Debates of May 29th, 2017

Public Services and Procurement

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Drummond for his speech and his contribution, which were very constructive.

In fact, he has identified a large part of the problem. As in the case of the Phoenix payroll system, we inherited a very unfortunate situation, a mess, if you will, from the previous government. It seemed that the objective on the other side was to tear down the major institutions of government. Fortunately, as I will explain, we have plans for rebuilding in all these cases.

We are obviously proud to be the party of official bilingualism. We will continue to promote, support, and protect bilingualism in Canada. We are determined to put an end to the previous government’s era of cuts and to reinvest in our capacity to offer high-quality translation and interpretation services. This is a good time to thank the interpreters who follow us every day, who are here for us every day, and who do world-class work.

Our government is taking steps to ensure that the Translation Bureau is able, now and in future, to provide high-quality linguistic services. What we are doing is restoring the Translation Bureau’s reputation. As an officially bilingual country with one of the largest francophone populations in the world, Canada is a global leader that must uphold the most stringent standards when it comes to terminology, translation, and interpretation. The Translation Bureau is a core contributor to these rigorous standards, and it has a solid reputation for excellence throughout the government of Canada and at the international level.

The services provided by the bureau have been the subject of a study by the Standing Committee on Official Languages, as my hon. colleague mentioned. The Minister of Public Services and Procurement appeared before the committee on February 9 to outline the measures that she and our department have taken to strengthen the bureau’s capabilities. The work to revitalize the organization of the Translation Bureau and act on the minister’s commitments is well under way. I am proud to report on it.

A new chief executive officer was recently appointed to lead the Translation Bureau. The position was filled not long ago, on May 23, 2017, following a rigorous competition. The bureau has developed a quality assurance framework that includes a quality control system, a rigorous process to recruit world-class employees and freelancers, and world-class training programs for its linguistic experts.

To further guarantee the quality of its linguistic services, the bureau has created a new position, namely, chief quality officer, and it is also hiring new employees to provide federal departments with access to high-quality linguistic services. Twelve new translators are now providing linguistic services in specific areas, such as parliamentary proceedings, national protection, and meteorology. Seven new interpreters have also been added to bureau staff. I want to underscore that the association of translators and interpreters has expressed its satisfaction not only with the commitments we have made but also with the measures taken in the past budget presented by the Minister of Finance.

In addition, the bureau will hire a minimum of 50 students per year in each of the next five years and is also restoring a co-op program. Many Canadian universities, including the University of Montreal, the University of Ottawa, and my alma mater, the University of Moncton, are participating.

Our government also allocated more funding to the Translation Bureau in budget 2017, as I said. The government proposed to invest $7.5 million per year ongoing, beginning in 2017-18. With these new initiatives in place, the Translation Bureau is embarking on a new era. It is an exciting time for everyone at the bureau, who deserve greater recognition for the excellent work they do.

[François Choquette, NDP, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that a good step in the right direction has been taken. However, there are still some grey areas that I would like to have clarified. For example, will the $7.5 million be used to hire translators and interpreters on a permanent basis rather than just on contract? That is what we want to know. Right now, we do not know whether the 25 new jobs per year will be permanent or contract positions. That is a problem.

What is more, we need to ensure that we have a system in which the quality will be certified or, in other words, we need a system that establishes one all-inclusive rate for each of the streams, regardless of the mode of interpretation. If that is not the case, interpreters who are more versatile, specialized, and experienced will lose out. It is extremely important that we not go with the lowest bidder or we will end up in the same mess we were in before. We need to know exactly what investments will be made regarding employees. Will there be 25 new contract or permanent employees? That is what I would like the parliamentary secretary to tell me.

[Steven MacKinnon, Liberal, Gatineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague once again. As he knows, the budget indicated that an additional $7.5 million would be allocated in addition to the measures, policies, and statements of intent provided by the department. I am very proud of that. When I was appointed parliamentary secretary, I was proud to participate in those deliberations. This is a vote of confidence in the work of the Translation Bureau, to help restore it to its former glory.

With regard to hiring, we are going to leave that up to management, but I think that we have made our hopes and vision known and set out clear policies to help restore the Translation Bureau to its former glory. The measures that we are taking will improve the bureau's capacity and allow it to continue to provide high-quality language services, as it has been doing for over 80 years.

[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, and 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, 2018.

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, 2017-18

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will proceed with the House in committee of the whole on all votes under Department of National Defence in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2018.

I am going to start with a brief preamble for tonight's committee of the whole. Tonight's debate is a general one on the votes under the Department of National Defence. The first round will begin with the official opposition, followed by the government, and then the New Democratic Party. After that, we will follow the usual proportional rotation.

Each member will be allocated 15 minutes at a time, which may be used for both debate or for posing questions. Members wishing to use this time to make a speech have a maximum of 10 minutes, which leaves 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, in other words, how much time will be spent on the speech and how much time will be used for questions and answers. Members should also note that they will need the unanimous consent of the committee to split their time with another member. When the time is to be used for questions and comments, the Chair will expect that the minister's response will reflect approximately the time taken by the question, as that time counts toward the time allocated to the party.

I also wish to indicate that, in committee of the whole, comments should be addressed to the Chair. I will ask members to recognize this issue because in committee of the whole the chair occupant does not have the occasion of being on the fauteuil behind me. Otherwise, we would normally stand up to terminate the member's time. It will be difficult for members to see when their time is up, so I would ask members to direct their attention to the Chair when they are posing questions and responding. In this way, it is easier for me to indicate when their time is up. Normally, when a member's time is coming close, I will give a time indication and give the member a few seconds to wrap up. After that, the member's microphone will be cut off, and we will go back to the other question or response, as the case may be.

I ask for everyone's co-operation in upholding all the established standards of decorum, parliamentary language, and behaviour.

We will now begin tonight's session.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, we are looking forward to tonight's committee of the whole as we raise a number of questions and issues surrounding the defence budget and where the government is taking our Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence.

I want to also welcome the support the minister has here tonight, with the deputy minister, the vice-chief of the defence staff, and those in ADM positions. I thank them for supporting the minister tonight and for the work they do in supporting our men and women in uniform.

This has been a rough session for the minister. He has misled Canadians on a number of occasions now. There was the issue of danger pay on Operation Impact for everybody who was stationed in Kuwait. It took our efforts as the opposition to bring to light that some members in the fight against ISIS were being treated unfairly. The government instead doubled down and then embarrassed itself and ultimately had to correct the problem.

We also know the capability gap surrounding our CF-18s is an imaginary one. We are going to dive into that more completely.

We also want to talk about the continued stand-down by the government in pulling resources out of Iraq and Kuwait that were in support of our troops who are fighting ISIS and in support of our allies, and of course about how the minister has misled the House in saying our allies were happy when we pulled our CF-18s out of the fight.

We also have that situation again, with the government pulling our Auroras out of the fight against ISIS and leaving the heavy lifting to our NATO allies, who have had to move in AWACs.

We have the famous architect issue. That report came up over Operation Medusa, and the minister has apologized for it.

This budget is nothing to celebrate either. There have been $12 billion in cuts made in two consecutive budgets by the government. The finance minister has said that the Department of National Defence is appropriately provisioned, but the minister himself has said that there need to be significant investments going forward in the DPR.

The budget cuts that we are seeing right now are decreasing the amount of training that our troops can do and the amount that they can do in maintaining readiness to do the jobs that we call upon them to do.

I am going to first talk about the defence policy review. It is being rolled out, but it is much delayed. Originally the minister said that we would have the defence policy review in front of us by the end of last year; here we are, six months down the road, and we still have not seen it. The government has said that it will be released on June 8, and we are going to be looking at it.

I want to dive into that a bit, because we have already seen a number of shell games going on with the budget. In the cuts in this budget, the government has taken $8.5 billion and punted it down the road for up to 20 years. We were able to find in the budget that there was some re-profiling, as the minister likes to call it, or stuff that lines up better with our fiscal framework, but there is still $5.6 billion of shifted funds that are not accounted for, and we need to find out where those funds are going. We know there is some deferred spending coming from LAV modernization and some funding for the fixed-wing search and rescue planes that was moved down to better fit when the planes are being delivered, but we want to know if the shell games are going to continue.

We want to know whether or not there is going to be adequate funding in the budget to support the defence policy review or if the minister is going to defer all of that funding until after the next election. One thing of which the defence minister is the architect is the defence policy review, but can he guarantee us that the funding is going to be there, or is it going to be, as Dave Perry said, underfunded and under-ambitious?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I have stated many times that our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces require predictable and sustainable funding. That is exactly what our government has promised them and that is exactly what we are going to provide. We have increased the escalator by 1%. Now it is at 3%, a half-billion-dollar increase in the budget.

With respect to the defence policy review, we are making sure we do a very thorough consultation to make sure that we have a good understanding of the current state of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have been very honest with Canadians that we are starting in a hole. We are going to make sure that we create a long-term plan that will provide predictable and sustainable funding. We have promised this as a government. Our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces deserve it, and that is exactly what we are going to deliver.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, there is no commitment there and there is no investment. Our troops need the equipment and they need the investment in training. They need the investment to make sure that we continue to increase the number of men and women who are serving our nation, and it does not sound as though there is a plan there.

I am going to switch gears a bit and go over to the Super Hornets. We know that the minister has this imaginary capability gap. We heard testimony at committee and we have heard from other sources, including General Hood, commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force, who said at committee that there was no capability gap. We know that a Defence Research and Development Canada study showed that going to an interim measure would be more costly and more expensive and would reduce our capabilities. We have had 13 former commanders of the Royal Canadian Air Force who have said that buying the Super Hornet on a sole-source deal as an interim measure would be detrimental to the Royal Canadian Air Force.

The minister has claimed that there is this capability gap, yet his colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, through the trade fight that we have with the United States now, said in her statement of May 18 that “Canada is reviewing current military procurement that relates to Boeing.”

If there is a capability gap, why is the government prepared to walk away from the Super Hornet buy, and what other options has the minister looked at, other than just buying the Super Hornet?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, our government committed to making sure our men and women in the Canadian Forces have all the right tools. Our CF-18s are aging. They should have been replaced a long time ago. Our government committed to replacing them. We have taken a number of measures, which I have announced, in terms of steps we will be taking, which includes investment into the legacy fleet to make sure that our current fleet can last longer and making sure that we have enough pilots to be able to live up to those commitments.

However, we are going to be replacing the entire fleet through a full competition. That is exactly what the member opposite was asking, and that is exactly what we are doing.

We also have our NORAD and NATO commitments, and currently we cannot meet those simultaneously. That is a fact. Our government wants to ensure that we make the investments into the equipment and make sure that we are not risk-managing our commitments. That is the plan that we are putting forward. We are making sure that we spend on our Canadian Armed Forces so they have all the necessary equipment to carry out our obligations.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, the commander of the Royal Canadian Air Force has said that if we started a competition right now and made a decision and purchased a new plane within five years, there would be no problem in making sure our current fleet of CF-18s, with the life-extension project under way, would be able to fly until 2025, when the new planes would come in, but the plan that the minister has rolled out would actually take our current fleet of CF-18s beyond 2025, and that would actually make it more dangerous for our pilots and give us a less capable air force overall.

I know that the minister has to be aware of this. The commander of the air force actually said just a year ago that he is confident that the decision was taken that I have already talked about. The Agreement on Internal Trade says, in paragraph 506.11(a), that it allows the use of alternative procurement procedures only when an unforeseeable situation of urgency exists. If the commander believes that if the decision can be made in five years and there is no urgency, does the minister really believe what he is proposing in bringing forward the sole-source purchase, when there is not a capability gap? When the government is prepared to trade away the purchase of the Super Hornets because of the trade war that is going on with Boeing and Bombardier, will the minister admit that he is actually in violation of paragraph 506.11(a)?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, our aging CF-18s need to be replaced. Even if we have the competition, that can take up to five years, and the transition of the fleet takes much longer.

We have done the studies in terms of the investments that are needed into the legacy fleet and we are investing into that, but there is no guarantee that the airplanes can actually last that long. What we require is to make sure we have the right equipment to be able to do this transition. This is one of the reasons that if we cannot currently live up to our obligations to NORAD and NATO commitments and we have absolutely no guarantee moving forward—yes, I have confidence we can move forward, but that is not a guarantee—we have to make sure that we have the necessary equipment. We cannot continue to risk-manage our commitments. We owe this to the Canadian Armed Forces.

We are going to be replacing the permanent fleet through a full competition and we are going to be making additional investment into our air force—which, to me, is a good thing—to make sure that we have all the necessary aircraft for our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Based on the pattern we are using, we have time for probably two more questions and responses.

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate the time warning.

Again, annex 3.1 on Treasury Board questions for sole source states that contracting officers may allow for major procurements to occur without competition only when it is fair and reasonable, given all other options.

Again I ask the minister, what other options were explored? When we look at other countries, we see they have been able to make decisions quickly. We know that all the homework has already been done on finding a replacement for our CF-18s. The surveys have been done of aircraft manufacturers. The former Conservative government did them and the current Liberal government has done them.

We know that Denmark selected its planes in 11 months. Norway's took one year and 11 months. South Korea did its selection in one year and four months. It has been a year since the minister made the decision and made the announcement that we are sole-sourcing Super Hornets, yet we still have not signed a contract for them, as was confirmed by the deputy minister when he was at committee just a couple of weeks ago. What other options were explored, or is this being done strictly for political reasons so that the government does not have to buy an F-35, because that is what it told Canadians in the last election?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, when it comes to investing in our fighters, we are making sure that we have done our due diligence. We have looked at many different options. We have looked at our current contingency. To do the full replacement, which we are committed to do with a full competition, we are investing in the legacy fleet, but we cannot guarantee that we are going to have the current aircraft. Yes, there were options for buying old ones. No, we do not want to buy used equipment; we want to invest in new planes.

When we say we want to make sure we have the right equipment for our men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces, we are very serious about it. We are taking this commitment seriously, and I look forward to announcing defence policy on June 7, as well as the long-term commitments for the Canadian Armed Forces.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Chair, I want to switch gears a little. In this final question I want to talk about Operation Impact.

As we know, the government has put more trainers on the ground, put more of our troops and more boots on the ground, and put them in danger when it took away our CF-18s that provided air support and offloaded that responsibility to our allies. Now the Liberals have pulled the Aurora aircraft out. We are also coming up on the deadline of Operation Impact. Its deadline is June 30. We have not heard anything from the government on whether or not it is going to be extending the mission so that we can continue to fight radical jihadi terrorism.

Is the minister going to extend the mission or is he going to be the architect of the retreat of Canada from the fight against ISIS?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, I understand the member's desire to defeat Daesh. We all hope to see that, as they committed absolute atrocities and we are committed to the fight, as we stated. This is going to require making sure that we train Iraqi security forces, because this is how the problem came to be in the first place, when the Iraqi security forces were not able to hold the ground.

The coalition required additional training. That is why we tripled our trainers. We put the intelligence in so the coalition has the right information to be able to target as well. We actually added helicopters to make sure that our troops had the flexibility to be able to respond.

When it comes to the Aurora aircraft, we have two. On the advice of the military, we had to pull one out for operational reasons, and there is one that continues. We made this announcement to make sure there is no impact, and we are going to continue. I look forward to announcing the revised mission that is going to go into the future.

[The Chair, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

We will now resume debate and go to the hon. Minister of National Defence. This is a bit of an unusual spot, because the minister is given 15 minutes for his time, but of course he cannot use the five minutes of questions to pose questions to himself. Therefore, other parliamentary secretaries will be able, in this particular case, to pose questions to the minister during the five minutes for questions to the minister at that time.

The hon. Minister of National Defence.

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I want to thank you for last year, the first time I was in committee of the whole. I want to begin my remarks tonight by thanking all members opposite for choosing committee of the whole to learn more about my file and spend more time in the House on a very important topic. As I have always stated that I think all parliamentarians want to ensure our Canadian Armed Forces are looked after.

I am grateful for this opportunity once again, because it gives me an opportunity to talk about the incredible work done by members of the Canadian Armed Forces and national defence. It allows me to take stock on the progress we have made in the past 18 months, as measured against my mandate letter, and gives me the chance to engage with my fellow parliamentarians.

As I have stated in the House, my job as minister is to serve the men and women in uniform, who proudly serve our country. It is a privilege to have been given this responsibility. I welcome the chance to present these estimates and to answer questions as well.

To that end, I will be requesting total funding in the main estimates of $18.66 billion for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as just under $596 million for the Communications Security Establishment. As directed in my mandate letter, this will maintain current funding levels and planned increases. I will also be commenting on a few differences in the estimates that were presented last year.

First, operating expenditures for DND have gone up by $436.5 million. This is mainly due to a change to the defence escalator, which increased from 2% to 3% beginning this fiscal year.

Second, capital expenditures are down by $293.2 million. This is a result of the normal variance in large projects, such as the Arctic patrol vessel and the Halifax-class modernization. As announced in this year's budget, some capital funding has been re-profiled into future years. We have protected these funds to ensure they are available to meet the schedule of major projects, such as the fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. We will seek additional funding in supplementary estimates to support our international missions. This is sound and prudent management.

The estimates we are discussing here today provide the funding that is needed to support every aspect of the defence team's mission. This includes shielding Canadians from harm at home. One of the priorities identified in my mandate letter from the Prime Minister 18 months ago was disaster relief. We have seen many examples of this in just the past few months, whether it was dealing with the flooding in Mud Lake, Newfoundland, or across Quebec and Ontario or helping the people in New Brunswick deal with the effects of the devastating ice storm. When the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces have been called upon, they have delivered.

Beyond our shores, this year's funding is required to train, prepare, and support the more than 1,400 members of our Canadian Armed Forces currently deployed on 14 overseas missions, contributing to international peace and security. As the Minister of Finance and I announced two weeks ago, Canadian Armed Forces members deployed on all of these missions will now receive income tax relief. This includes the refocused mission in Iraq and our continuing fight against Daesh. The coalition is maintaining its movement and Daesh has lost more than half the territory it once held. It includes the missions supporting our commitment to NATO, which was another priority in my mandate letter. We are demonstrating our commitment, solidarity, and resolve to our allies.

The Canadian Armed Forces' upcoming deployment in Latvia is a prime example of this commitment. There we will lead a battle group composed of soldiers from six allied nations. This includes our own troops, which will be deploying in June. Together, with our existing air and maritime task forces, this represents the Canadian military's most significant activity in Europe since the Balkan conflict. It is especially important today, on the International Day of United Nations Peacekeepers, to note that we will be making commitments to peace support operations.

I was at the UN last week meeting with allies and doing our due diligence, and I will be pleased to host the United Nations Peacekeeping Defence Ministerial conference later this fall. This ambitious agenda requires our support to help ensure the Canadian Armed Forces have the tools they need to do this important work.

I will continue to work with my cabinet colleagues to improve on defence procurement. We are acquiring and replacing our legacy fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft. We will continue to invest in our navy. Our Arctic offshore patrol vessels are now under construction and the Canadian shipbuilding strategy continues to progress.

We are committed to investing in the air force, as directed in my mandate letter. We will procure a replacement for the CF-18 fighters, while examining an interim solution to meet our NORAD and NATO commitments simultaneously. These funds are also needed for our most important assets, and that is of course our troops.

I am sure all members of the House agree that our women and men in uniform form the core of our national defence, and their families are very important and play a tremendous role in the success of the Canadian Armed Forces.

With the funds provided in these estimates, we will provide better support to our members so they can maintain that degree of excellence that Canadians expect of them. The funding in these main estimates will support that work in the form of several ongoing initiatives to improve the workplace culture of national defence and the well-being of the serving members. The most notably is the military's ongoing efforts to eliminate harmful and inappropriate sexual behaviour through Operation Honour.

All these efforts, brought together, will help create a highly dynamic, skilled, and diverse force that can succeed in the modern security environment. They will also help to ensure support is provided to our Canadian Forces members and to their families, both when they are in the ranks and when they leave uniformed service. This funding we debate today will support our efforts to close the seams between national defence and veterans affairs.

Both my associate minister and I committed to reducing complexity, overhauling service delivery, and strengthening the partnership between our two departments. That is what we are aiming for, and the funding being debated today will help make that possible.

These main estimates will provide the defence department with the funding it needs to meet the needs of today. We must also ensure that our military is set up for success in the future and that we address the results of the underfunding by successive governments. On June 7, we will demonstrate the government's commitment to the future of the Canadian Armed Forces by announcing the results of our new defence policy. This will provide our armed forces with the funding and support they need to meet the challenges of the future.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Chair, I think we all agree that providing support in caring for our men and women in uniform is and should always be a priority. The minister touched briefly on that in his opening remarks.

Our Canadian Armed Forces members are our most important asset, and we greatly value their dedication to our country. Could the minister provide more detail about what the Department of National Defence is doing to support our military personnel?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, as I said in my earlier remarks, the women and men in uniform who serve their country form the core of our national defence. Military families are the strength behind the uniform. Supporting Canadian Armed Forces members, the veterans, and their loved ones is of the utmost importance to the Department of National Defence.

It is essential that military personnel continue to benefit from the best possible health care. We recognize that more needs to be done, especially early on, for those who are suffering from mental health issues. That is why, on top of the salaries for the armed forces personnel, these estimates will provide more important benefits related to health and mental wellness programs, family resource centres and training opportunities.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, the minister is right in saying that our most important asset is our military personnel, but without the proper equipment, Canadian Armed Forces members will not be able to accomplish their mission. To support them in the tremendous work they accomplish every day, they need the best tools.

Could the minister inform the House about what the Department of National Defence is doing to give our men and women the equipment they need?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, our government is committed to ensuring that the Canadian Armed Forces have the right tools to defend Canada and North America and to contribute to global peace and security with our partners around the world.

We are taking action to make improvements on defence procurement, notably by increasing defence authorities to contract up to $5 million to allow Public Services and Procurement Canada to focus on higher value, complex procurements.

We are also making significant capital investments in our military, including an open and transparent competition to replace our CF-18s; acquisition of the interim aircraft to supplement our current aging fighter fleet; the acquisition of the new fixed-wing search and rescue aircraft, the first airplane expected in 2019; and recapitalization of the naval fleet through the national shipbuilding strategies.

All of these investments in equipment and infrastructure represent an important contribution toward the government's goal in delivering a more integrated, agile, and better equipped military.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Chair, in his opening remarks, the minister spoke about the numerous activities of the Canadian Armed Forces and determined the work they had been doing at home. I think Canadians want to know more about what our military is doing to protect them.

Could the minister provide more details on the important work the military personnel has been doing on behalf of Canadians?

[Harjit S. Sajjan, Liberal, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Chair, Canadians expect that the Canadian Armed Forces are ready and able to defend Canada, protect Canada, defend North America, and continue to contribute to international peace and security when and where the government directs. Defending Canada is, and always will be, the highest priority for the Canadian Armed Forces, whether it is patrolling our air and maritime approaches, assisting in search and rescue operations or responding to natural disasters. Our military is ready to defend Canada and to protect Canadians.

For example, to highlight a few examples, most recently in Quebec, over 2,600 personnel responded to the emergency flooding. In April, the Canadian Rangers responded to emergency flooding in Kashechewan. In January, 200 personnel responded to the ice storms in New Brunswick.