fall of the Berlin Wall, when we assumed that autocratic states such as Russia and China would improve their records on human rights, democracy and rule of law and would be good partners in the international order. That changed on February 24 with Russia's invasion of Ukraine: the first attack on a European democracy by another European state. That is why we now need to do what Germany has done, and increase defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product.
203 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Niagara West.
I would like to quote a fiscal Conservative, who stated:
Canadians want to know that the principles guiding government are ones that they share.
Here are our principles.
First, governments created the deficit burden. And so governments must resolve it—by focusing first in their own backyards—by getting spending down, not by putting taxes up.
Second, our fiscal strategy will be worth nothing if at the end of the day we have not provided hope for jobs and for growth. We must focus on getting growth up at the same time as we strive to get spending down.
Third, we must be frugal in everything we do. Waste in government is simply not tolerable.
Fourth, we must forever put aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. They don’t. What they do require is the will to shut down what doesn’t work and focus on what can. That is why a central thrust of our effort is reallocation. Whether on the spending side or on the revenue side, every initiative in this budget reflects a shift from lower to higher priority areas.
...finally, we must always be fair and compassionate. It is the most vulnerable whose voices are often the least strong. We must never let the need to be frugal become an excuse to stop being fair.
That was former finance minister Paul Martin in his 1996 budget speech. He understood how to create jobs and growth: It was to focus on growth at the same time as getting spending down and not putting taxes up. It was to forever put aside the old notion that new government programs required additional spending.
This budget in front of the House today does the opposite. It increases taxes. It increases spending, and spends on consumption rather than on investment. This is an approach the current government has taken since it came to office in 2015, and it is not working. In fact, the government admits to this in its own budget.
On page 25 of the budget document, there is a chart entitled, “Average Potential Annual Growth in Real GDP per capita, Selected OECD Countries, 2020-2060”. In this chart, Canada is dead last. It is an indictment of the economic policies of the government over the past six years. While the budget pays lip service to jobs and growth, it does not have a credible plan to create them.
Here is what the CEO of RBC, David McKay, said recently about the government’s economic policies. RBC is one of the largest private-sector employers in Canada. He stated:
Tax and spend to me is like eating Sugar Pops for breakfast. You feel really good for an hour and you feel crappy by noon, at the end of the day. And that’s what tax-and-spend gives you. It doesn’t give you sustainable prosperity.
The budget increases taxes. In fact, it levies a new tax on significant financial institutions, which have been one of the few sectors of growth in the Canadian economy in recent years.
The budget increases government spending. It calls for more than $56 billion in new spending over the next six years. That comes on top of the additional spending that was announced in last fall’s economic update. That, in turn, comes on top of the additional spending announced in last year's budget. In fact, the government is now spending $70 billion a year more than it did before the pandemic hit. That is more than 3% of GDP, which is an incredible increase in government spending.
Despite all this new spending, the government is not allocating spending in the right places. For example, the spending does not reflect the need to strengthen Canada’s defence and security and the need to uphold our international commitments.
All of this new spending announced in the budget in last fall's economic update, and in last year’s budget, is not going to the Canadian military. First off, a big problem with the budget documents, in terms of transparency to Parliament, is that the government is proposing two very different and contradictory figures for military spending in the budget documents. One number it proposes is an additional $8 billion over the next five years, but elsewhere in the budget it proposes an additional $23 billion over the next three years. These numbers are not fully accounted for.
If we set aside the two different figures in the budget for military spending, even if we take the most optimistic scenario that the government has laid out in the budget, it still doesn't meet Canada’s international NATO commitments.
The world changed on February 24. Russia attacked Ukraine, beginning the first war between states in Europe since 1945. In doing so, autocratic states such as Russia have made it clear that they are prepared to attack democracies abroad and here at home.
Other governments have realized that the world has changed. That is why, on February 27, Germany did a U-turn on decades of foreign and military policy. Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who heads a centre-left coalition, announced that Germany would immediately begin increasing defence spending to meet and exceed the 2% NATO commitment, beginning with an immediate infusion of $140 billion Canadian in new military spending.
The German government understands that the world has changed. The Liberal government does not.
NATO members have had a long-standing commitment to spend 2% of gross domestic product on the military. As I've just mentioned, Germany will be meeting that commitment. Canada’s closest allies already exceed that commitment, including the United States, the United Kingdom and France. Canada does not, and the budget contains no measures for us to meet that NATO commitment. In fact, in the latest NATO data, Canada ranks 25th out of 29 member states of NATO, in terms of our contribution to our defence and security.
That was not always the case. Canada was once a leading contributor to the alliance. More than 1.1 million Canadians served in the Second World War, and over 40,000 paid the ultimate sacrifice and gave their lives in defence of this country. For decades, throughout the 1980s and well into the early 1990s, Canada exceeded the 2% commitment. Canada spent more than 2% of its gross domestic product on defence.
Here is why that lack of defence spending should concern us all. There is no greater guarantee of peace and security in this world than military strength.
In fact, before 1945, in North America, both Canada and the United States had no standing militaries of any scale to deter aggression. In the century before 1945, our histories were replete with bloody and costly wars that led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of our citizens in defence of democracy, freedom and the rule of law.
That is why, since 1945, we have pledged to never again go through that horrific period in history, as we agreed to establish standing militaries of sufficient size to deter the aggression we are seeing around the world and, potentially, the aggression we might see in the Indo-Pacific region.
The greatest guarantor of peace and security is a strong and robust military. Because the government is not allocating enough spending to Canada’s military, it is leaving Canada exposed and vulnerable in a violent and unstable world.
As Mr. Martin understood almost three decades ago, the budget should create jobs and growth by getting spending down and not by getting taxes up, and by forever putting aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. What spending does take place should take the form of investment, rather than consumption.
The government, though, has forgotten the lessons of the 1990s. Taxes and spending are up. New programs have not come from reallocation but from additional spending, and this spending comes in the form of consumption, rather than investment.
Despite all this additional spending, the government's budget does not uphold our NATO defence spending commitment, as outlined in the Wales Summit Declaration of 2014.
For all those reasons, I cannot support this budget.
1394 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 3:19:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's speech with great interest. If I heard her correctly, I think she said that the government is committed to meeting the NATO commitment of spending at least 20% of defence expenditures on equipment, and that would not include NATO modernization or the acquisition of F-35 jets.
Could the member tell the House where she thinks the additional equipment spending should be allocated and what types of equipment the Canadian Armed Forces are in need of, in addition to the F-35 jets and the modernization of NATO that she already outlined?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:36:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague raises a very good point. When one reads the Secretary General's annual report of 2021 from NATO, one sees that Canada has underspent in equipment for the Canadian Armed Forces. I think part of what Canada needs to do is ensure that our men and women in uniform have the latest and most encrypted and secure military communications available to them, because as Russia has found out in Ukraine, when encrypted communications break down, it can lead to disaster. It is apparent that Russia is using unencrypted cellular networks, which make available to all its movements in the field. We have to ensure that the Canadian Forces are never subject to that lack of cybersecurity in the field when it comes to protecting Canadians here at home or in Europe.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:35:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for her question. She is right. The Canadian Armed Forces has problem with recruitment and needs to recruit more people.
That said, according to the NATO report, we also need to increase our military equipment budgets to make sure our military has the tools it needs to do its work here and in Europe.
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think the world before February 2014 was a very different one. We had the peace dividend as a result of the fall of the Berlin Wall, and many NATO members significantly reduced their defence budgets in the view that Russia no longer presented a threat to the safety and security of Europe. That changed after the Sochi winter Olympics, when Russia invaded Ukraine. Prime Minister Harper understood the world had changed, which is why Canada agreed to the Wales Summit Declaration of 2014.
We need to understand that the world has changed since then and since the invasion of February 24 of this year, and that Russia now presents a direct threat to the safety and security of this country, as does the People's Republic of China. We need to respond accordingly with an increase in the defence budget.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:22:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent.
President Putin and the Russian Federation are committing war crimes and crimes against humanity in Ukraine.
Reports from Bucha last weekend of dead Ukrainian civilians with their hands bound behind their backs and others buried in makeshift pits have shocked the world, and these war crimes in Bucha are not all of it. We have seen numerous credible reports of Russia deliberately attacking civilians in other parts of Ukraine. The UN has officially confirmed thousands of civilian casualties, and no doubt the unofficial number is much higher.
There are other atrocities as well. The Russian military has deliberately destroyed hospitals, schools and apartment buildings. It targeted a Mariupol theatre full of civilians that was clearly marked, and visible from the air, with the Russian word for children. The Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights concluded that Russia deliberately attacked the Mariupol maternity hospital.
Beyond these war crimes, day after day and week after week for the last five weeks, we have been barraged by countless photographs, videos and reports detailing Russia's indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas. Major Ukrainian cities are being levelled. Mariupol, once home to some half a million people, is now 90% destroyed. In Kharkiv, a city once home to 1.4 million Ukrainians, some 600 buildings have been destroyed. The list goes on. The data and images have come so fast and furious in the last five weeks it is hard to process all of it, but one thing is abundantly clear: The world has changed, and Canada must change with it.
The attack on Ukraine by President Putin and the Russian Federation is the first European war between states since 1945. This attack threatens not only Ukraine but Canada. Our security has always been inextricably linked to that of Europe's. Since Samuel de Champlain founded Quebec City in 1608, the outbreak of major wars in Europe has always affected Canada.
The Seven Years' War, which some call the first major global conflict, a war in Europe between Great Britain and France, led to the conquest of Quebec in 1759. What we call the War of 1812 was part of a broader European war: the Napoleonic Wars. Canadians know full well the high price paid in the First World War and the Second World War in Europe. Some 100,000 Canadian war dead can attest to that. Most of them are buried in northern France and the Italian peninsula.
It is clear President Putin and the Russian Federation's unprovoked and illegal attack on Ukraine is a challenge to our peace and security here at home in Canada.
This attack also threatens Canada in a second way, because it comes on the heels of an autocratic pact between the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China, which threatens the rules-based order that has existed since 1945. This is an order that Canada was instrumental in establishing, an order that has ensured the longest period of relative peace and prosperity in modern times and an order that, if successfully challenged by the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China, threatens the peace and security of 38 million Canadians here at home.
President Putin and President Xi's autocratic pact was signed just ahead of the invasion of Ukraine, on February 4 of this year. It declared each other's support for their respective positions on Ukraine and Taiwan, and it stated that there are “no forbidden areas” and “no limits” between China and Russia. It is the most detailed and assertive alliance between the Russian Federation and the People's Republic of China ever. It is a challenge to the international order that has existed since 1945, and it threatens our peace and security here at home. The world has changed and Canada must change with it.
The events of the last decade make clear something else. We can no longer live in splendid isolation on the north half of this vast continent, assuming that we are protected on three coasts, by three oceans and on our southern border by a superpower. It is true that, since the founding of Quebec in 1608, we have lived under the protection of one empire or another for over 400 years. For much of our history, we have lived under the protection of the French and British empires. When the French empire fell in North America on the north half of this continent in 1759, the Royal Navy and the British empire provided protection until August 1940. In that month, during the early dark days of another war, a Canada-U.S. defence pact was signed in upstate New York, in Ogdensburg, that set in place the protection that we have enjoyed since 1940.
Since then, we have lived under pax Americana, but no longer. It is clear that the United States is no longer willing to shoulder the burden of Canada's defence and security and that of the NATO alliance. That was made clear by President Obama in 2014 during the NATO Wales Summit, which resulted in the Wales Summit Declaration that called on Canada and other NATO members to increase their defence spending to at least 2% of GDP by 2024. It was reiterated by President Obama in this very chamber in 2016 when he called on Parliament to meet the Wales Summit Declaration goal. It was reiterated by President Trump loudly on numerous occasions during his administration, and it has been reiterated by the current Biden administration.
The world has changed and Canada must change with it. We can no longer count on another country to take care of our defence and security here at home. It is time for us to get serious about our defence and security and our contribution to the defence and security of the NATO alliance. That is why we have introduced this motion in the House today. The government needs to increase defence spending in the budget. There is no priority more important to any Government of Canada than the safety and security of some 38 million Canadians living here at home.
The government needs to fully uphold the obligations Canada made in the Wales Summit Declaration of 2014 to increase defence spending to 2% of gross domestic product in two years. While the government has been decreasing defence spending in recent years, there remains only two short years to fulfill the Wales Summit Declaration.
Let me close by saying that in fulfilling our obligation to the NATO alliance, we can contribute not only to the defence of Europe but to our own defence and security here at home. Canada, like Ukraine, shares a border region with Russia: the Arctic Ocean. Russia considers the Arctic region its most important theatre. It has spent considerable resources to strengthen its capabilities in the Arctic, and it is time that we took Canada's Arctic defence and security seriously.
We need to modernize NORAD's early warning system. We need to fix our broken military procurement system and acquire new equipment for the Canadian military, as well as additional equipment for Ukraine's military. We need to accelerate the national shipbuilding program. We need to purchase the F-35 jets. We need to join ballistic missile defence in the face of Russian hypersonic missile technology. We need to work in closer co-operation with Scandinavian allies and the United States in Arctic peace and security. If we do these things, we can provide Ukraine with lethal weapons and ensure a future Bucha, a future Kharkiv and a future Mariupol will not happen. If we do not do these things, we are weakening the democratic alliance and potentially losing our sovereignty in our own north.
The world has changed and Canada must change with it. If we rise to the task like previous generations of Canadians, we can strengthen both our democracy here at home and abroad and ensure that our children can continue to live in peace and security.
1355 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 12:22:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to speak to this motion, seeing that I moved the motion but did not speak to it when it was initially moved in the House.
40 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
