So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Oct/18/22 12:43:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will start off by saying that I am going to split my time with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. I am going to focus on three aspects and issues. I know the primary aspects of the motion today are focused on the report from the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. The report condemns the continuing attacks in Ukraine by Russian President Vladimir Putin, recognizes that a growing portion of Russian people are bravely resisting this and, finally, calls on what actions the Government of Canada can do about it. I am going to provide a little history, from my background and professional opinion, of why we are in this situation in the first place, what has been done, what is currently ongoing and more, to get to the crux of the issue in today's motion, which is what can be done going into the future. It is on the public record that I was surprised when things happened the way they happened earlier this year, in the February time frame, with Russia's illegal invasion into Ukraine and how much the Russians actually tried to achieve. This is where the west, including Canada, made a mistake. We should never have pulled all our trainers and diplomats out of Ukraine in the first place. I think this sent a cross signal to Putin and the Russian regime that the west did not care. That was the wrong strategic message to send. I understand and I wish that I still had access to all of the intelligence reports and stuff, like when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces and we were tracking this stuff fairly regularly. However, three years ago I made the transition here to politics, and I no longer have that same access to information that the Government of Canada and the appropriate officials have. My point is that there were all sorts of indications, and I think that is why, ultimately, the decision was made, and we can say for prudence's sake, to pull out of Ukraine. I think that by pulling all of our forces out, and when I say our forces, I am talking about the west, from Kyiv and everything to the west, it sent a message to Putin that said, “Hey, Ukraine is available here. We are not interested in defending it.” I really think that, as previous Canadian Armed Forces task force commanders in Ukraine have said, we should be in there, raising the alarm bells diplomatically and through our trainers right from day one, and not necessarily pulling all of our forces out. We should accept the risk. I think, from my understanding of the geopolitical situation, the real concern, and it is still the concern to this day, was about a possible escalation to a nuclear conflict. How do we manage that? I just think, all right, we can look at the American forces, the U.S. They could have pulled their forces out, but I think, ultimately, for ourselves and maybe the French and maybe the Brits, we should have left our trainers on the ground and definitely left our diplomats because, despite the fact that the conflict is still ongoing, the right decision has been made by the west to get our diplomatic missions going again in Ukraine. To speak again about just where it failed and why things have happened the way they have happened, still talking about the history, ultimately, Russia went in there. It did not have a competent force. I think a lot of the Russian generals were too scared to speak truth to power to Putin, so they thought this was going to be a cakewalk. However, based on the history and all the information we now have available, we know that a lot of those conscripts or reserved forces that were sent into Ukraine did not have a clue about what they were getting themselves into and, after five years of NATO forces and the west training the Ukrainian forces, we saw the benefit of what can happen when one has a well-trained western force, i.e. what the Ukrainians have managed to get themselves evolved into under a mission command construct, and what they were able to do, to bloody the nose and put up the resistance. I give so much kudos to the heroics and the courage of the Ukrainian people. They put up a tremendous fight and Canada needs to continue to support them. Let us talk about where we are now. Putin continues to do that. He recognizes that he got that bloody nose, that he got beat up pretty bad by Ukrainian forces. What is he doing now? He is basically resorting to tools of terrorism and utilizing and attacking the civilian population, versus going after Ukrainian and legitimate military targets. We see that as Putin targets Ukraine's major city centres, their infrastructure and their energy infrastructure, doing everything in his power to take out women, children and people who have nothing to do with this conflict. That is where it is getting to. We have heard comments about propaganda. Absolutely, I am in 100% agreement. If we did a quick survey of all the members in the House of Commons, I am sure every single one of us from across the political spectrum has been getting phone calls and emails from constituents concerned about having heard this or that about Ukraine. It shows the danger that exists out there with the Russian propaganda and how it is trying to influence this. That propaganda is not just in the west. That propaganda is ongoing in Ukraine itself and within Russia itself. To get to the crux of this motion, the Russian people themselves are recognizing that there is a lot of propaganda that they do not buy. This, tied to the potential increased threat of a nuclear conflict, has them scared. They are looking at the situation now and saying that if this escalates, the west is not going to let this go, and it is their own people who are going to die because of a dictator in Vladimir Putin who is illegally invading another country for purposes that are nothing beyond him propping up his own regime, his own dictatorship and his own concerns for consolidating power. We need to do everything in our power to stop that. What has Canada done about it? Obviously, we have called this out and there have been sanctions imposed. However, as I said, we have made some significant potential errors, and we could have done a much better job. We have supplied all sorts of money. I will give the government kudos. We got the M777s over there and a bunch of 155-millimetre ammunition, but Ukraine needs more. It keeps asking for this more and more, time and time again. I stood in this House in the February time frame and asked the government about giving Ukrainians our old armoured vehicles. We have LAV IIIs; we have Bison ambulances, and we have Coyotes, surveillance-capable packages that are able to go there. We need to get them to the Ukrainians so they have the necessary support and ability to keep this fight going. However, it is not just me asking for that. Ukrainian MPs came to Canada in June and asked when they were going to get these vehicles, and there is still no answer from the government. Why will the government not just provide the necessary support in armoured capability platforms to the Ukrainian military? I still do not get it. There is lots we can do with respect to Ukrainian refugees. There have been debates here in the House about that, and additional measures. Colleagues of mine are currently in and out of Poland and Ukraine, and former friends of mine have done the lion's share of getting the majority of women, children and Ukrainian refugees out. I had the pleasure of meeting a number of Ukrainian refugees in my riding this past summer. Kudos to the Canadian population for everything they are doing to help them out. However, now more and more is going on. Russian people and dissidents are speaking out who recognize that this has to stop. This motion calls for the Government of Canada to actually do something to help. That is what the motion is calling for, and it is absolutely necessary. It needs to develop the necessary measures to help these Russian dissidents get out of the situation and allow them to be that voice, because the more of them speak out, the easier it is to combat the disinformation. In conclusion, I have talked about where we have made the mistakes historically, why the situation is as terrible as it is, what Russia is doing and all of its terrible actions, why we need to continue to oppose Putin and, finally, the importance of this motion and why the Government of Canada needs to do more.

1511 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 88 - Jun/14/22

Jun/14/22 6:08:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first off, I offer my congratulations to the member for Milton for his promotion, in my view, to become the parliamentary secretary of defence, as I guess that is why he is answering the question tonight. The parliamentary secretary failed to answer the question. It is the same question I asked the minister three months ago, and it is almost the same response. I do not need a history lesson, nor does anybody in this House, nor Canadians. We can all read the news. We know what Canada is doing, but what Ukrainians need is armoured vehicles. This is what they have asked for and, as confirmed as recently as yesterday, the government of this country has not even given the Ukrainians the courtesy of responding as to when they can expect to get those armoured vehicles. Ukraine is in peril. People's lives are in danger. Why can Canada not simply give old armoured vehicles to Ukraine?

160 words

All Topics

Jun/14/22 6:00:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to come back tonight and question the Minister of National Defence or the parliamentary secretary and follow up on a question that I asked on March 22, a number of months ago, about the fact that the people of Ukraine are fighting for their freedom, their democracy and even their lives. They have asked for more help from Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces, as I highlighted in that question for the minister in March, is in the process of divesting many of its armoured vehicles, such as the Coyotes, the M113s and the Bison ambulances, and replacing them with the current armoured combat support vehicle project. My question for the minister at the time was whether these vehicles will be donated to Ukraine, and if so, when. I am confident, having worked with the parliamentary secretary and in getting to know the minister well, that they have the answers. They have had a couple of months to dig up the answers and know this. There were already sources in the news recently talking about the fact that the Government of Canada may be willing to donate 40 Coyote vehicles to Ukraine. This is good news. My question is, what about the hundreds more? We have more Coyotes and more LAV IIIs. In fact, one thing that is absolutely critical to Ukraine is Bison ambulances. These are great vehicles. They are fighting a war, and later I will get into the reason these armoured vehicles are that much more important. The question that I am hoping the parliamentary secretary or the minister will answer tonight is this: When can Ukraine expect to receive these critical vehicles that Ukrainians need, as they are fighting for their lives against this illegal invasion by President Putin? This was highlighted again just yesterday by the Ukrainian MPs who are here visiting Canada. One was on Power & Politics yesterday. The Ukrainian member of Parliament was asked whether Canada has provided a response to Ukraine and when they can expect these vehicles. I was flabbergasted to watch that interview and understand that no, Ukraine is still waiting for a response from the government on when it can expect those armoured vehicles. These are vehicles, as they rightly know, that Canada is not using. They could be there to support Ukraine and save lives. There is also ammunition. I do give the government credit, as it has donated 155 millimetre howitzers, artillery pieces that are critical, but Ukraine needs the ammunition. Anybody watching the news knows they are going through this ammunition at a critical pace. To finalize the importance of this, I note that I read a professor's paper earlier today that talked about the famine that is going to come out of this war, the world famine, and the backlog that is occurring with the blockades that the Russians are adding against Ukraine. This is something Canada should be doing more to resolve. I will quote the final paragraph of that paper: “Canada's inability or even unwillingness to be agile during this unprecedented crisis puts us into the back row of reliable nations. It is a paralyzing combination of fear, bureaucratic stagnation and a crippling lack of creativity that holds us back and forces us to watch our hard-won value system circle the drain. Hundreds of millions of people are at risk because of the Putin regime's actions. What is Canada going to do about it?”

583 words

All Topics

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

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

Apr/5/22 4:05:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have a brief response. I cannot even pretend to get into all the nuances and complexity of what the member is asking. I spent a year on an army defence procurement project. In my experience throughout my military career, the biggest challenge we had, and I think this probably exists in a lot of departments, was that we felt that if we did not spend it, we would lose it. The member's idea of carrying forward does not truly work, definitely not within DND. When it comes to these defence procurement projects, the real challenge is the political interference. I believe this so much, and I do not mean they do it on purpose. It is because we can get into this idea of why this project is what we need. We can look at previous parties during different elections, with different campaigns and how they ran on certain things, but ultimately they need to get out of that. That is why I believe in non-partisan or bipartisan defence policy and foreign policy.

178 words

Apr/5/22 3:54:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise here in the House, not only on behalf of my constituents of Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound but on an issue of such fundamental importance to all Canadians, that of supporting our Canadian Armed Forces and the need to meet our NATO commitment of 2% of our GDP. I plan on taking a slightly different tack in my speech than likely many of the previous speeches that we have heard so far today in order to provide a more fulsome perspective from someone with over 25 years in the Canadian Armed Forces. First, I want to thank every single sailor, soldier, aviator and special forces operator that has served, is still serving and will serve our great country. Why do we need to invest this 2%? As has been clearly laid out in a number of the speeches, the world has changed. I would argue it has actually been very volatile for a number of years now, at least in my military career and in my lifetime, and it will continue to be that volatile and an ever-changing situation. Right now we are facing the absolutely existential threat of Russia to Ukraine and to our NATO allies, but China and terrorism are things that continue to be on the forefront of the frontier that we need to be able to address. My colleague who spoke just prior to me clearly laid out the situation in Ukraine and how Russia was posing an immediate threat not only to Ukraine but to our NATO allies. I would like to provide some additional context to just how important supporting our Canadian Armed Forces is, and how we need to be adaptable and how we need to be resourced to do that. When I first joined, one of my first operations was a domestic operation here in Canada during the ice storm in 1998. It was not something we prepared and trained for in a traditional sense, but due to the phenomenal training that our Canadian Armed Forces and our Canadian Army delivers, it was something our soldiers were well prepared for. My overseas missions were all under the NATO umbrella, with the exception of my final mission in Iraq, but I will get to that because there was a NATO connection there as well. Regarding the complete complexity of what we need to do within the Canadian Armed Forces, we are over there keeping the peace, but we are also monitoring elections and working non-stop with international NGOs and supporting other nations on the ground, including, in some cases, when riots and other situations occur, being that support network to get them out of harm's way. During my second tour in Bosnia, 9/11 happened, and I believe that fundamentally changed the globe as I am sure we could all acknowledge. It changed the dynamic and the ideas of what we were going to be able to do. It then ultimately led to the coalition of the willing to engage in Afghanistan, which then morphed into a NATO mission. I was there in combat in 2007, but ultimately it was our training mission in 2012 that was of much more importance. Unfortunately, we failed. We did not fail completely, but I do believe we failed in delivering on that, as we see now with the Taliban having taken over the reins. However, when we look at Ukraine and the training mission that has been ongoing there over the last number of years, I would argue Canada has played a critical role in supporting Ukraine in that opposition to Russia. When I was Iraq, again, although it was a U.S.-led coalition, I was part of the team that actually stood up the NATO training mission and went in and briefed the Canadian general and his team that was leading that NATO training mission into Iraq. My whole point is that NATO fills this critical role in dealing with threats from around the globe. It is our obligation. We signed up for this at the Wales Summit, and as the Liberal member for Winnipeg North clearly stated in his speech, the strength of NATO and our collective ability to stand up and defend our respective sovereignty and, frankly, even to be able to afford a properly resourced military or defence is by doing it together. Canada made this commitment in 2014, and we need to abide by that international commitment in order to contribute to our part of international peace and security. What does this 2% mean? It essentially means, as some of the other members have said here in the House, that it is pretty much doubling our current expenditures. It is important for everybody to understand just how complicated that is going to be and the impact it will have on the force structure of our Canadian Armed Forces from both capabilities and capacity perspectives. As much as Strong, Secure, Engaged, or SSE, the current defence policy, has some strengths, it alone is insufficient to provide the necessary policy top cover. I don’t profess to have all the answers, but I know that if CAF is properly supported, and this needed investment is made into our military, Canada and CAF will then be much more capable of responding, both domestically and internationally, to anything Canada and NATO requires us to do. As such, I am pushing and will push that, and I will explain a bit more on this later, we need to do a non-partisan, or at least bipartisan, foreign policy review we can agree on, which will then drive a future update to our defence review. How will we do this? First, in order to spend this money and properly resource our Canadian Armed Forces and meet this commitment, the military's biggest challenge half the time is not having that predictable, stable funding. If we do not have this programmed and understand it, it is hard to expend the money. There has been a lot of commentary about where defence spending has lapsed. Part of the challenge with that is that when it lapses we will not be getting that same bang for our buck going forward. Right now the normal inflation is approximately 5.7%, but in some sectors of the defence industry, defence inflation is at 20% in one year. Therefore, if we were planning to buy 10 ships one year, but delayed that by one year, we would then only get eight. I am not professing this is simple. When we are trying to balance a budget and make it so that we are not creating future challenges for the next generation, this needs to be done by working together. So many MPs have already stated the need for fixing our procurement system. This needs to be streamlined. We need one dog to kick, in my opinion, and I am not professing any violence to dogs, as I do like dogs, but my point is that there needs to be one person in charge of our procurement system in order to fix it. As well, we need to invest in our people because they are the most critical resource within our Canadian Armed Forces. I already mentioned the importance of why we need that bipartisan or non-partisan foreign policy and defence review. It is important because it is the key to preventing political interference and delays within our procurement process. I do not want to get into the capabilities or specific platforms because nothing drives me nuts more than hear politicians speaking about plane X or tank Y. We should be talking about capabilities in general, telling our Canadian Armed Forces and military experts what they need to deliver in Canada's interest on the international stage and then letting them come back to us with the best options available and specifically where we can properly spend this increase in our defence budgets. We have already talked about NORAD modernization. I am confident, based on what I have heard so far today, that the Liberal government will include needed funding for NORAD modernization in the budget on Thursday. However, we have to focus on filling in those key gaps within NORAD versus just nibbling around the edges. One comment was made that we have to relook at ballistic missile defence. We have to put more money into our Arctic. We can look at surveillance, UAV capacities and better engineering capabilities. We can put more money into our people, our sailors, soldiers, aircrew and special forces. Special forces is another area we could spend more money. Cyber and strategic lift are also great ideas we can spend money on. In summary, I think I have addressed the why of the motion, which are the threats and our obligation to get to 2%. The how is that it needs to be done through providing predictable funding, fixing the procurement system, investing in our people, investing in key capabilities, and ultimately having a non-partisan or bipartisan foreign policy and defence review. The world needs a Canada that maintains its position as a trusted global security partner and a reliable member of NATO. Without increasing our military spending, the government puts this at risk. Meeting our NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP today and into the future is essential. Although in military planning hope is not an option, I hope all members of the House will support this motion.

1590 words

All Topics

Apr/5/22 1:16:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary being up front in his support of our Canadian Armed Forces and this motion. My specific question for him is around his role as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement. If we are going to get that 2% spending, a large proportion of it is going to be through procuring the right equipment in a timely fashion. I would argue that historically, regardless of the stripe of government over the past number of decades, part of the reason we failed to expend all our defence money was because of political interference in our procurement process. What is the member specifically going to do in his role as the parliamentary secretary to speed up and facilitate our procurement process for the Canadian Armed Forces?

135 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Apr/5/22 1:03:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague on the other side for his interjection. For the most part it was really good, other than the partisan aspects of it, and I will not get into the personal side in the House. Based on the member's speech, I think he fully recognizes the capacity and requirement needed by our Canadian Armed Forces and by Canada, considering how volatile the world is and how the global situation is so complicated. Based on his speech, my question is very simple. I think he should be supporting this motion today. Will he support this motion to invest and meet our NATO obligation if he truly believes it is important for Canada to meet our obligations on the world stage?

127 words

Context: House Hansard - 50 - Mar/31/22

Mar/31/22 6:49:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first off, my thanks to the parliamentary secretary. I take his words to heart. I know he is a strong advocate for our Canadian Armed Forces and our veterans, having sat on the veterans affairs committee with him in the last Parliament. However, I am actually disappointed. My question was directed to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. The whole question was directed at her actions. It was not to the government and not to the parliamentary secretary, but to her specifically, as to whether she will recognize how good our Canadian Armed Forces personnel are. I will ask the parliamentary secretary to take that message back. Other Liberal MPs have apologized on her behalf; I want her to actually state in this House how good our military personnel are.

131 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mar/31/22 6:42:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise tonight not really as the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound representing my constituents, and not even really as a Conservative member of Parliament. That is the privilege I have to be able to rise. I rose and asked the Minister of Foreign Affairs a question last week in reference to a quote that she made, where she stated that Canada “is not a military power.” As I stated in that question, I have had the privilege of leading some of Canada's finest warriors in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and I would like to educate the minister. That was the point I made in that question about how the strength of our Canadian Armed Forces personnel and our Canadian military is based upon the fact that we are a military power. It was a simple question to the minister, and that is why I am here tonight to give the minister the opportunity to put it officially on the record, to all our combat veterans across this great nation of ours, that she will acknowledge that the Canadian Armed Forces personnel are among the best in the world and that we are a military power. Let me expand a little bit, just because there are a lot of myths out there about Canadian Armed Forces personnel and what we have been doing throughout the history of Canada. I think this is even more important as we are approaching the 105th anniversary of Vimy. That is where, really, Canada became a great nation because of our military power and because of our victory on Vimy Ridge, 105 years ago next week. In my own experience, I turned to my first platoon warrant officer when I was in Oscar Company of the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment. We were in Bosnia, but before we got there, I was talking to my platoon warrant officer, and he explained that when he first rolled in from Germany down to Bosnia and Croatia, during the conflicts of the mid- and early 90s, he got into a situation where he got into a roadblock. He was being held up. He took that opportunity to push back with those forces that were trying to oppose his soldiers and say, no, they could not do their job of keeping the peace. He was able to point up to the ridge line and that anti-armour TOW system that was geared up and pointed directly at that roadblock, and that military power allowed him to do his job of keeping the peace over there. What disappointed me very much in the response was that the minister chose to go partisan. As I said, my question had no context and no partisan angle to it. I was not asking as a Conservative. I was asking as a veteran of the Canadian Armed Forces, and she said that the question was rich coming from the Conservatives. I served from 1993 to 2019. I started under Chrétien's government and I lived through the decade of darkness under that Liberal government. I lived under the Harper government, when we got Chinooks, we got strategic lift and we got tanks delivered to us. I even served under the current government. In the end, all I am asking for the minister to do is to acknowledge that we have some of the best military personnel in the world in our Canadian Armed Forces and that we are a military power.

589 words

Context: House Hansard - 43 - Mar/22/22

Mar/22/22 2:58:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Ukrainians are fighting for their freedom, their democracy and even their lives. They have asked for more help from Canada. The Canadian Armed Forces are in the process of divesting many armoured vehicle fleets, such as the Coyote, M113 and Bison armoured vehicles, as they are replaced by the armoured combat support vehicle project. Could these vehicles be donated to Ukraine? If so, when?

66 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 7 - Nov/30/21

Mar/22/22 2:56:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I and many other combat veterans were disappointed to hear the Minister of Foreign Affairs state that Canada “is not a military power.” I have led some of Canada's finest warriors in Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. I would like to educate the minister that Canada's success in “making sure that diplomacy is happening” during global conflicts is predicated by our ability to back it up militarily. I am doubtful the minister will apologize, but will she acknowledge that Canadian Armed Forces personnel are among the best in the world and that Canada is a military power?

104 words