House of Commons Hansard #172 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was national.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, the future will roll out whatever answer that eventually has with respect to the people who were imprisoned in Afghanistan, the people who were killing our soldiers. However, for now, it is a matter of the gross exaggeration by the minister partnered with his other great misrepresentations.

One that comes to mind is that when he took away the air cover for our ground troops in Iraq, he said that the allies had no problem with it, yet we learned some months later that they begged them not to take away the F-18s. Now we have a made-in-cabinet capability gap, so that the current government can sole-source a new fighter jet, instead of going the proper route as was promised during the election in having a full, open procurement and tendering process.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, when I asked the member to respond to a specific quote from a British Army officer Colonel Chris Vernon, instead she made reference to the fact that we had a reserve that did not get enough money. That was the response. When the Conservative Party took office, $18.7 billion was being spent on defence. When they left office, it was $19.2 billion. It was 1.19% of the GDP. It actually decreased in terms of the GDP.

Would the member not agree that she should have been more transparent with those individuals in saying that the Conservatives did not adequately finance our Canadian Armed Forces or our reserves?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Cheryl Gallant Conservative Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON

Mr. Speaker, after a decade of darkness, when the Conservatives came in, we got five C-17s. We got our own lift. We did not have to beg, borrow, or lease. We got 15 Chinook helicopters. We got tanks again. We got light armoured vehicles, and reinforcements.

No one is questioning the minister's former military service; we are questioning his ability and his actions since becoming minister, which have been abysmal. Since he has become minister, the funding for the military has gone not from 0.9% but to 0.88%, the lowest in history in NATO.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by simply saying that the Minister of National Defence must resign, not only because of numbers or political decisions, but because of ministerial responsibility, a very important constitutional convention in this country. Since he does not want to follow that convention, we need to use an opposition day today to call for his resignation, which is coming soon. By the end of my speech, members will understand why.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all of the men and women who serve their country in the Canadian Armed Forces for the hard work they do every day, as demonstrated recently when they took quick action to help address the flooding in many regions of Quebec and Ontario.

I would also like to thank the members of the 6th Field Artillery Regiment, with whom I had the honour of serving our country, for the dedication they have shown since the regiment was created to the homeland and in every conflict.

Like my other opposition colleagues, today, I want to talk about our motion, which reads as follows:

That the House has lost confidence in the Minister of National Defence's ability to carry out his responsibilities on behalf of the government since, on multiple occasions the Minister misrepresented his military service and provided misleading information to the House.

This is really very serious. It all began with earlier issues, which I will talk about shortly. First, I want to explain a little about what has brought us to this opposition day, namely Operation Medusa, which took place in Afghanistan in 2006.

The minister’s political career began recently, in 2015. Before the November 2015 election, he was still in the Canadian Armed Forces. In a speech in New Delhi, India, for the second time in his political career, he stated that he was the main architect of Operation Medusa. This was not an inadvertent error, since he had made the same false statement, the same exaggeration, previously, during the 2015 election campaign, in an interview with a journalist.

Operation Medusa was one of the most important operations conducted by the Canadian Armed Forces in Afghanistan. It has contributed to our national pride, since it was a success, according to a majority of analysts.

Since making that false statement, the minister has been severely criticized for this lie by the media, the opposition, and numerous active or retired members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Today, my colleagues have clearly shown this by referring to a number of retired members of the military who are disappointed and stunned by this minister’s conduct.

What is unfortunate, but what reinforces our position on this opposition day, is that the Minister of National Defence is setting a trend in terms of how he performs his ministerial duties.

Right at the beginning of his term as minister, in December 2015, when the newly elected government decided to end our CF-18 campaign in Iraq, the Minister of National Defence held talks with certain members of the Iraqi government. When the minister returned to Canada, we asked him several times whether he had actually heard any comments about the withdrawal of our CF-18s in Iraq, and he said that was not the case. However, thanks to the good work done by journalists, we recently learned that, on the contrary, the Iraqi government had informed the minister on numerous occasions of its concerns regarding the withdrawal of the CF-18s. That is the first point on which the Minister of National Defence misled us.

The second example of the trend that the minister is setting relates to Kuwait. We have armed forces personnel in Kuwait, and, since October 5, 2014, they have received tax relief that was put in place by the Conservative government, as is often the case for other missions.

Responding to questions on the Order Paper, the Minister of National Defence acknowledged that the Conservative government had in fact put that tax relief in place. In spite of the minister’s clear statements saying that members of the military deployed in Kuwait were entitled to tax relief offered by the previous Conservative government, he kept saying, several months later, falsely, that those soldiers were deployed without receiving tax relief from the Conservative government. Why did he change his mind? Did his parliamentary assistants not bother to tell him that he had signed a paper saying that in the House? That is probably what happened, and that is another example of incompetence.

The third thing that further highlights the minister’s pattern of misleading conduct toward Canadians and the House is our fighter fleet’s lack of capacity. There is no such thing. The commander of the air force, Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, said when he appeared before the Standing Committee on National Defence, as my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles who sits on that committee and was there can attest, that there was no lack of capacity when it comes to Canada’s fighter fleet.

I have given three flagrant examples that show that the minister has misled the House of Commons, the parliamentarians who must vote for or against the government’s decisions. His pattern seems quite obvious to me, and that brings me to the second part of my speech.

I want to come back to the convention of ministerial responsibility. If there is one fantastic thing bequeathed to us by mother England, and its fantastic mother of parliament, Westminster, it is ministerial responsibility, which rests, first and foremost, on the honour of a man or woman, the honour of serving and of acknowledging that, when the time comes, he or she must resign from his position or her position.

I have to say that Canada has an interesting history when it comes to ministerial responsibility. I am going to give all the examples of ministers who have resigned, since 1867, for reasons ranging from the trivial to the most serious.

I thought that the change in the political culture that had taken place since the 1950s should have meant that very few ministers had resigned recently. We treat politicians as we treat products of mass consumption: we toss them out when they are no longer good. Contrary to what I thought, until this millennium, ministers have had the courage to resign for much more trivial reasons than we are currently discussing in the case of the Minister of National Defence.

Mr. Galt, one of the founders of the nation, resigned in 1867 because he no longer had the support and confidence of his cabinet colleagues, who held his policy responsible for the collapse of the Commercial Bank of Canada.

In 1878, Mr. Vail, defence minister, resigned because he had violated ministerial directives by being a shareholder of a company that had received government printing and advertising contracts.

In 1907, the minister of railways and canals, Mr. Emmerson, resigned because he had been accused of going to a Montreal hotel with a person of ill repute. Is that not unbelievable?

In 1965, the secretary of state of Canada, Mr. Lamontagne, resigned because he had been accused by the opposition, not by a court, of being involved in the scandal relating to a bankruptcy close to the prime minister.

Mr. Dupuis, a minister without portfolio, resigned in 1965 after exerting undue influence in the matter of a race track in Saint-Luc.

In 1986, the minister of regional industrial expansion, Mr. Stevens, resigned because he was being investigated in relation to conflict of interest allegations, which is much more serious.

In 2002, the solicitor general of Canada, currently Minister of Agriculture and Agri-food, resigned because he was being investigated in relation to conflict of interest allegations.

In 2005, the present member for Humber River—Black Creek resigned in the midst of allegations of improprieties.

Last, in 2010, minister of state Helena Guergis resigned because she was being investigated regarding allegations relating to her conduct.

As we can see, for various reasons, trivial or otherwise, ministers have followed a very important convention in our country, a constitutional convention that requires a man or woman who holds office as a minister of Canada to resign when the members of the House question their confidence in him or her. Here, it is not only us; it is the entire Canadian Forces that are questioning their confidence in the minister. He should simply resign.

When we learn the truth about all of the issues that concern us, and if he did not in fact lie to Canadians, he will be able to return.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Stephen Fuhr Liberal Kelowna—Lake Country, BC

Mr. Speaker, we have been around the block a few times this afternoon on the minister's role. I think it's fair to say that he played a significant role, that his role was instrumental. Now we are debating on how he characterized his role, and in fact, he has apologized for that on numerous occasions.

Since we are talking about that, though, a number of minutes ago, I watched a leadership video by the member for Durham where he said that he served in the air force where he “flew Sea King helicopters on operations at home and abroad”. I am not one to take a shot at the member's role in the military, which is very honourable, but that is absolutely what he did not do. The video did not say that he flew in Sea King helicopters; it said he flew Sea King helicopters. There is a massive difference.

Having said that, will the members opposite be asking for his apology and asking him to withdraw from the leadership race?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, the member is simply trying to create a diversion. In my speech and during this opposition day, what is important is talking about a minister. Like all his predecessors, the minister should follow the constitutional convention of ministerial responsibility, and, most importantly, honour it. Right at the outset, in December 2015, the Prime Minister told the House that he was not like Mr. Harper and he had a cabinet government. A cabinet government takes responsibility, and when a minister is in the wrong, he resigns.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would first like to say that I approach this question not as a member of the military, since I have never been part of the armed forces. This weekend, again, I had the chance to participate in the ceremony in Trois-Rivières to commemorate the Battle of the Atlantic. I am always astounded to see how the military, regardless of the force, seems to have respect for two things: the code of honour and the chain of command.

I am not a conspiracy theory enthusiast, but since our Minister of Defence is a soldier himself, I imagine that he has the same respect for the two things I just mentioned.

I wonder about something: could it be that it is actually the Prime Minister who refused his resignation, presumably to preserve his government’s image?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, that is an interesting theory. I hope it doesn't, but if it holds true, the minister must be having a difficult time. That being said, there is no law requiring that he agree to his Prime Minister's request that he not step down.

On the other hand, he ought to respect and apply a constitutional convention endorsed for centuries in our British parliamentary system and resign when faced with a loss of confidence brought on by his actions.

Personally, I detest conspiracy theories. That said, I hope that that is not the case here.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, the system of responsible government, which we fought for and obtained in 1848, obviously concerns the whole of government. When we speak of responsibility, it is in the context of a government stepping down. However, in our case, we have a minister who retains the confidence of his Prime Minister, despite what some would have us believe. The Prime Minister has said very clearly that he supports the minister.

Does my colleague not think that we should judge the minister on his policy and on his review of the national defence policy, which will provide the members of the armed forces the resources they need to guarantee the sovereignty of the country, the defence of North America and peace in the world?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Alupa Clarke Conservative Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Mr. Speaker, in 1848, the issue was responsible government. I am talking about ministerial responsibility, which is a convention pertaining to a minister who is at fault. This has absolutely nothing to do with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister can keep placing his trust in him, that goes without saying. However, the minister must realize, on his own, as a man or woman of honesty and dignity, that no one is listening to him anymore.

The defence report that has just been released paints the picture of a terrible Conservative government, even though that was not the case at all. The Canada First defence strategy meant $20 billion more for National Defence. Who is going to believe that report now, dear colleagues? No one. That is the reality. That is why the minister has to resign. He is compromising the work of all of his colleagues, mainly that of the Prime Minister. If the Prime Minister has not shown him the door in a few weeks' time, the situation will fester and the government will begin to rot from within.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Saint-Jean Québec

Liberal

Jean Rioux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne.

I am happy to take part in today’s debate to highlight the contributions of a remarkable man, the Minister of National Defence. I have had the pleasure to know the minister for a year and a half, and the honour to work more closely with him since my appointment as parliamentary secretary.

For many months now, we have been working to make Canada better. We have promised to bring real change, to be here for Canadians, to listen to them and respond to their wishes.

Canadians have given us a clear mandate, namely to build a Canada that is prosperous and open to the world, a Canada that reflects our values. Canadians expect us to keep our commitments, and we are doing so. Today, more than ever, the middle class is becoming stronger and more people are able to join its ranks.

After a difficult decade when people had stopped believing, our government has been able to re-establish contact with Canadians. The consultations we have held let us know that we are on the right track. We are listening, and the messages we are receiving clearly demonstrate how important it is for Canadians to have an open and transparent government.

In establishing this communication, we are creating a bond of mutual trust. To maintain that bond, we will not hide behind closed doors, and if we make mistakes, we must acknowledge them right away.

Canadians are not expecting us to be perfect, but they expect us to be honest, open, and sincere in our efforts to serve the public interest.

In exercising our duties, we must act in accordance with the values that characterize us. Inclusion, honesty, professionalism, and conscientious work are just a few of the values we must place at the service of our fellow citizens.

Having spent the past few months working with the Minister of National Defence, I have been a privileged witness to his integrity and the determination with which he discharges his mandate.

The primary responsibility of the minister, and of our government, is to oversee the interests of our troops and make sure they are prepared and provided with the equipment they need to protect the sovereignty of Canada, defend North America, provide disaster relief, conduct search and rescue missions, support the peacekeeping operations of the United Nations, and contribute to the security of our allies.

We are working to discharge that mandate with the greatest respect for our men and women in uniform. We must ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces have the support, the training, and the equipment they need to successfully complete the various missions they are assigned.

Over the last year and a half, our minister has sought to achieve this very objective. It is what he strives for every day.

One of the key elements of his mandate is to provide our country with a new defence policy. Over the past year, with the assistance of all the members in the House, we have undertaken the broadest public consultation in 20 years. Canadians from coast to coast to coast have been able to express their views and tell us their concerns regarding this new policy.

We have conducted an in-depth analysis to be sure we have a model that meets the needs of our military. Today, it is the responsibility of the minister and the government to ensure that the members of the Canadian Armed Forces have all of the equipment necessary to successfully carry out their missions, and all the support they need for their well-being.

The Minister of National Defence has been given a broad mandate that he is carrying out. He will soon be able to disclose this new defence policy, which will guarantee the sustainability of resources by ensuring adequate funding and costs that are rigorously established for the next 20 years.

In that policy, the government commits to providing a level of investment that will put the Canadian Armed Forces in a stable position in terms of finances, capital, and human resources, so that we will have a force that is modern, more flexible, and better equipped.

The men and women of our armed forces do an exceptional job of performing their duties, but they cannot carry out their missions indefinitely without adequate support. We are currently working to fill the gaps that have resulted from our predecessors’ mismanagement. Numerous efforts have already been made by this government to achieve those objectives.

In Québec, in particular, we can see the benefits of this intention. Recently, I was able to announce, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence, the start of work on the construction of two new multi-purpose buildings in Bagotville. A company in Chicoutimi has been awarded a $47-million contract to carry out that work.

The overall investment will be $95 million, and the objective is to improve the 3 Wing infrastructure. This project will improve 3 Wing’s capacity to control and defend North American air space when duty calls. These facilities will provide us with the solution to the problem of the infrastructure shortage.

We will also ensure that all soldiers have the tools and resources they need to do their work to the best of their ability. By modernizing and replacing outdated military infrastructure, we are putting the Canadian Armed Forces in a better position to face the challenges of the 21st century.

Times are changing and the Canadian Armed Forces need to have not only modern equipment, but also training that is appropriate for today’s reality. It is of the utmost importance that Canada focus on maximizing human resource development.

To achieve this, continuous training and education are inexhaustible sources that enable the women and men of the Canadian Armed Forces to develop superior skills sets. It is clear that the quality of this training enables Canadian military personnel to fulfill their operational role and helps to place our armed forces among the most educated and skilled in the world.

In announcing the upcoming return of university studies at Royal Military College Saint-Jean with interest and conviction as he did, the minister expressed the importance of maintaining a representative francophone presence in the Canadian Armed Forces, and in particular in the defence staff, thereby contributing to maintaining our identity in Canada.

The time has come to restore the college to its former glory so that it can actively participate in maintaining our troops’ expertise and supporting the Canadian government in redefining its military mission.

Canada’s return to its fundamental principles ties in very well with the academic orientation that the Royal Military College Saint-Jean aims to take. The humanities and social sciences programs will foster the training of leaders who have the skills required to work in conflict resolution.

The college has proven its value on numerous occasions by providing a francophone military learning environment and advancing bilingualism and linguistic diversity in the Canadian armed forces. The resumption of university education will help promote improved recruitment of francophones, allophones and anglophones from Quebec and all across Canada for the Royal Military College Saint-Jean.

We have to offer our soldiers all the support, training and equipment they need to successfully carry out their various missions. The Canadian armed forces must be versatile and ready to respond in various types of terrain, as they are demonstrating at this very moment.

In fact, in the wake of these historic floods, nearly 1,200 troops were sent yesterday to the following four assembly areas: Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu, Shawinigan, Laval and Gatineau. They will be posted to offer support and respond to needs that have been identified in collaboration with our civilian partners.

The Canadian Armed Forces are always prepared to lend assistance to civil authorities during an emergency in Canada, including natural disasters, at all times and in all places. These CAF operations are designated Operation Lentus. We ask the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces to take on some extremely difficult tasks, and it is our duty to support them and our obligation to equip them.

To guarantee the safety of Canadians and be prepared to act when needed, the government has to strike a balance between its different priorities. In a global context of constant change, we will pursue our military investments to ensure that all our resources are up to date and that our personnel and their families are appropriately supported.

The Minister of National Defence is a former reservist who is in regular contact with our men and women in uniform. He understands the military reality very well, and will always hold in high esteem the service of Canadian Armed Forces members, those currently serving as well as the ones with whom he served on his missions, and those who served under other commanders or at other times.

The minister’s unconditional commitment to the execution of his mandate shows the great respect he has for the members of the Canadian forces. In accepting his duties, the minister has undertaken to be honest, to be transparent and to be accountable to Canadians. He is a member of a government that holds to the most rigorous ethical standards. Every time he reports to work, he does so at the service of Canada and with a view to improving our country and the lives of all Canadian citizens, both military and civilian.

Last week, the Prime Minister gave his support to the Minister of National Defence, and caucus did as well. Today, in the House, I assure my colleague of my complete collaboration. I will continue to serve the members of the Canadian Armed Forces alongside him with all of the loyalty that he himself has shown in the exercise of his duties.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague the parliamentary secretary for his most interesting speech.

My having been a parliamentary secretary to a minister, I realize that the parliamentary secretary has an intimate relationship with the minister, so I think he might be in a good position to answer this question.

For weeks we have been asking the minister to explain what happened. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their respect and gratitude for the wonderful service that the minister has given to his country as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, but for some reason, in the last 18 months, his work performance has been totally opposite to what his work performance was as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces. We have a man who promoted integrity and honesty as a member of the Canadian Armed Forces, but as a minister, maybe not so much.

Maybe the parliamentary secretary, who probably knows the minister better than all other colleagues in the House, could explain why the minister has changed so dramatically and is not the man of integrity that he was as a member of the forces.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his interesting question. I also thank him for recognizing the work that the minister has done through all of the last year and a half to introduce a new defence policy by means of an emeritus consultation with experts and MPs.

In the riding of Saint-Jean alone, over 150 persons demonstrated their interest and made some very interesting proposals to us. If only because of the process he developed, I believe the minister enjoys the confidence of all military personnel.

Last week, at the Battle of the Atlantic gala, not only was it my impression that the minister showed very great credibility, but I noticed above all that he had great hope for the new policy and the stable new investments to be made in the Canadian Armed Forces.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation.

I know that comparisons are not always easy, but for a civilian like myself, this is difficult to understand. Members will no doubt recall the incident that was called the fake soldier. In 2014, on Remembrance Day, a civilian wore the uniform and even gave interviews on television. This did not seem to me a crime of lèse-majesté, but later on we learned that it was, since this type of offence appears in section 419 of the Criminal Code.

If the actions of a civilian merit such punishment, how can we be satisfied with partial excuses for the behaviour of a minister attempting to embellish his military exploits?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

Jean Rioux Liberal Saint-Jean, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Trois-Rivières for his question.

I think we are talking about two very different incidents. In the case mentioned by the member, the act was intentional. In the minister’s case, there was no intent: the first thing he did was to apologize and state that he did not want to diminish the role of his superiors and his brothers in arms. He recognized all of the work done by the men and women who took part in that mission in Afghanistan. I think we are talking about two totally different things.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

The Deputy Speaker Conservative Bruce Stanton

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship; the hon. member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Indigenous Affairs; and the hon. member for Windsor West, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:35 p.m.

Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne Québec

Liberal

Sherry Romanado LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to highlight the 1,650 members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are currently deployed to help with the flood efforts in the Trois-Rivières to Gatineau corridor, and in New Brunswick and B.C.

Earlier today our Minister of National Defence provided the House with information regarding the defence policy review. It was a frank conversation, a situational analysis, so to speak, about the current state of affairs in the Canadian Armed Forces. He had the courage to come forward and talk about this reality, in fact, and also mentioned that it was not the previous government that brought those situations to bear but consecutive governments. We are not trying to be partisan in this regard. We know there are significant issues.

We have talked a bit about the material resources that are required. We have heard a lot about the procurement problems in the Canadian Armed Forces. More importantly, we have heard about the importance of investing in our people, those brave men and women who are wearing the uniform, or who have worn the uniform, and the families that support them.

While I look forward to the results of the defence policy review being made public, I would like to highlight some of the efforts that have been made by both the Minister of Veterans Affairs and the Minister of National Defence in terms of the support provided to Canadian Armed Forces members transitioning to civilian life and our veterans who have served our country so valiantly.

Since 2015, the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs have been working closely together to ensure that the transition from military life to civilian life goes as smoothly as possible for members of the Canadian Armed Forces released from military service.

Each year an average of about 9,000 Canadian Armed Forces members release from the regular and reserve forces. They each have their own unique story and their own distinctive needs. Some will need help with their transition to civilian life.

If there is one thing all Canadians can agree on, it is our debt of gratitude toward our Canadian Armed Forces members and our veterans. After their selfless contributions, the government owes them the means to get back on their feet and on with their lives. We are committed to doing just that, to help veterans and their families successfully transition to civilian life and to move on to the next chapter.

In budget 2016 we focused on the financial security of veterans and their families. We reopened nine offices closed by the former government and opened a new one. Veterans Affairs Canada hired almost 400 new front-line staff, which includes new case managers. These historic actions taken in budget 2016 committed approximately $5.6 billion in additional financial benefits for our veterans and their families.

Budget 2017 builds on these initiatives to create a broader and more comprehensive approach to ensuring the well-being of veterans by focusing on the family.

When I meet with veterans, regardless of whether they served for one year or 10, they want to talk about it because they firmly believe that a person who served in the armed forces is a soldier for life. We know how hard it can sometimes be for veterans to deal with the loss of the military family culture. We want them to continue to be a part of that family.

That is why we are expanding access to the military family services program and opening the doors of the 32 military family resource centres to ill and injured veterans and their families.

We are also improving and enhancing the family caregiver relief benefit by directly providing caregivers with a tax-free monthly payment of $1,000. The time limit within which spouses and survivors must apply for rehabilitation services and vocational assistance will also be eliminated so that they can return to the workforce.

That means that the spouses, partners, and caregivers who help our ill or injured veterans day after day will get more support and more recognition from the government for their invaluable contributions.

We are also investing nearly $14 million over four years in a new veteran and family well-being fund that will be used for research on issues and new initiatives to improve the support provided to veterans and their families.

We are also doing more to help veterans transition to their post-military life. The new veterans education and training benefit covers up to $80,000 in tuition and other costs for members. Some of this benefit can be used toward professional development. This benefit will ensure more released military members can find a new sense of purpose and put their skills to use.

We are also redesigning the career transition services we offer so that more people can use them, including survivors, spouses, and partners. They will have access to job search assistance and coaching from coaches who understand military culture.

Early engagement is key to a successful transition from military to civilian life. My colleagues in the Canadian Armed Forces have likely talked about the improved transition services, a joint initiative of Veterans Affairs and the Canadian Armed Forces, the aim of which is to reach out sooner to members of the Canadian Armed Forces who are leaving the service and their families. This initiative has already been rolled out in 24 integrated personnel support centres.

Mental health is a key component of the care and support offered to our veterans. This issue often gets a lot of media attention and is one of our top priorities.

That is why we are committed to ensuring that our veterans, as well as RCMP members and their families, get the mental health support they need, when they need it. That is also why, in budget 2017, we followed through on our commitment to establish a centre of excellence on PTSD and related mental health conditions.

We are investing $17.5 million over five years in this centre, which will provide research, education, and liaison services for veterans and their families, and will contribute to the development of emerging best practices.

Additionally, we commit to finalizing the details of a monthly pension for life option for ill and injured veterans in 2017, further adding to their financial security.

The last thing I want to talk about today is our review of service delivery. We recently announced that the review is complete. We now have a plan that will allow us to provide services more quickly and with greater flexibility to adapt better to veterans' needs.

We understand and know that the current system needs to be changed in order to create a process that is easy to access, simple to navigate, and focused on the veteran. An overhaul is needed. It is not just a matter of making a change to a policy to plug another hole in the system. It is time to rebuild.

This government has made it our mission to improve the well-being of veterans and their families. That means having a purpose, financial security, shelter, medical support, family and community support, and a sense of identity. We are committed to helping them achieve that. When it comes to our brave men and women in uniform and those who have served, we need to take politics out of it. The DPR, defence policy review, has shown that the needs in the Canadian Armed Forces are great. This House currently has former members of the Canadian Armed Forces sitting as well as family members of those who have served or those who are currently serving.

To err is human, and we have all done so. It is time to accept the minister's apology and work together to address the issues identified in the defence policy review. Anything further is playing politics on the backs of those we claim to support, our brave men and women in uniform.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:40 p.m.

Conservative

Bev Shipley Conservative Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is quite incredible. I do not know how many members will not answer the question.

One of the things the Liberals, unfortunately, never talked about is what the issue was. Everybody has talked about discrediting the minister in his former positions. What really we are talking about is the minister's fabricating a response to give himself credit for something that he did not do but someone else did, so that he can discredit other people below him. It was not a mistake.

We have heard time and again that he made a mistake and he apologized. I am sorry but he did not make a mistake. He fabricated a response and he kept repeating it. I would like the member to tell me why the minister continues to fabricate that response and why he should stay.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the minister has said on numerous occasions, as have my colleagues, the minister acknowledged his mistake. He apologized for this mistake. He has apologized to this House and to the Canadian public. He has retracted his statement. In no way did he intend to diminish the hard work of the men and women in uniform. Therefore, I accept his apology. He has the full support of the Prime Minister, as he does this caucus. I would urge this House to accept his apology and work together so that we can get done what we need to get done for our brave men and women.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

NDP

Erin Weir NDP Regina—Lewvan, SK

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way spoke about helping veterans. Therefore, I have to ask why the current government has not kept its promise to reinstate a lifetime pension for injured veterans and why it is fighting in court veterans who are trying to seek access to those benefits.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the minister's mandate letter and as indicated in budget 2017, we are committed to bringing forward a pension-for-life option for our brave men and women. The details of that will be made available before the end of this year.

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her compassionate speech. Unfortunately, that is not the topic being debated today.

Members of the government, the team across the way, keep attacking the former government by saying that it did nothing for the Canadian Forces for 10 years. I would remind my colleagues about the C-17 Globemasters, the C-130 Hercules and the Cyclone helicopters that are being built, and the LAV 6 given to infantry troops. Is that nothing? I could go on. We are being accused of doing nothing, but we contributed arms. This government is currently cutting $12 billion from the procurement budget.

Let us come back to the issue of the minister. The purpose of this day is to talk about the problems with the Minister of National Defence. Earlier, my colleague talked about being honest. When has the minister been honest through all he is accused of having done in the past year and a half? When the CF-18s were being withdrawn, he said that the Iraqis said nothing about it, but that is not true. What is honest about making up the capability gap? What is so honest about calling himself the architect of Operation Medusa? Why did he do that?

Opposition Motion—Minister of National DefenceBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Liberal

Sherry Romanado Liberal Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his service. It was truly a pleasure working with him on the Standing Committee on National Defence before I was appointed parliamentary secretary.

The member said that we keep attacking the previous government. I did no such thing in any parts of my speech. In fact, I even said that several governments did not invest in the Canadian Armed Forces. I did not attack anyone as that is not my way.

With respect to the $12 billion in cuts, they never happened. We reallocated $8.48 billion to a procurement fund. That does not mean that we made cuts.

What it means is that we have parked that money for when the assets are available. The money has not been cut. I urge my colleague across the way to wait for the defence policy review to become public, and then we can have a conversation.

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motionCanada Labour CodeGovernment Orders

4:45 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the consideration of certain amendments to Bill C-4, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, the Public Service Labour Relations Act, and the Income Tax Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

Bill C-44—Notice of time allocation motionBudget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 1Government Orders

4:50 p.m.

Waterloo Ontario

Liberal

Bardish Chagger LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister of Small Business and Tourism

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-44, an act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017, and other measures. Not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.