Debates of May 29th, 2017

National Defence—Main Estimates, 2017-18

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

Mr. Chair, in answering my previous question, the minister spoke about domestic operations in which the Canadian Armed Forces were engaged. I would like to ask him about the international operations of the Canadian Armed Forces. Our military has always punched above its weight when it is deployed, and it does great work abroad.

Could the minister provide more details on the important work our military personnel has been doing around the world, working closely with our allies and partners?

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

Mr. Chair, our government has increased our international obligations. Our government is committed to actively contributing to greater security and peace in the world. The women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces are in many parts of the world, making a significant contribution to global peace and security.

For instance, in Iraq, as I stated earlier, our air force, our special forces, are playing an important role against the global coalition fight to dismantle Daesh. In Ukraine, our land forces are training hundreds of Ukrainian military forces. At sea, our navy is performing interjurisdictional operations in the Caribbean, counterterrorism efforts in the Middle East and in the Indian Ocean, and NATO assurance measures in the Mediterranean as well.

So far we have pledged up to 600 members for deployment on human peace corps operations as part of a whole-of-government approach. We continue to work closely with our allies, partners, and other multilateral organizations to do our part in meeting today's security challenges.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Chair, it was greatly appreciated that the Minister of National Defence came to Winnipeg North, met with members of our Ukrainian heritage community, and shared with them that sense of pride in our Canadian Armed Forces. Maybe the minister would provide some sense of what other types of outreach the minister does in Canada with respect to Canadians as a whole.

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

Mr. Chair, as we in the House talk about the important challenges around the world and we talk about the illegal annexation of Crimea and what is happening in Ukraine, we have communities of Ukrainian Canadians, like in Winnipeg, that are deeply concerned about what is happening. It was very important and very heartwarming for me to explain what our great men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces were doing, what our government was trying to do, and what the concerns of all parliamentarians were for that region.

I think that sense of direct engagement brought a sense of peace and an assurance to them so they had a better understanding of what their government was doing in Ukraine.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to be doing a brief preamble that is related to some of the questions I am going to ask, but I will primarily be focusing on questions this evening. I thank the minister and his staff from the Canadian Armed Forces for being here this evening, allowing us to perform one of these important accountability functions in Parliament.

Earlier this month we had a non-confidence motion in the minister, which was put forward by the Conservatives. We, in the New Democratic Party, supported that motion because of the conflict of interest problem that we believe the minister still has with regard to his role in Afghanistan and the varying stories that he has told about that role, and that is related to the question of Canada's complicity in torture in Afghanistan in the transfer of detainees. This has become much more important today, as we argued that it would. I am not going to talk about that conflict tonight because we have another complaint from our leader, the member for Outremont, with the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, which we hope will be followed up on.

Why this has become extremely important this week is the fact that the minister, on Friday, March 31, announced the extension of our Canadian mission in Iraq until the end of June. At that time, there was a shift in the Canadian role. Whereas previously we had been advising, assisting, and training only the Iraqi Kurds, we now apparently have taken on a role in advising, assisting, and training Iraqi government forces. What we have just seen in a publication on May 25 are the disturbing photos by Iraqi photojournalist, Ali Arkady, of the allegations of torture, very brutal treatment of prisoners in Iraq by the government forces, including extrajudicial killings. There are actual photographs of killing of prisoners by military forces.

My question for the minister is very much an important question today. What specific measures has the minister taken to ensure that Canada's current role in training and assisting the Iraqi government forces does not make us complicit in the use of torture, which was documented by those pictures published in the Toronto Star on May 25?

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

Mr. Chair, I have not seen the photos, but I have heard the reports and I too am appalled by what I have heard. When it comes to our Canadian Armed Forces, they are well trained in the law of armed conflict, our own laws, international laws, and the Geneva Convention. In all the advising and training the Canadian Armed Forces does there is a component where we actually train and focus on this effort because it is our opportunity to be able to train other forces. We take great pride in this. Our Canadian Armed Forces are obligated to report any type of misbehaviour as well.

With this current case, our Canadian Armed Forces were not involved, and we will always be very vigilant when it comes to this. We want to make sure that we are the leaders. That is one of the reasons our Canadians Armed Forces, whenever we do any type of training, will focus on the law of armed conflict so that the type of work that is needed and the professionalism that our Canadian Armed Forces show is also passed on to the members we are training.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to ask the minister again. What specific measures do we have in place? If Canadian Armed Forces were to come across instances of torture like this that have been well documented, how do they report those? How do we make those known to the Iraqi government? How do we make sure the Iraqi government does something about it? What do we have in place to make sure that we do not become complicit in the torture that we have seen by the Iraqi forces?

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

Mr. Chair, in the work they do in the training I talked about, they are obligated to be able to report. When it comes to the chain of command, there is a very good, structured chain of command within the Canadian Armed Forces on how this system would work. They are obligated to make sure that they document and report this all the way up. In this particular case, Global Affairs Canada has made démarches to the Iraqi government and made representations to the government on this matter.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask the minister to give us the assurance in the House that if Canadian Armed Forces do come across these instances of torture or similar kinds of instances that we will stop our co-operation with the Iraqi government forces.

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

Mr. Chair, as I stated, our men and women are obligated to be able to report.

I also want to emphasize that we actually focus on that training to make sure that professionalization is there, to make sure that the law of armed conflict is taught. We will always take this extremely seriously.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, I have to say that I am disappointed with that answer. I was hoping to get a clear commitment since we all know that information derived from torture is not only illegal under international law, but is almost always useless, as people under torture will say exactly what they think people want to hear in order to stop the torture. I am very disappointed that the minister has not given us that assurance.

I want to move on to some other things since we only have a short time this evening with the minister. I actually want to talk directly about the budget. I know the people sitting in front of the minister have huge books full of numbers and I have numbers on my desk. Numbers are difficult to discuss, but the one thing that we have seen in the budget is that the operational budget for the Canadian military peaked in 2012 and began to be cut by the Conservatives.

Where it has not been literally cut, it has been increased by less than the rate of inflation. When it is increased by less than the rate of inflation, obviously something has to give. We cannot keep sustaining the same activities year after year if the funding does not go up with the rate of inflation. The rate of inflation in the military, as we all know, is somewhere between 3% and 4.5%.

In the main estimates and the operational budget for the military this year, the Canadian Armed Forces appear to have received significantly less of an increase than the rate of inflation. How can they continue all the things we are asking them to do on our behalf when they get less money than they need to carry out those tasks?

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

Mr. Chair, when it comes to the budget and the planned increases, our government has maintained the planned increase and this year we increased it by 1% for the operating budget. That is a total of 3%, so the budget has increased by over half a billion dollars for the operating budget.

Also, I think the member opposite knows I made a number of speeches where I talked about the analysis of the defence policy review that we conducted and that even with this increase, we are still definitely on a decline. I am sure the member will be there on June 7 when I have the privilege of being able to announce our defence policies, where we are going to be talking about our plan to be able to fix and fill this hole and create a long-term plan for the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, we are also seeing the Canadian Armed Forces right now in a period when we have the largest recapitalization needs we have ever had in the history of the Canadian Forces.

In particular, I, of course, am concerned as a member who represents a naval riding with the national shipbuilding strategy, which was approved by all parties in the House and which is really going to be the mechanism by which we renew the navy. My concern is that we have had deferrals, or reprofilings, and putting things off into the future, all kinds of terms have been used, first, again, started by the Conservatives and then followed up by the Liberals so that we now have about $3 billion deferred by the Conservatives, then another $3 billion deferred by the Liberals, and now another $8 billion deferred off to the future.

When we are talking about buying equipment, with the rate of inflation in the military of 3% to 4% to 5%, and we are putting off things 10 years down the road, how are we actually going to buy the same amount of equipment we were supposed to buy with this money? We are obviously going to get 40% to 50% less, at minimum, of the same kinds of equipment, the same kinds of ships that we were going to get with the original allocation. Where is the funding to sustain things like the national shipbuilding strategy?

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

Mr. Chair, I could not agree more and I think all parties agree that the national shipbuilding strategy is very important to Canada. We are committed to this and are going to make sure that the Royal Canadian Navy has all the ships that are necessary. The increase we made of 3% is for the operational budget and I look forward to addressing a lot of these concerns.

I have said many times that we need to be able to look at the full costing when we do procurement and the new defence policy has been rigorously costed and fully funded. We want to make sure that the Canadian Armed Forces has the right investments to be able to plan and to provide predictable, sustainable funding so that the military can continually plan into the future.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, the minister has referred several times to the June 7 date for announcing the defence review. I would like to ask him now for a specific commitment that the defence review will be presented in the House, tabled in the House, and that we will be able to hold hearings, either a debate in this general House or at committee, so that all parliamentarians can participate in evaluating what the minister is proposing in the Canadian defence review.

Will it be presented here on June 7, or will it be somewhere else? Will we be able to debate this new defence strategy here in the House?

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

Mr. Chair, all parliamentarians took part in the defence policy review and I thank everybody for their input. I look forward to presenting it to Canadians. We will be presenting how the departmental plan will be conducted as well so that everybody has an opportunity to take part in the debate.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, once again, I am not getting the answer from the minister that I would like. As a parliamentarian who was sent here to represent my constituents, I would like for us to have a chance to have a full debate of that Canadian defence review here in the House, followed by a debate or a reference to the committee, so that hearings could be held in committee on that defence review. Otherwise, it is the Liberal defence review, not the Canadian defence review, if it is not presented in the House.

The other peculiar thing I find with the defence review is that the minister keeps saying that it will be the solution to the funding problems. Therefore, why, in this budget, was there no set-aside for new initiatives under the defence review? If you were really serious that the defence review was going to provide this extra money, where is the set-aside in the budget? Where is the funding in this budget, or do we have to wait for another future budget down the road for any of these new initiatives from the Canadian defence review to actually take place? Where is the money for it? Why was there not a set-aside in this budget?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind hon. members to pose their questions through the Chair.

The hon. minister.

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

Mr. Chair, with the consultations that have been conducted and expert reviews that have been done for this defence policy, we wanted to make sure that we not only present the plan but also the funding that goes behind it. I look forward to announcing this defence policy, which I have stated many times before. It is a defence policy that has been rigorously costed and fully funded. It will take the Canadian Armed Forces way into the future, for the next 20 years.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, given that the Prime Minister and the minister attended the NATO summit on May 25, did they present the outcome of this defence review there? Did they talk about what our priorities are going to be at NATO before it was presented in the House or to Canadians, or did they go there and have nothing to say? Which is it? Either they went to NATO with empty hands or they have already presented the findings of this review to our allies in Europe before they ever presented it to Canadians.

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

Mr. Chair, in this defence policy, as I have stated, Canadians all across this country had input. Parliamentarians held consultations and there were expert consultations. This defence policy will be presented in Canada to Canadians.

We can all be extremely proud of our contributions at NATO. We talked about how we are taking the lead in Latvia, one of the four framework nations, how we have air policing in Iceland currently that will be moving on to Romania in the fall, how we have a frigate in the Mediterranean consistently, and how we are in Ukraine as well. We have a lot to be proud of, because Canada has been stepping up for our multilateral commitments, which is extremely important to show leadership in the world and to stand shoulder to shoulder with our allies. That is what we talked about.

[Randall Garrison, NDP, Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC]

Mr. Chair, certainly New Democrats have been very supportive of any of the leadership initiatives taken.

Back in August of 2016, the defence minister and the former foreign affairs minister together announced Canada would be committing about 600 troops and 150 police officers to peacekeeping missions in Africa. Here we are, almost nine months later, and these plans appear to be on hold. Can the Minister of National Defence tell the House what Canada's official position is on contributing to the global peacekeeping efforts in this increasingly unstable world? Are we going to be committing to a peacekeeping mission in Africa, or not?

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

Mr. Chair, our government has committed to supporting peacekeeping operations. We have committed up to 600 personnel and 150 police officers to peacekeeping, but this cannot just be a military contribution. This is going to be a whole-of-government, integrated, comprehensive approach. We want to make sure we take the time. When we launch missions like this, they are not just about checking a box. We want to make sure when we make a contribution, that when we send our troops, we have looked at everything so that when they go into places like that, we will have a meaningful impact.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to share a few thoughts this evening. I am going to focus on the importance of sovereignty projection and sovereignty protection.

Yesterday Chancellor Angela Merkel was quoted as saying, “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over.... [W]e Europeans must really take our destiny into our own hands”.

Historically, Germany has always looked after its own sovereignty. After World War II, it permitted itself to have a military only for defensive purposes and resolutely stayed out of conflicts that were extraterritorial. Lately, however, it is being drawn in another direction, away from relying on others and proactively being invited to assert itself.

Outsourcing one's sovereignty to another nation can be a dangerous business. Canada has a long history of doing just that. As part of the British Empire, we outsourced our sovereignty to England. For a long while, that worked as a bulwark against American expansion. It was a refuge for United Empire Loyalists, slaves, and others looking for an alternative to the American way. Mostly it worked. However, the quid pro quo was that we were dragged into British wars, some say adventurism, such as the War of 1812, South Africa, World War I, et cetera. If the empire was at war, we were at war, whether we liked it or not. If Great Britain was going to be the guarantor of our sovereignty, then we were expected to contribute to the defence of the empire.

Many asked what British wars had to do with us. We were geographically and economically separated from those historical grievances and should not have been expected to contribute. However, those who objected forgot that Britain made sure that Canada was not American.

British interests have not always lined up with Canada's. For instance, does anyone wonder how we lost the Alaska panhandle? How is it that boundary drawing always seemed to work against Canada's best interests? The simple answer is that British interests always trumped Canadian interests. That is what happens when a nation outsources its sovereignty protection to someone else.

Britain was exhausted after World War I and could no longer protect Canada. The state of the Canadian military was alarming. General McNaughton presented a report to Prime Minister Mackenzie King outlining the serious deficiencies in our defensive structure. As you will recall, Mr. Chair, General McNaughton is the grandfather of the member for Orléans.

As James Eayrs described it, King had inherited from a Conservative prime minister “armed forces without arms.” The Americans knew it. The British knew it, and if the Canadians did not know it, they were willfully blind.

In 1936, President Roosevelt came to Canada on a state visit and advised Prime Minister King that if Canada was not prepared to look after its sovereignty, someone else would have do it for them. At that time, the Americans were particularly concerned that the Japanese would take advantage of the largely undefended B.C. coastline to gain access to North America. They wanted a highway through Canadian territory to foreclose access. The concerns of the Americans were well founded.

Directly or indirectly, we transitioned our sovereignty to the Americans, and by the end of World War II, there was absolutely no doubt that our defence policy could be summed up in one pithy phrase: “Don't get too far ahead of the Americans, and don't get too far behind the Americans”.

The architecture of our defence institutions was created at that time as well. The best known, for our purposes, is NORAD. Equally well known, or possibly better known, is NATO, which is an American-dominated treaty alliance that has served us well over many years. Less well known, possibly, is the Permanent Joint Board on Defence, a formal informal meeting of senior, civilian, and military personnel who jointly manage defence issues as they arise. The next meeting is here in Ottawa next week.

There are, of course, other arrangements, both formal and informal, that allow us to be more efficient and effective when dividing up tasks. Needless to say, the Americans are the senior partner. However, there is a genuine respect and collaboration between the respective forces.

However, there is also a growing expectation on the part of our senior partner that Canada will pick up a larger share of the load. That is perfectly understandable. Defence is not cheap. Defence of our sovereignty is not cheap.

When President Obama stood in this very chamber, he was quite explicit:

As your ally and as your friend, let me say that we will be more secure when every NATO member, including Canada, contributes its full share to our common security, because the Canadian Armed Forces are really good and if I can borrow a phrase, the world needs more Canada. NATO needs more Canada. We need you.

That was just about a year ago.

The irony is that we are very good. Our military is very good, and therefore we are in demand, yet we have been somewhat reluctant to be more forthcoming. At times we seem almost coquettish. Just as Britain expected us to contribute to the defence of the empire, so also the Americans expect serious contributions from Canada. This expectation preceded President Trump by many decades, and for a while, post-World War II, during the Cold War, Canada did contribute 2% of GDP to defence. However, as time has gone on, we have been in a steady decline, and for the last 20 years, we have bumped along at around 1% of GDP. For all the Conservatives' harrumphing about their love of all things military, they started out at slightly more than 1% in 2006, plateaued at 1.38% at the peak of the Afghan conflict, and then steadily rode it down to less than 1% by 2015. Friends like these do not require enemies.

I have heard all the arguments about the quality of the Canadian military and the willingness to actually take on dangerous missions, all of which are true, but as the minister has been arguing for the last few months, in fact for his entire mandate, to anyone who will listen, Canadians need to get serious about funding our military needs so it can do what we ask it to do.

The most important task is the protection of our sovereignty. Does anyone think that outsourcing our sovereignty to President Trump is a good idea? That is the effect of reduced resources; we necessarily over-rely on our American cousins for our own protection. It is a great idea as long as it works. We get to act superior to the cousins while getting them to pay the bill. It is a neat trick, as long as it lasts.

However, the times they are a-changing. Russia is militarizing the Arctic. It is the only nation that has icebreakers worthy of the name. It is opening up new military bases. It conducts significant military exercises there annually.

China launched its first aircraft carrier recently. China routinely transits the Arctic Ocean and is keen to exploit the mineral wealth under it. The U.S. and Canada do not always agree on our sovereignty claims, particularly off the Alaska coast. Denmark and Canada have agreed to disagree on Hans Island. It is not likely that we are going to war anytime soon with the U.S. or Denmark, but if we do not have a robust military, we may as well wave the white flag of compromised sovereignty and move on.

I have had the great honour of seeing our military up close and personal. Without exception, we are represented by some of the finest people I have ever had the honour of meeting. It embarrasses me when we do not stand behind our people with the right resources. Lord knows, this minister has been really trying to appropriately make the resources available to our excellent military.

Canadians live on an island of self-contentment, oblivious to the seas of trouble at all our borders. We are indeed a blessed nation and have for decades been able to count on the longest undefended border on earth, a frozen Arctic Ocean, a weakened China, two large oceans, and a Russia incapable of projecting a serious military threat. All of those assumptions are more and more open to challenge.

A more able and robust military is not the only answer to those assumptions, but surely it is one of the most important ones. A more capable military protecting and projecting our sovereignty is a sine qua non of an independent nation and a foreign policy worthy of the name. Chancellor Merkel is right. “The times in which we can fully count on others are somewhat over.” We ignore her at our peril.

Now, if I may, I have a few questions for the minister. The argument I am making is that the military is not a luxury. It is a core responsibility of government to protect and project our sovereignty. Would you be so kind as to outline, over the last 18 months, how you, through your mandate letter and your actions, have enhanced the projection and protection of our sovereignty?

[The Assistant Deputy Chair, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I want to remind the hon. members to speak through the Chair and not directly to the minister, even if it is very quaint surroundings in committee.