Debates of May 8th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Minister of National Defence

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

My sincere apologies, Madam Speaker.

At the time these aircraft were acquired in the early 1980s, the government bought 138 fighters, with a plan to fly them for 20 years, yet here we are today, over 30 years later, and we are still flying these jets. The passage of time and usage has taken its toll on these aircraft, and our original fleet is now reduced from 138 to 76 airplanes.

There is no question that the women and men of the Royal Canadian Air Force have done and continue to do great work with the resources they have been given. The Canadian Armed Forces is also doing a tremendous job risk-managing our ability to simultaneously meet our NORAD and NATO commitments with the current fighter fleet. However, the reality is that we now face a capability gap in meeting these commitments. The challenge is that the older planes are less reliable and are more difficult to maintain. Maintenance hours relative to operational available hours have increased significantly, and to keep the aircraft both operationally capable and safe for our pilots, they must regularly be removed from the flight line more often to be serviced.

Maintenance of any aircraft is important, and unquestionably, the government will continue to apply additional resources to the CF-18s and is doing so now. Even with the application of additional resources, there comes a point at which the risk becomes too great for the government to accept. If we do not move quickly to supplement and replace our fighter capability, we will be left with limited flexibility to respond to both domestic and world events and limited capability to fulfill our multilateral obligations.

We have been clear that the risk of relying solely on a more than 30-year-old fighter fleet is one our government is not willing to accept. To be a reliable partner and ally, Canada must ensure that we meet our NORAD and NATO commitments. Canada's fighter capability now and in the future must be able to defend Canada, defend North America, in partnership with the U.S., and support international operations. There can be no debate. We must act now to ensure the current and future viability of our fighter fleet.

As this government announced on November 22, we are taking a three-step approach to addressing the capability gap.

First, we announced that we will launch an open and transparent competition to replace the CF-18s. Given the time it will take to conduct such a competition to acquire a permanent fleet, we must also explore an interim solution to supplement our current CF-18 fleet. That is why, on the same day, it was announced that we would explore the potential acquisition of 18 new Super Hornet aircraft to supplement the current CF-18s for an interim period, until the transition to the permanent replacement aircraft is complete.

As part of this exploration, we are in discussions with the United States government and Boeing--

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I apologize for interrupting the hon. member. On a point of order, the hon. member for Calgary Shepard.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I have been listening for the last three minutes to the member talk about procurement and Super Hornets. I would remind the member that Standing Order 11(2) states that members stay relevant to the conversation today. There is an opposition motion before the House. As much as I would love to discuss the failures of the government on procurement, it is not relevant to the discussion today.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I am sure the member knows full well that there is latitude when there is discussion. I am sure that the member is going to get to her point on the opposition day motion. Relevancy has to be part of the discussion. As I mentioned, there is some latitude when members are speaking on specific issues, and I am sure the member will get to that point.

The hon. member for Aurora--Oak Ridges--Richmond Hill.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, parliamentarians and the public can rest assured that this government's commitment to addressing the capability gap is unwavering. We will launch an open and transparent competition, and in the meantime, we will continue to explore the acquisition of the Super Hornets to apply additional resources to our CF-18s. The Royal Canadian Air Force and all Canadians can be confident that we will not put our men and women in uniform or our country at undue risk.

As the House is aware, the Government of Canada will soon announce a new defence policy that will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces are prepared to face defence challenges and to contribute to a more stable world, now and into the future. The government will release this new defence policy for Canada in the very near future, and it will deliver on our commitment to achieve Canada's defence objectives and to be unwavering in our support for our men and women in uniform.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, we heard a lot about procurement and Super Hornets, but today's notice of motion is a confidence motion that the House has lost confidence in the minister and his abilities 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.

I listened to the minister speaking here, and there were three versions of descriptions the minister has claimed his role and responsibilities have been. There are three different interpretations from the minister himself, one being that he claimed a key role as an intelligence officer. The second was he talked about being a reservist, working on capacity-building for Afghan police. The third version was that he was an architect of Operation Medusa. What I would like to know from the hon. member is if it is the first, second, or third.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I can safely say that I was not in the room where it happened and that I was neither asked for nor responsible to determine the answer to that question.

However, there was a member of Parliament who is not here but who was responsible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I want to remind the member she should not mention who is in the room and who is not in the room.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a member of Parliament who is charged with that responsibility, and it is his responsibility to ensure that the people he appoints to his cabinet have the qualifications and the confidence of him and the cabinet, and that would be our Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has the confidence and the information to make an informed decision, and then we have the confidence in our Prime Minister.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am just curious. I would like to ask my colleague opposite who wrote her speech for her.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, I was fortunate enough to have a father who served in the Canadian Forces for 36 years, and he retired as a major general. I have a husband who also served as an air force officer. I was also fortunate to attend Royal Military College and I served as an air force officer.

I have friends across the country at all rank levels who both continue to serve or who have been retired for many years. I can safely say that on many occasions they have told me that they have confidence in our country, our government, and the Prime Minister and those whom he has chosen to serve in his cabinet in all roles.

[Sonia Sidhu, Liberal, Brampton South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to point out the great confidence I and so many Canadians have in our Minister of National Defence. I am very proud of the minister's service on behalf of Canada.

It is more important we talk about the work of the minister as the defence minister. Could the member tell the House a bit more about the work happening on the defence file presently, making best policies for our men and women in uniform?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are very fortunate to have a government and a minister who has taken on the responsibility of conducting a comprehensive defence policy review. One has not happened in at least 20 years, if not longer.

I was fortunate enough to be on the team, as a low-level person, when the original white paper was written for defence in 1995. We now have another opportunity to make a comprehensive assessment of exactly where we are in the country on defence, what the requirements are, and what the changing landscape across the globe is. We are in an unprecedented period of change and instability, and we have not seen this kind of tectonic shift and unprecedented challenges for at least 25 or 30 years.

We as a nation have to ensure that we understand what that changing landscape looks like and what the threats are, not only from nations but from non-state actors, and not only from conventional warfare but from cyber-threats, hacking, and asymmetric threats. We are in an unprecedented time of need, and the defence policy review is an important piece for us going forward.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

After listening to my Liberal colleagues for half an hour, I think it is important to reread today's opposition motion because we have heard more about what soldiers will receive, and especially not receive, from the Liberals than we have about today's opposition motion. The motion moved by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman 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.

I want to echo the sentiments of all my colleagues who have thanked Canadian Armed Forces members for helping the people of Gatineau and throughout Quebec who are dealing with unbelievably terrible flooding.

Today, May 8, 2017, we are celebrating the 72nd anniversary of the victory over Hitler's Germany. It is known as Victory in Europe Day, or VE Day. I want to talk about a man who played an important role in that victory. His name is Paul Triquet. He received the Victoria Cross, one of the highest honours in the hierarchy of military medals.

Paul Triquet was from Cabano, a municipality in the riding of Témiscouata, in the Lower St. Lawrence region. He was a Second World War hero who served his country with the Royal 22nd Regiment, among others. He rose through the ranks of the Canadian army and ended his distinguished career as a brigadier general.

He took part in the Italian campaign as a captain in his regiment. He particularly distinguished himself in the attack on Casa Berardi on December 14, 1943. For all he did, he was awarded the Victoria Cross, the highest award for valour in the British army and the Commonwealth. He was also awarded the Legion of Honour, and was the only French Canadian to win the Victoria Cross during the Italian campaign.

Paul Triquet is a hero of the Second World War. His remarks were published in the Bulletin d'histoire politique published by the Association québécoise d'histoire politique. Here is how he described his military career: “By awarding me this decoration, I think the King wanted to recognize the merit of the Canadians in general, and not just one individual.”

That is how a leader in the Canadian Armed Forces behaves. A leader who was awarded this highest honour did not even take credit for that distinction. Instead, he wanted to share the honour with all Canadians who served their country.

I would like to quote another illustrious Second World War figure. After announcing to the world the end of hostilities on the European continent on the BBC, Winston Churchill made two speeches on May 8, 1945 before the crowd in Whitehall Road, in London, celebrating the Allied victory over Nazi Germany.

God bless you all. This is your victory! It is the victory of the cause of freedom in every land. In all our long history we have never seen a greater day than this. Everyone, man or woman, has done their best. Everyone has tried. My dear friends, this is your hour. This is not victory of a party or of any class. It is a victory of the great British nation as a whole.

Did Winston Churchill, who definitely was one of the architects of the Allied victory in the Second World War, take credit for it? No, because a leader does not do that. A leader will give credit for the success of military campaigns to his men, to the men and women who fought for him.

I purposely gave the example of a military man and an elected official because, during a war, elected officials and military forces must trust one another, and this is true in all countries. When an elected official manages the military, this relationship of trust is even more important.

We are here today not to discuss the military past of the Minister of National Defence, but to speak about his role as minister. We want to talk about what he said he did when he was a member of the military. Instead of giving credit to his men, to all the men and women who were there with him, this minister made a choice.

The minister chose to take all the credit for a great Canadian victory in Afghanistan. It seems that he did it twice. The first time was when he was seeking election. He was just getting involved in politics and he realized that he might be able to win a few more votes and even get a spot in cabinet if he took credit for a victory that was not necessarily his own. The second time was when he was minister. That is unacceptable for someone who served in the Canadian Armed Forces and who is now the minister responsible for those same armed forces.

I believe that this is more than just a mistake on the part of the Minister of National Defence. The minister betrayed the trust of the men and women who are currently serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. He betrayed the bond of trust that must unite them with the elected officials responsible for leading them. These elected officials are the ones who are responsible for leading and deciding what tools are needed. They are responsible for deciding what operations our armed forces participate in and making sure they have the right equipment. Unfortunately, if the members of our armed forces no longer trust their minister, the relationship of trust is beyond repair.

I have here a copy of The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics. It may seem that the code is only for members of the military, but that is not the case. Both members of the Canadian Armed Forces and employees of the Department of National Defence are asked to adhere to the same code, since they do business with each other.

Why? Because we know that one day we may have to defend the same issues before the same forum. We must understand one another. If we want our men and women in uniform to adhere to a certain standard within the forces, we must lead by example. The DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics, which I have here, covers this situation.

First of all, the Deputy Minister and Chief of the Defence Staff statement reads as follows:

Canadians rightfully expect the highest ethical behaviour from the people entrusted with the task of ensuring their defence.

Is falsely taking credit for a military operation an example of the highest ethical behaviour?

Chapter 1 on ethics talks about the role of the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces. It talks about the role of ministers, in particular:

Ministers are also responsible for preserving public trust and confidence in the integrity of management and operations of public sector organizations and for respecting the tradition of a professional non-partisan federal public sector, which includes DND, and of the CF. Furthermore, Ministers play a critical role in the ability of DND employees and CF members to provide professional and frank advice.

Once again, the minister should be leading by example. Unfortunately, on at least two separate occasions, including one very specific case where he had to wear two hats, the minister has failed to do this.

When it comes to specific values and expected behaviours of people in the department and in the forces, it says:

DND employees and CF members shall serve the public interest by adhering to the highest ethical standards, communicating and acting with honesty, and avoiding deception.

In the section “Duties and Obligations”, it says:

CF members who are also in a leadership role have a particular responsibility to exemplify the military values of the Canadian Forces and the common values and expected obligations of the DND and CF Code of Values and Ethics.

In closing, I want to quote an article by Denis Ferland in Le Devoir of May 3, “Exaggeration, distortion, fiction, boasting, or outright lying?”

I think that the Prime Minister has to do something about this because it is abundantly clear that the Minister of National Defence is not going to. It is time for him to do the right thing and for the Minister of National Defence to step down in order for this broken bond of trust to be restored.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous and Northern Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I certainly have tremendous trust in the Minister of National Defence, and I want to give a few reasons.

He is the first minister who stepped up and recognized that there needed to be a review of national defence funding and that there needed to be a strategy going forward for our military. He is committed to ensuring this is done. There are $83 billion in investment in new projects for military operations. He signed onto NATO. He has supported our NORAD exercises.

If the member wants to talk about trust, let me ask him this. Why did the Conservative government tell the public it could buy 65 F-35s with $9 billion, when we know today that this is not the case?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer with a question. Can the minister explain how he could dream up a so-called capability gap just so that he could then claim to need to change the contract and buy Super Hornets, all without a bidding process?

In my speech, I spoke of only two incidents that I believe jeopardize the trust that members of the Canadian Armed Forces have in the minister. However, now, the member has prompted me to question the trust that exists between the minister and the Canadian public because, not only did he exaggerate his role in Afghanistan, but he also made up facts to justify the action he is taking in his capacity as minister.

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

Madam Speaker, I was surprised by what my colleague said about what he believes to be a non-existent capability gap. He knows that we have an aging fleet of fighter jets that is over 30 years old. When the Conservatives were in office, they put off doing anything about the fighter jet procurement contract. It is a priority if we want to meet our obligations to Canadians by upholding Canada's sovereignty and defending North America with NORAD and NATO.

We made a commitment in the new defence policy statement that we would ensure that the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces have the training and equipment they need to meet their obligations. That is a must.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind members that if they have questions to ask, they should stand as opposed to yelling them across.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I believe that the parliamentary secretary should be careful about what he says in order not to find himself on the same slippery slope as the Minister of National Defence.

Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, commander of the air force, told the Standing Committee on National Defence:

...there is sufficient capacity to support a transition to a replacement fighter capability based on the ongoing projects and planned life extension to 2025 for the CF-18.

Once again, sadly, it is probably the Minister of National Defence who wrote the talking points for the parliamentary secretary because he is repeating the same alternative facts.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

Madam Speaker, this is not about his service. It is not about the $12 billion that you just cut from the military.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I would ask the member to address his question to the Chair. I did not cut any money to the military.

[Bev Shipley, Conservative, Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, ON]

It is not about the $12 billion that were cut from the military budget, Madam Speaker. This is about the credibility of a defence minister, who took the responsibility of others. He took it from them. He fabricated, not made a mistake, twice to build his own empire.

Is there a reason why the Liberals, at this stage, will not answer the question, other than to talk about the minister's service record, with which we agree?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my answer will be brief. I find it truly deplorable today that our Liberal colleagues have used members of the Canadian military to defend and whitewash the unacceptable actions of the Minister of National Defence, which have been condemned by many in the Canadian Armed Forces. Everyone who knows the military knows that you cannot act this way when you have served in the Canadian Armed Forces.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the motion in front of us today reads, “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”, and has made false statements in the public domain.

I would like to structure my remarks as follows.

First, I would like to prove to my colleagues of all political stripes that the minister has in fact misled the House and why this is a cause for concern in carrying out legislative responsibilities as well as providing the resources and sound decisions that are required to lead Canada's military.

I want to start, as many of my colleagues have, by expressing our deep sense of gratitude and appreciation to all those who have served Canada as part of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is with that thanks that I want to separate out, as my colleague just mentioned, the fact that we are not evaluating the Minister of National Defence based on his service record in the Canadian Armed Forces; we are evaluating his capacity to lead in the position of Minister of National Defence.

First, has the minister in fact misled or misrepresented the House? That evidence is very clear. A lot of time has been spent today talking about his misrepresentation with respect to his role in Operation Medusa. If I have time, I will get back to that. However, it is very important to look at some of the other factors that have led to this motion being put forward in the House. This is not a motion that is made lightly.

I took umbrage with a comment made by the member for Brampton North. She said that the opposition had been trying to downgrade and diminish the reputation of the Minister of National Defence. To be clear, the opposition does not have any issue with the minister's service record prior to entering politics. The minister, in his own role, has diminished and downgraded his reputation. That is why we have the motion in front of the House of Commons today.

In late 2015, the minister said, “I haven't had one discussion about the CF-18s”. This was in The Globe and Mail on December 21, 2015. However, emails sent by officials at the Department of Foreign Affairs state, “the Iraqi Minister of Defence was clearly focused on Canada's decision to withdraw its CF18 fighter jets from the coalition air strikes, asking [the defence minister] to reconsider this decision on numerous occasions...” A month later, the Minister of National Defence said that the Iraqi defence minister was ecstatic with the role Canada was playing. This is a deliberate misrepresentation of facts. This is incident number one where the Minister of National Defence has misled the House.

As well, Liberal budgets under the Prime Minister have cut billions of dollars from our defence budget. Budget 2016 cut $3.7 billion from capital equipment projects and budget 2017 cut $8.48 billion. The only budget increases the Canadian Armed Forces has seen in the past two years have come as a result of the defence escalator, which was a policy put in place under the previous Conservative government.

Under the watch of the Minister of National Defence, the Department of National Defence released classified information regarding Canada's military response to a 9/11-style attack.

There has been so much talk about procurement today, and one of the examples I find absolutely egregious is that in justifying the government's plan to break down its campaign promise and undertake a sole-source purchase of 18 Super Hornet fighter jets, the Minister of National Defence has repeatedly insisted that the RCAF faces a credibility gap. However, Lieutenant-General Michael Hood, commander of the air force, provided a statement to the House Standing Committee on National Defence in which he stated, “there is sufficient capacity to support a transition to a replacement fighter capability based on the ongoing projects and planned life extension to 2025 for the CF-18.”

The comments the minister made about his role in Operation Medusa, when there were so many Canadian Armed Forces members who had a significant impact on actually building that mission out, I think was the straw that broke the camel's back. My concern, now that I have shown a record of how he has mislead the House, is what impact that has on our men and women in uniform.

Much has been made by my colleagues opposite about the defence review. I do not think there is a single person in this House of Commons who is going to stand up and say that the military is where it needs to be in terms of provisioning or funding. We need to do more for the military, and it needs to be done in a very strategic way.

I also feel that there needs to be an entire rethink on how procurement looks, because it is this inertia, this bureaucratic craziness that really requires a lot of goodwill with the public service and a lot of commanding presence to be able to see change. That is something that needs to happen. A lot has been made about the defence review, and so forth, but it is now about the minister's ability to implement those changes.

The member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill wrote her speech for a reason. To me, many of the talking points that were in her speech sounded like what typically happens on a day like this, which is that the departmental staff from whatever department is involved have to spend probably two days writing speeches for government members. Members will notice that she also did not say who wrote her speech. Imagine being the Department of National Defence staff who had to spend the weekend writing speeches to defend the minister's record.

If we push that forward, nobody in this House can argue that there has not been so many former members of the armed forces or people who are in the armed forces right now who are not happy with the situation and who cannot write to members of Parliament or speak out. I could read quote after quote in that regard. How is the minister going to have the political capability, the will, or the social licence within his own department to oversee the changes that he needs to make?

I believe the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill also said that the Prime Minister has full confidence in the minister. If the Prime Minister has full confidence in the minister right now, the Prime Minister's judgment also needs to be called into question. If he cannot look at the minister and say, “I am sure you have had an excellent service record, but this is over 18 months of poor performance in your role as a cabinet minister”, then I think the Prime Minister's judgment also needs to be called into question.

My colleague from Chilliwack raised a question in the House of Commons last week for the Prime Minister with respect to the many other members of the Liberal caucus who have served in the armed forces, and who have both significant operational experience and leadership experience. If the Prime Minister wants to put somebody into the Ministry of National Defence who has a background in our armed forces, he has some people to choose from, such as the former government whip, which I believe is what the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill just said. There are people within his caucus who have this expertise. I do not understand why the Prime Minister and his caucus continue to stand up here and speak from a bunch of talking points on why the minister should have his job after it is very clear that this information has been misleading.

I expected the defence minister to stand up in this House this morning and refute some of the assertions that I had outlined in the front end of my speech, because I know my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman had done that. I expected him to be somewhat contrite, especially with respect to overstating his role in Operation Medusa. Instead, it was this bizarre jumble of talking points, which I think was probably the worst response he could have given in terms of addressing a House of Commons that is essentially assessing his capability to do the job going forward.

Today I had the opportunity to look online at our Department of National Defence and Canadian Forces Code of Values and Ethics. Under section 4 in Annex A, it talks about public sector value, and 4.1 is “Respect for Democracy”, which talks about the importance of the Canadian parliamentary system, and so forth. It states, “Public servants recognize that elected officials are accountable to Parliament, and ultimately to the Canadian people....”

We have seen the Minister of National Defence refuse to allow the House of Commons to debate whether or not we send troops to other areas. Under “Integrity” it states, “integrity is to have unconditional and steadfast commitment to a principled approach to meeting your obligations while being responsible and accountable for your actions.” Why has the minister not done this?

In closing, it is for these reasons that I believe the House should support this motion.