House of Commons Hansard #56 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was chair.

Topics

Indigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

Liberal

Yvonne Jones Liberal Labrador, NL

Mr. Speaker, there are so many things I could address around this issue, but there are a couple that I do want to highlight, because we know and understand the problem that exists.

We are working with indigenous governments across Canada to build a path forward that will include reconciliation, but a path as well that lifts up our indigenous communities and allows them to play a larger role in Canada. The minister will form a voices of indigenous youth council to facilitate hearing directly from indigenous youth across the country on what is needed in their communities.

We also know that the loss of life through suicide is tragic, especially among our youth. In addition to adequate health and mental health supports, we must ensure that people in the communities have hope. This is why our government is engaging on a nation-to-nation, Inuit-to-crown basis with indigenous people. It begins with addressing the youth and what their issues are. It begins with addressing the well-being of all indigenous people, and that means dealing with our child welfare system, our education system, our employment situation, and the infrastructure needs that many of these communities require.

I would tell the member opposite to continue with her advocacy work as we will continue with ours, and in partnership, we will find the better path forward.

CBC/Radio CanadaIndigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:50 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, the people of Laurier—Saint-Marie are very concerned at the moment about what is going to become of the Radio-Canada tower and facilities in the proud Centre-Sud neighbourhood.

We all know that the situation is different now. We have new technology, and things change. Radio-Canada has to adapt. However, that does not necessarily mean it should liquidate its assets at fire sale prices or get out of the neighbourhood. When Radio-Canada set up shop in what was known as the Faubourg à m'lasse some 50 years ago, it completely destroyed a neighbourhood.

The people of Centre-Sud are resilient, and they adapted to the new reality. They built their lives around that reality. If Radio-Canada were to leave, everything those people have bravely built over the past five decades would be laid to waste once again.

Radio-Canada's departure would have a huge impact on local merchants, particularly those on Sainte-Catherine and in the area known as Cité des ondes, or media city, which is home to CBC/Radio-Canada, TVA, LCN, and CTV. They are all located in that same area, just steps away from one another. The area has a unique vitality that must be protected.

As I already said, the corporation must adapt to new realities, and no one is disputing that. However, it must also consider the broader context that I just outlined. It must consider the needs of a neighbourhood that is bravely facing many challenges. Above all, CBC/Radio-Canada must consider its own commitments. When the corporation sat down with the City of Montreal in 2009, it said that it would not move. They developed an agreement with some very interesting points. There is nothing to say about that. The entire agreement is based on the fact that CBC/Radio-Canada planned to stay in the same location. Now, there are rumours. We do not have access to the minutes of the board of directors' meetings. Many rumours are circulating and people are worried.

When I asked the minister the question in the House, she answered that the government would remain at arm's length from CBC/Radio-Canada. I do not agree with that. There can be no meddling with the content broadcast by CBC/Radio-Canada. However, when it comes to selling a building of such great significance in this part of Montreal, we must remember section 48 of the Broadcasting Act, whereby CBC/Radio-Canada cannot sell a building valued at more than $4 million without the approval of the Governor in Council, meaning cabinet and the minister. The minister cannot wash her hands of this issue and allow CBC/Radio-Canada to decide on its own. She must take a stance on this matter.

CBC/Radio CanadaIndigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

6:55 p.m.

Edmonton Centre Alberta

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie for her question. I also want to thank her for caring about this issue. I want to assure the House that our government is following this issue closely.

It is important to remember that real property management is not CBC/Radio-Canada's principal activity. It is a related activity that helps the corporation fulfill its mandate to broadcast to all of Canada.

A number of buildings owned by CBC/Radio-Canada, which were built over the years for radio and television activities, no longer meet the corporation's or the industry's requirements.

Over the past few years, the majority of CBC/Radio-Canada's regional centres have migrated to new, more modern, and more digital facilities that are better adapted to today's realities.

As for Maison de Radio-Canada in Montreal, specifically, I know that the corporation is currently looking at all available options. These options include selling the building and moving CBC/Radio-Canada to a leased facility, which may be an existing facility or a new build, on the existing Maison site or elsewhere still in downtown Montreal.

CBC/Radio-Canada has also indicated that all options are on the table. The existing building, which is more than 50 years old, is in need of major renovations, which are estimated at $170 million. That is a lot of money for the corporation.

The tower has many underused or vacant spaces in addition to lost space owing to the building's architectural constraints. The corporation's needs in terms of space have changed significantly over the past few decades and CBC/Radio-Canada has estimated that it would need approximately one-third of the space it currently occupies in the tower and associated buildings.

While respected, the independence of the crown corporation and the role of its boards of directors, it is with great interest that our government will be following the decision-making process regarding the future of Maison Radio-Canada.

I know the CBC's decision will take into account its needs as the national public broadcaster as well as the future of the surrounding neighbourhood, Canada's cultural sector, Quebec, and francophone audiences across the country.

As we have said before, the government recognizes the socio-economic impact of CBC/Radio-Canada in Montreal as well as the importance of the regional presence of Radio-Canada.

It requires facilities that will enable it to create high-quality Canadian content and to produce and broadcast that content using digital platforms and technologies. CBC/Radio-Canada is going through a period of change, as are other media. Its needs are changing, and so are the needs of artists and professionals. It is important that those individuals have access to facilities that meet their needs and allow them to fully carry out CBC/Radio-Canada's mission, which, I would remind the House, is to provide a range of programming that informs, enlightens, and entertains, in both official languages, from coast to coast to coast.

As for the crown corporation's real property holdings, CBC/Radio-Canada is responsible for 400,000 square metres of real property that it must maintain. We must and we will make the best possible use of that real property, while respecting and supporting CBC/Radio-Canada's important mandate and the role that the Maison de Radio-Canada plays in Montreal.

CBC/Radio CanadaIndigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

NDP

Hélène Laverdière NDP Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC

Mr. Speaker, I hope I was sufficiently clear in my initial presentation.

No one is disputing the fact that certain buildings, in their current state, do not meet CBC/Radio-Canada's needs or the fact that the building in question needs extensive renovations. It is also true that CBC/Radio-Canada is not a real estate company.

The two key issues are social licence. By consulting the community, CBC/Radio-Canada created an advisory board with various local stakeholders. That board's first recommendation was that CBC/Radio-Canada confirm that it would remain in the eastern part of downtown, not just anywhere, but in the eastern part of downtown. That is what the local stakeholders want, and that is CBC/Radio-Canada's moral obligation, in addition to meeting its own commitments. That is absolutely crucial.

Lastly, to come back to the issue of CBC/Radio-Canada's independence, yes, it is independent when it comes to content. However, as we have said ourselves, it is not a real estate agency and any new projects must have cabinet approval.

I therefore hope the government will not be satisfied with simply following this file; I hope it will show real leadership.

CBC/Radio CanadaIndigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Liberal

Randy Boissonnault Liberal Edmonton Centre, AB

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that we have indeed heard the arguments of our dear colleague across the way.

I would like to assure you, Mr. Speaker, and Canadians at large, that our government is following this file with great interest.

We have said, and I will say it again, that CBC/Radio-Canada indicated that all options are on the table and this is still the main issue. No decision has been made. Public consultations were held. Everything is on the table and we are waiting on a decision by CBC/Radio-Canada.

We have already said that we wanted CBC/Radio-Canada to go over every scenario concerning its current needs with the various industry stakeholders, its employees, the community, and politicians. We recognize the importance of this file and of Maison de Radio-Canada to Montreal and Montreal East.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I assure you that the government will take into account all these aspects when reviewing the corporation's plans for the future of the Maison de Radio-Canada site.

CBC/Radio CanadaIndigenous AffairsAdjournment Proceedings

7 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

Pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), the motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been withdrawn. The House will now resolve itself into committee of the whole for the purpose of considering all votes under National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.

I do now leave the chair for the House to resolve itself into committee of the whole.

(Consideration in committee of the whole of all votes under National Defence in the main estimates, Mr. Bruce Stanton in the chair)

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Bruce Stanton

I would like to open this committee of the whole session by making a short statement on this evening's proceedings.

Tonight's debate is being held pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), which provides for each of two sets of estimates selected by the Leader of the Opposition to be considered in committee of the whole for up to four hours. Tonight will be a general debate on all of the votes related to National Defence.

The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government and the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual rotation. Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used both for debate and for posing questions. Should members wish to use this time to make a speech, it can last a maximum of 10 minutes, leaving at least 5 minutes for questions to the minister.

When a member is recognized, he or she should indicate to the Chair how the 15-minute period will be used. Members should also note that they need to have unanimous consent of the committee if they wish to split their time with another member.

When the time is to be used for questions and answers, the Chair will expect that the minister's response should reflect approximately the time taken by the question.

Ordinarily, the time taken for the response should be in line with the amount of time taken to pose the question in the first place. As has been experienced in the past, the person posing the question, though, should not be under any misunderstanding, that a question put in a very short period of time that might require a more complex response, sufficient time will be provided to the minister to provide such a response. However, again, accordingly the time taken to respond should be approximate to the time that was taken to pose the question.

As is the case in any proceeding in committee of the whole, members need not be in their own seats to be recognized. Although members may speak more than once, the Chair will generally try to ensure that all members wishing to speak are heard before inviting members to speak again while respecting the proportional party rotations for speakers.

I also wish to indicate that in committee of the whole, ministers and members should be referred to by their title or riding name, and of course all remarks should be addressed through the Chair. I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all established standards of decorum, parliamentary language, and behaviour.

At the conclusion of tonight's debate, the committee will rise, the votes related to National Defence will be deemed reported, and the House will adjourn immediately until tomorrow.

We may now begin tonight's session. The House in committee of the whole, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), consideration in committee of the whole of all votes related to National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2017.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Chair, it is indeed an honour to be here to discuss the main estimates of the Department of National Defence.

First, it is great to have everyone here for the debate tonight. I think all of us in Parliament want to express our gratitude to the brave men and women in uniform who serve us day in and day out on numerous operations, ensuring that all of us in Canada are safe. That is something we all too often take for granted. We all have that same belief and camaraderie, just different ideas about how we should go about it.

Since the new government has come to power, it is amazing what has happened in the short period of time when it comes to defence.

First, we saw the signals in the throne speech, following what was in the Liberal Party platform, and now in the main estimates. They show significant reductions in spending on national defence. In the budget, we saw a $3.7 billion cut on expenditures for capital projects. That is delaying a number of different main acquisitions that are so necessary for the safety of our brave men and women in uniform. There was also a $300 million reduction in the overall main estimates of the Department of National Defence.

I want to make a brief opening comment, then I will go straight into questions.

David Perry had an interesting quote after the budget came down. He said, “This budget reminds me of that episode of Oprah where everybody in the audience got a car....Everyone got a car here except the Department of Defence”. David Perry is a senior analyst with the Canadian Global Affairs Institute.

I fear this is just the beginning of what could be another era of darkness that we saw under the Liberals during the decade of darkness. Just to drive home that fact, and although it was General Rick Hillier at the time that coined the phrase “the decade of darkness”, the PBO report in 2015 said:

The most significant budget cuts under program review occurred from 1995 to 2004...The cumulative defence expenditure over that period of time was roughly $13.4 billion below what our modelling showed was required to maintain the existing force structure.

That was recorded just last fall, in 2015. Again, this is a clear indication that what we are seeing now we went through before. The Liberals know how to reduce defence expenditures. In the budget we saw increases in spending in all departments except defence, which is something I think all of us are very concerned about. That happened in 1994. It was the last time we had a defence policy review, and 1995 was when we started seeing the cuts.

I want to get to some of the specific cuts. It was reported in the Ottawa Citizen on April 20 that based upon the budget reductions of $3.7 billion, that would push spending on new equipment back to 2021 or later. We know for a fact Arctic offshore patrol vessels are $173 million and that is being withheld. The project is already under way. Future fighter aircraft, the CF-18 replacements, are $109 million. That is being withheld. The Cyclone maritime helicopter is $90 million. That is being withheld. These are the replacements for our Sea Kings. We are taking possession of these helicopters. They are supposed to be out there doing the service. The Halifax class modernization and frigate life extension is $71 million. That is being withheld. The integrated soldier system project, at $39.4 million, is withheld.

That is just the tip of the iceberg. It is not even $500 million in cuts. Where is the other $3.2 billion coming from? That is my question for the minister to start.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:10 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, I would like to echo the sentiments of the hon. member in recognizing of our men and women who serve us day in and day out. They do tremendous work in supporting our great efforts.

I was asked a question by someone. “Isn't it tough to be away from your family?” I told the person that I had nothing to complain about. We have men and women right now around the world, away from their families. We have a lot to be thankful for.

The concerns that the member has raised could not be further from the truth. As I stated early on, when it comes to our government's commitment to our men and women, it is rock solid, and we delivered on that. We were going to maintain the planned increases. We have kept that commitment. The 2% planned increases have remained. That is a total of $361 million.

In addition to that, we had $200 million for infrastructure. The $3.7 billion the member is talking about is money that is not cut. It is actually re-profiled to further years, which would allow the procurement to catch up. It is not a cut. It is re-profiled for the years we will need it.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I will refer, Mr. Chair, to the estimates, page 169. It shows main estimates this year of $18.6 billion versus the main estimates last year of $18.9 billion. That is a $300-million shortfall, so that is a cut. There is $3.7 billion not being spent that is needed right now on equipment that we need right now. That is a cut.

The national defence committee has been doing its work on the defence policy review and looking at the defence of North America. Jaime Pitfield appeared in committee, who is the assistant deputy minister of infrastructure and environment. As we looked back at 1994 and the lessons learned from the Liberal decade of darkness then, we saw base closures across this country.

ADM Pitfield said the following:

One thing we're looking for is to densify bases. Right now they sprawl and are very expensive to operate. We will be putting like functions with like functions....

I find it strange that in the national defence committee, members of the Liberal Party keep raising the issue that Canadian Forces Base Cold Lake should be moved over to Comox.

My question to the minister is this. Is the government looking at shutting down bases and consolidating some of our assets?

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, first, as I stated earlier, our government is not making any cuts to defence. We are sticking with the planned increases. As the member talked about, the discussions that happen within committee are its own, but we have absolutely no plans to shut down any bases.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

I am glad to hear that, Mr. Chair. I wanted to make sure I got that on the record.

One thing the Conservatives are concerned about is something that just happened on bases. During the refugee program and bringing in all the Syrian refugees, I put a question on the Order Paper that the minister responded to on December 10 about what it would cost to renovate summer cadet barracks on bases in Kingston, Valcartier, Borden, Trenton, Meaford, and Petawawa. The total cost was $6.4 million.

I am surprised not to see in the main estimates a transfer from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration to cover the costs that came out of the operating budget of the Department of National Defence for the refugees, and of course, those facilities were never used for Syrian refugees.

I would ask the minister why $6.4 million is not being transferred from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration so that it does not come out of the operating budget of the Department of National Defence.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, as you know, the project for bringing in 25,000 refugees was a vast one. The military has the ability to respond very quickly. One of the great assets we had was infrastructure in place that could be utilized for the refugees. We are very proud of that fact.

When I was advised that some of the barracks had to be upgraded, I thought it was an opportunity because our troops also use the facilities. As an added benefit, not only could they have been used for the refugees, but now they will be used for the benefit of all of our troops.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:15 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Chair, I question the logic there because I have never seen a request from the Department of National Defence to winterize those barracks. They are used mainly for cadets who are there on summer training programs.

This issue came up at the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. That committee requested that officials from the Department of National Defence appear at committee, and the officials balked at appearing. Will the minister ensure that representatives from the Department of National Defence actually appear at committee?

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, I cannot comment on something I have just now been made aware of. As the member knows, I have made my department open, quite extensively, not only for briefings but I am also happy to answer these questions, whether it is at committee or not. I am happy to provide briefings from my department as well.

In terms of those camps, they are not just used by cadets. They are used by our troops in many different capacities, from temporary quarters to courses that are run. They are used by many folks and it was an opportunity for us to winterize them so that our troops can benefit from those barracks.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Chair, I will change gears and talk about the defence policy review and the consultations that are taking place.

Of course, we are hearing a lot of commentary in the media that this is just another way to have a discussion on something that might already be predetermined. As I mentioned earlier, in the throne speech, the budget, and also in the Liberal campaign platform, the Liberals talked about things like a leaner military, pivoting toward peacekeeping and away from combat operations, and cancelling the F-35 as a replacement for the CF-18.

Is the defence policy review actually something that is going to help inform the decisions made in the future for the Canadian Armed Forces, or is this just another delay tactic? We have seen in the past where Liberals often dither and delay and do not make any decisions.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, from the round of questions, I think the member wants to be given confidence that our government is going to be supporting our troops and making sure that they are going to be looked after and have the right capabilities. This defence review is just that.

We are going to have a very wide consultation among all Canadians, where all members of Parliament can participate, and we are going to have experts. This is exactly what it is for, making sure that our military is focused, that it has the ability to respond to the government's needs, that we are making sure our men and women have the right capability, that they are looked after, and that the Canadian Armed Forces is structured to better support its members.

I would also like to mention that it has been over 20 years since we have had a full public consultation defence review.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Chair, I guess we are somewhat skeptical of the defence policy review, knowing what happened in 1994. There was a defence policy review that came out, a new white paper was published, and then we saw the massive cuts in the decade of darkness. Right off the bat, the Liberals cut 20% from the defence budget in 1995, so we do have our concerns.

One thing I want to ask the minister is, in this discussion, first and foremost, will the government take in all the input in a serious manner. Second, has he taken a serious look at what the threats and risks are to Canada from a defence perspective?

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, absolutely we will be taking in all the advice. In fact, members of Parliament here have direct access to me. When I was given the privilege of being the Minister of National Defence, I sent out a letter to all members of Parliament.

However, I want to make sure that the defence review reaches out to all Canadians to have their experience, their advice, provided to us. This is one of the reasons I have, on my minister's advisory panel, four exceptional Canadians to give me that advice through a very profound, filtered lens, so that when we do come up with a final conclusion of the defence review, it will have a significant impact.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:20 p.m.

Conservative

James Bezan Conservative Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB

Mr. Chair, I promised the minister earlier today, since this was new to him, I would go very easy on him, and he can see that I have.

However, the last things I want to touch on are the threats and risks, and this idea of pivoting to peacekeeping.

The Canadian Global Affairs Institute had a symposium May 2 at the Rideau Club. Major-General Doug Dempster was there as well as Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare, and both are retired. Of course, Lieutenant-General Beare was the former commanding officer of CJOC.

Mr. Dempster spoke about the historical context of Canada's contribution to peace support operations. He cited poor outcomes in Somalia, Rwanda, and Congo in the 1990s. He urged the Canadian Armed Forces and National Defence to recall the lessons learned from those experiences.

Lieutenant-General Stuart Beare touched on the changing nature of peacekeeping. He stressed the primacy in retaining relevance and credibility in order to achieve mission success in peace support operations. He referenced the evolution of the military intervention in the Balkans. To underscore this point he said that there was ineffectiveness when it was a United Nations mission, but when it became a NATO mission, then things turned around. We actually had an impact when we had rules of engagement that supported our troops in ending the conflict.

I would ask the minister if he would agree that traditional peacekeeping is not possible in today's environment with the threats that we are facing.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, when we discuss our government's commitment to work in a multilateral environment, whether it is the United Nations or NATO, it is about understanding conflict. We do need to learn the lessons from the past, and I have openly stated this many times.

I have served in Bosnia and in Afghanistan, and I completely agree with the member that this is a new way of looking at peacekeeping work at a certain time. When we talk about peacekeeping now, it is about understanding conflict. We need to make sure that we are ready for high-intensity conflict, and in between, work in a much more holistic manner, as a whole of government, as we did with Operation Impact.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:25 p.m.

Vancouver South B.C.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan LiberalMinister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, I will be giving my 10-minute remarks and then opening up to questions.

I stand today with an overwhelming sense of privilege, the privilege of being elected as a representative of the people of Vancouver South, the privilege of being the Minister of National Defence, and the privilege of assisting the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces in the outstanding work that they do.

I approach tonight's proceedings with the feeling of humility. Appearing before this committee of the whole is not only an opportunity to engage productively with members from all parties but also to further our government's commitment to openness and transparency. Open dialogue with members has been among my priorities since taking office. Accessibility that strengthens the democratic process is the goal.

Among my first orders of business as minister was restoring parliamentary access to Canadian Armed Forces' establishments and ensuring MPs can visit freely with the approval of the base commander alone, because we welcome their visits. In the past, this required ministerial approval for every single member of Parliament's visit.

I know that all parliamentarians have the best interests of our forces at heart. We may have different ideas about how we procure the equipment they need or where and when to deploy our troops, but I do not doubt the broad all-party support for our men and women in service.

For that reason, I made it part of our standard practice to host MPs for briefings, to make courtesy calls for major announcements, and to invite fellow members to accompany me on international trips, like my recent one to Poland and Ukraine. However, regrettably, the timing did not allow that to happen. In doing so, I hope to pave the way for opposition members to offer an effective critique of our work.

I am humbled by the important work we will do tonight, but I also stand before members with the confidence of my grasp of the issues, confidence born from having served as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces for 26 years and from the knowledge that everything I know and instruct my department to do is for the benefit of our service members and of Canada.

Much has been accomplished in the last six months. Our sailors, our soldiers, our airwomen and men, have been engaged in some of our government's most important initiatives. Most recently, the forces contributed to the massive efforts to respond to the disaster brought about by the devastating fires in Fort McMurray, Alberta. Our contribution of assistance to local first responders included the provision of five helicopters for assistance with evacuations and the transportation of nearly 125,000 pounds of humanitarian aid.

Little has made me prouder since becoming Minister of National Defence than when we did the whole-of-government effort of welcoming 25,000 Syrian refugees to our country. About 290 service personnel were deployed to Lebanon, Turkey, and Jordan to process applications, assist with medical screening, provide logistical support, and airlift refugees to Canada, their new home. Eight government departments worked together in support of this noble effort, but the truth is that it was their job. The people who really deserve the recognition are the Canadians who welcomed their new neighbours to this country with a generous spirit. Thousands have donated clothing, household items, and money, so that refugees could begin new lives in comfort and with dignity.

While Canadians asked for nothing in return, their generosity is paying dividends, bringing us full circle. As I noted just last week, stories emerged about Syrian refugees leading community initiatives to offer clothing, household items, and money, so that the people of Fort McMurray could have comfort and dignity, as well.

That is a “best of Canada” model that could benefit the world. That is why our government is committed to strengthening relationships and engaging meaningfully with partners and allies around the world, and I believe we are well on our way.

Since taking office, I travelled extensively at home and abroad to ensure that Canada is engaged internationally in the most effective ways possible. Not surprisingly, refocusing Operation Impact, Canada's contribution to coalition efforts to degrade and defeat ISIL, was among one of my top priorities.

My first order of business was to undertake a thorough analysis of the situation on the ground. I travelled to the region twice to consult with allies and partners, as well as with our troops. I met with my American, British, and Iraqi counterparts, and discussed the progress we were making in the areas that needed reinforcement.

Once we identified the most meaningful contribution for Canada, my next order of business was to give an update to our coalition partners on the plan to refocus our efforts. In support of that goal, I travelled to Brussels, where I met with several of my European counterparts, as well as U.S. Secretary of Defense Carter.

Canada's plan to increase our troop contribution, enhance our intelligence contribution, and bolster the Iraqis' capacity to eliminate ISIL themselves was embraced without hesitation. In fact, President Obama recently said:

Canada is an extraordinarily valued member of the global coalition fighting ISIL, tripling its personnel to help train and advise forces in Iraq, stepping up its intelligence efforts in the region, and providing critical humanitarian support.

These reactions to Canada's refocused missions are a testament to the confidence our allies have in the Canadian Armed Forces' ability to contribute meaningfully to the work of the global coalition.

It is tempting to bask in the accomplishment of our men and women in uniform, but the measure of my worth as defence minister is what my department does in support of our troops as they accomplish their mission. For that reason, my mandate moving forward is very clear. It is to support our men and women.

My department's work in the coming months and years will further efforts toward three commitments: taking care of our military members; giving them the right tools to do their jobs; and making sure that their work reflects our national ambitions.

In service of these goals, we are actively engaged in efforts to improve the process of transitioning from military to civilian life. We are facing one of the most troubling problems: the suicide rate within the forces. With an unshakeable determination, we offer hope and assistance to our members who feel that none exists.

We are tackling the issues of sexual misconduct and harassment in the military with resolve. The chief of the defence staff launched Operation Honour in order to fundamentally change the aspects of the forces culture that would have some members disregard the rights and well-being of others.

I have recently travelled to several bases, including Esquimalt, Valcartier, and Edmonton, and I can see that changes are happening. We will remain vigilant about these issues as they are critical to the morale and well-being of our troops everywhere.

On the issue of procurement, we acknowledge that there is a lot to be done. We have set ambitious goals. We will maintain current defence spending and plan increases. We have made this promise as part of our plan to implement the national shipbuilding strategy, and launch an open and transparent process to replace our CF-18s. We will address the short-term capability gaps, as we have with the interim oil tankers.

Finally, we are engaging in consultation with Canadians to develop a defence policy, one which ensures that the Canadian Armed Forces have what they need to confront the new threats and challenges in the years ahead. I will be focused on my responsibility for the Communications Security Establishment in Canada, which is also a part of my responsibility.

Tonight, let me close with a call to action for all Canadians, including the members of this House, to work with us, take part in the defence review process, and help pave the path toward a modern Canadian military that defends Canada and engages the world in a truly Canadian way.

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Scarborough—Guildwood Ontario

Liberal

John McKay LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Chair, the hon. minister has been very busy in the last six months. I know he has been travelling literally around the world. It has helped inform him of not only our defence capabilities, but where we have defence gaps, and as well, our relationships with our allies.

Would the hon. minister comment on what he has learned as he has met with allies, troops, and various other people around the world, all of which has informed his present position with respect to the defence ministry?

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2016-17Business of SupplyGovernment Orders

7:35 p.m.

Liberal

Harjit S. Sajjan Liberal Vancouver South, BC

Mr. Chair, the travel plan that I made had a method to its madness.

First, it was to get an understanding of our operations, to understand what was required in refocusing our mission. That is one of the reasons I travelled into the region twice, speaking with regional partners, like the King of Jordan and the Crown Prince in the UAE.

Second, it was very important to me to meet with our Five Eyes community, to speak with my counterparts, not just to discuss the current challenges and current threats, but also to talk about our defence review and how we can work together to make sure that as we launch our defence review, we learn from their lessons, and how we can face the challenges together.

Third, my plan is to actually visit many bases across Canada, so that I have a good understanding of their needs, not only for the defence review, but so that I can make the right choices on behalf of our government.