Debates of April 5th, 2022

Questions Passed as Orders for Returns

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Bill C‑215—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 22 by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader regarding Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière.

During his intervention, the parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-215 seeks to increase the maximum number of weeks during which sickness benefits can be paid, which would entail a new and distinct charge to the consolidated revenue fund. He pointed out that, as there is currently no statutory authority or appropriation authorizing this new and distinct charge, a royal recommendation is required, as required by the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Standing Orders of the House.

As indicated in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 838, “Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.”

I have carefully studied Bill C-215. It would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act in order to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 to 52 to weeks. It seems clear, therefore, that the bill seeks to increase the duration of the period of employment insurance benefits.

The Chair has already ruled on questions similar to the one that concerns us today. It was effectively the case in rulings on almost identical bills in 2006 and 2021.

In the ruling of April 15, 2021, on Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), found at page 5691 of Debates, the Chair also indicated that the bill had to be accompanied by a royal recommendation since it sought to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50.

In light of the analysis of the bill standing in the name of the member for Lévis—Lotbinière and the precedents cited, the Chair is of the opinion that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum number of weeks during which benefits can be paid in the event of an illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 52, Bill C-215 would entail an increase in public spending in a way and to an end that is not currently authorized. As a result, the Chair concludes that it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House at the third reading stage.

Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the end of the second reading debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Royal Recommendation for Bill C‑237—Speaker's Ruling

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I am now ready to rule on the points of order raised on March 1, 22 and 28 by the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader and the member for La Prairie regarding Bill C‑237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act, standing on the Order Paper in the name of the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

During his intervention, the sponsor of Bill C‑237 argued that it entails no new expense and does not change the transfer amounts or its purpose nor does it change the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. He continued by saying that all C‑237 does is reduce federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions.

The member added that his bill seeks to exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the application of the Canada Health Act. The member for La Prairie added to these arguments that a bill that amends a condition or qualification of an existing act should be accompanied by a royal recommendation only if that amendment entails an increase in these costs or changes the purpose, which he argued is not the case with C‑237.

For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader argued that the bill seeks to eliminate conditions and qualifications associated with the legislative spending power enacted by the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. He thus contended that a new royal recommendation is needed for the purposes of the Canada Health Transfer to the provinces as proposed by Bill C-237. I reviewed the bill and I have reached the following conclusions concerning this impact on the royal recommendation.

Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subject in order to receive the Canada Health Transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act.

The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament.

On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states:

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Consequently, the Chair will decline to put the question at the third reading stage of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate.

I thank all members for their attention.

Opposition Motion—Spending on national defence

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

moved:

That, given that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) alliance has made an immeasurable contribution to peace, security, and prosperity for all its members, the House call on the government to increase spending on national defence to at least two per cent of Canada's gross domestic product, in accordance with NATO's 2014 Wales Summit Declaration.

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.

The world as we see it today is a violent place. We have entered a new stage in great power competition, where those great powers seek to maximize their influence on a global scale. The once-great superpower of the United States is now in a strategic competition with China and, to a much lesser extent, Russia. We have seen the traditional great powers of France, the United Kingdom, Germany and Japan, which supported the rules-based world order, under pressure from both Russia and China and regional rogue states such as North Korea and Iran.

I can remember when people said that there would never again be a war in Europe after the end of the Cold War. It was wishful thinking. No sooner had people uttered those words than we saw the Yugoslav civil war, Kosovo, the Georgian war, the Azerbaijan-Armenia war, the Russian seizure of Crimea, the Donbass, and now the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. Today, we are witnessing the largest ground war we have seen in Europe since World War II.

Russia was once a superpower, and is now a great power in slow decline. It is a Eurasian land power with residual air and sea capabilities, and it has the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. Russia has successfully developed hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles that are geared to defeat western missile defences, and it has weapons that are geared to destroy American port cities and flood them with radiation.

The goal of its government and Vladimir Putin is to put the old Russian empire back together with the Soviet empire’s borders. The threat of a new USSR threatens the Balkans, the Baltic states and Poland directly. In the past month, we have seen a Russian army of over 200,000 men invade Ukraine in a ghastly war that has created millions of refugees and tens of thousands of casualties, with no end in sight. We are seeing evidence of a number of potential war crimes in the path of the Russian invasion and retreat in the north of Ukraine.

The People’s Republic of China is a superpower on the rise. Time will tell the outcome of its strategic competition with the U.S. and its allies. It is important to note that the only successful drive for power between great powers and the international system was the transfer of power between the United Kingdom and the United States in 1945. It is very unlikely that we will see a peaceful transition of power this time around.

China has the world’s largest army, and it is well equipped. China now has the world’s largest navy. It is a blue-water navy with frigates, destroyers, cruisers and amphibious ships. The newest variants of those warships are as capable as their western equivalents. China has two aircraft carriers and a third under construction. The country's first two aircraft carriers are of limited capability, but the third, which is currently under construction, is as large as a Nimitz-class U.S. aircraft carrier. China maintains a large air force and has started to produce fifth-generation fighter aircraft similar to the F-35. While China’s strategic deterrent remains small, it is geared for deterrence and there are signs that China has recently constructed 500 new silos to house new missiles. In the next few years, China could have one of the largest arsenals of nuclear weapons.

China has also developed hypersonic cruise and ballistic missiles, anti-ship ballistic missiles and air launch ballistic missiles. It maintains one of the largest missile inventories in the world, if not the largest. Many are dual-purpose, with either nuclear or conventional warheads geared to threaten, and if necessary overwhelm and destroy, their neighbours, while their strategic deterrent prevents the U.S. from intervening on their behalf.

We have watched China creep into the territory of its neighbours in the South China Sea. It has created artificial militarized islands and seized the possessions of others. We have seen China threaten India, seize land that has been Indian territory since the 1940s and set up communities in the territories of Bhutan and Nepal. It is engaged in genocide against the Uighur people. This past summer, China conducted a test of a fractional orbit bombardment system, where it launched an intercontinental ballistic missile to the south. The rocket popped out over South America, went into a fractional orbit, and flew north of the north pole. This is especially concerning, as it was very hard to detect: North America's missile defence and early warning system face north, with no coverage to the south.

Rogue states such as North Korea are building one of the largest inventories of missiles in the world. They are developing nuclear weapons, and we may see a North Korean nuclear test in the very near future. North Korea's intercontinental ballistic missiles are believed to be able to reach just west of Ottawa, and it too is experimenting with hypersonic weapons. The North Koreans are close to developing an effective submarine-launched ballistic missile, and they have one of the world’s largest armies. The opacity of North Korean decision-making and the rationality of its leadership make it a threat to its neighbours and to North America in general.

Iran, the most powerful country in the Middle East, is on the verge of developing nuclear weapons. It has missiles for deployment and uses a network of about 22 proxy militias to terrorize its neighbours and Israel. Iranian militias are active in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and much of the Middle East, including the Palestinian general authority.

Maybe Canadians watching are wondering what all this has to do with Canada. Maybe, up until a month ago, they thought the same about Ukraine, but I am here to tell them and the House that the world is an unsafe place and there is evil in our midst. The best way to avoid war is to prepare for it. The only way to deter an opponent is by being strong and being determined. That is why we are members of NATO, NORAD and the Five Eyes. Neutrality is not really an option for Canada, and we cannot take our own security for granted anymore. We can no longer assume that others will look out for Canada unless Canada pays its fair share and looks out for itself.

Today’s opposition motion before the House ahead of the coming budget is to say to the government that it is time to pay up and purchase the equipment we need for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. There have been enough back-slapping platitudes and word salads. We must live up to our shared NATO commitment of spending 2% of GDP on defence. The Canadian forces have been allowed to decline by the government over the past seven years.

We are on the precipice and we are standing into danger. The government has a choice: to increase spending to meet the NATO required 2% or not. I know the Liberals' political dance partners in the NDP believe that 2% is an arbitrary number, but in fact that is the number the Government of Canada signed up for in the 2014 NATO Wales Summit declaration. Right now, the government could do itself and Canadians a big favour and sign the contract with a firm delivery schedule for the F-35s. The government knows only too well that there is no negotiation and no refinement of numbers. As a consortium member, we get the F-35 at the exact same price as the United States. It is not going to be any cheaper. There are no negotiations: the price is fixed. It is fixed by the fiscal year we buy them in. Let us sign the deal and get on with it.

We also need Arctic icebreakers, and we need them now. Russia has 40 Arctic icebreakers, 20 nuclear and 20 conventional, a string of bases across the north and a specialized northern brigade. The Russian fleet in the North Sea is its main naval strike force. It is the home of the bulk of its strategic missile-carrying submarine fleet. It is from the north that Russian bombers cross the Arctic Ocean and approach North America, and where they conduct fire drills from what are called fireboxes off our air defence zones.

What does Canada have in the north? It does not have very much on a permanent basis, save our rangers, a reserve company and Alert. The F-35 is a start. Arctic ice breakers are a start, but we need new submarines that can go under the ice and stay under the ice, and those could be nuclear-powered submarines. We need surface warships, and we need them soon. We need to cut steel on an off-the-shelf design that has been proven. We need to expand our ranger program and rebuild our army. Canada needs to replenish its war stocks of modern anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles, and provide the same to Ukraine in military aid.

The government’s sole accomplishment on the defence file today is buying used, obsolete Australian fighter planes that we did not need. When Prime Minister Harper’s government was in power, Canada bought C-17s, C-130Js, Leopard 2 main battle tanks, LAV armoured fighting vehicles and Chinook helicopters.

Enough is enough. Surely the men and women of the Canadian Forces deserve the best equipment. These are dangerous jobs. These are our countries' best citizens and our most selfless citizens. Otherwise, the verdict of history on the current government is going to be both too little and too late.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

It is pretty clear that there needs to be more investment in the Canadian Armed Forces. The 2% target was set during an international agreement with people from NATO and it is reasonable.

However, there are a lot of questions about procurement and many concerns about wasting public money. I would like my colleague's opinion on that.

We only have to look at the saga with the fighter jets that were cancelled in 2015. The Liberals promised they would never buy them, but now they announce that they are doing just that. If those jets had been purchased several years ago, they may have been less expensive.

We can also think of the submarines. It makes no sense to buy four used submarines, one of which caught on fire. That claimed the life of one of our soldiers. What is more, if only one submarine had been purchased, it might still be operational.

I would like my colleague to tell us what can be done to improve the way public funds are managed. Is there a way we could pass a budget and depoliticize the procurement process? Could we entrust this to professionals to prevent it from becoming a promise made by a politician during an election campaign to win votes?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my hon. friend on all his points, because there is a lot of waste in procurement. It is overpoliticized with this government. It needs to be streamlined.

We streamlined the procurement process when we were in Afghanistan. Canada showed it can be done. Once we withdrew, it became more complicated all over again. In the last seven years, the Liberal government has spent $865 million, and it spent another billion on used aircraft from Australia, only to get us back to the F-35s, which were the best choice all along for our needs here in Canada.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, according to the Parliamentary Budget officer, for Canada to meet that 2% of NATO spending that the Conservatives are calling for, we would have to spend an additional $54 billion to $56 billion annually on defence, which is approximately double what we spend now.

Can the member clarify which government programs the Conservatives would cut in order to justify that increase in spending?

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am thankful for working alongside my friend on the Standing Committee on National Defence, where we usually get along very well.

The 2% is a pledge we made, and we should meet our commitment. We should be moving toward it and we should meet it. We have already semi-committed to the F-35s, although the minister said in the House that they are still working on it and the other minister said it is a done deal, so I am a little confused on that file. What I do know is we are in desperate need, and my friend knows this as well, being on the defence committee. We are understaffed and underequipped, and we need to fix it now.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague about the Cormorant helicopter fleet, because that is another category where the government has been dragging its feet. It initially budgeted to upgrade and repair the 14 helicopters back in 2017, but it seriously underbudgeted for that project. Those helicopters are essential for our air and sea rescue operations, and I am wondering if my hon. colleague could comment on this further foot-dragging by the Liberal government.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, of course that is kind of the name of the game: the government dragging its feet when it comes to procurement and paying attention to what we need in search and rescue equipment for our military. Right now we have a retention and recruitment problem, and yet we are offering new recruits old equipment, which is equipment that literally may not work and might put their lives in danger. One of the best tools for recruitment and retention is to get the tools we need. Our SAR personnel are the best in the world, and they deserve the best equipment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been looking forward to joining the debate on this motion. As a former member of the military, I understand the importance of adequate funding for national defence and the importance of Canada's role on the international stage.

The purpose of the debate is to bring all parliamentarians to a clear consensus on our defence posture. The motion specifically calls for an increase in the defence budget to reach the NATO target. However, we also need to find another time to discuss the state of the troops and lack of members. There is a reason for all that, but we will come back to it another day.

From the outset, I must say that the Liberals' rhetoric about military spending has never translated into concrete action, and that is very disappointing. Most frightening is this recent partnership between the Liberal Party and the NDP socialists. It is no secret that the NDP has never been in favour of a healthy and well-funded Canadian military. Under a NDP government, the Canadian Armed Forces' budget would basically be eviscerated. As a result of this romance between the Liberals and the NDP, there is uncertainty among our troops across the country and abroad.

When Russia invaded Ukraine, all NATO partners were again challenged to meet or maintain the defence spending requirement of 2% of GDP, 20% of which must be allocated to military equipment. This renewed commitment had actually been discussed at the 2014 NATO summit in Wales, in response to Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea and the unrest in the Middle East at that time. NATO leaders agreed to reverse the downward trend in defence spending and decided that the allies already meeting the 2% guideline on defence spending would strive to continue doing so and that the allies spending less than 2% of their GDP on defence would strive to increase that spending in real terms within 10 years.

That commitment was made in 2014, and now, eight years later, Canada ranks 25th out of the 30 NATO countries in terms of military spending. NATO's latest annual report shows that Canada spent just 1.36% of its GDP on the army and new defence equipment in 2021.

In contrast, the Conservative Party of Canada declared in its policy statement that a Conservative government will work towards spending at least the NATO recommended 2% of our GDP on national defence. Furthermore, in our latest platform, in 2021, we said, “Canada’s Conservatives will renew Canada’s commitment to NATO by increasing spending on national defence to move closer to our 2% aspirations”.

The large-scale invasion of Ukraine by Russia, accompanied by mounting evidence of war crimes in full view of anyone on social media, clearly gives Canada good reason to considerably increase its defence spending.

There is no doubt that Canada's biggest challenge has always been its procurement system, which involves too many departments and not enough political responsibility. This system essentially created a bottleneck that prevents even the current budget increase from being spent effectively. The lack of political leadership keeps projects from moving quickly. Every independent procurement expert who testified before our committees has said as much.

According to the most recent public accounts, $1.2 billion of 2021 defence spending was not invested, despite the fact that the Liberal's 2015 election platform explicitly states, “We will not let Canada’s Armed Forces be shortchanged, and we will not lapse military spending from year to year.” However, last month the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a report detailing how the Liberals are constantly pushing spending to coming years. In other words, the Liberals have consistently broken their promise to invest in new equipment.

To be honest, when the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” defence policy was published in 2017, I was impressed. During a meeting of the Standing Committee on National Defence, at the time, I remember saying to the chief of the defence staff and the Minister of Defence that 80% of what was in the white paper advocated a Conservative approach. I asked how they were going to fund it. The told me that the decision was not theirs to make. We saw what happened next.

At the same time, Canada's defence policy entitled “Strong, Secure, Engaged” demonstrates how the Liberals calculate defence investments so as to meet NATO criteria. It is as though they are comparing this year's 1.34% with the Conservatives' percentage, which the Liberals estimate at just under 1%. We need to compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges.

The Liberals added elements to the NATO calculations. There are ongoing discussions about applying the same yardstick. Certain elements have been included, such as payments made to veterans. They were not part of the NATO calculations, nor were peacekeeping and humanitarian operations, defence-related IT support, centrally funded defence personnel expenditures, or support for defence programs.

The Liberals took a look and, anywhere they saw the word “defence” or “veteran”, they decided they would take that and put it all together to inflate the percentage so they could say that they are doing more. That is the big difference between what was done by the Conservatives at the time, in other words, real and actual defence work, and the other things that the Liberals picked at here and there.

We know that the Liberals are sneakily trying to cover up their failure. However, Canadians are not fools. They see what the Liberals are doing. The only major project that the Liberals have completed in nearly seven years is buying a bunch of rusted-out CF-18s from Australia for $360 million. We congratulate them on that.

With regard to Ukraine, Canada can and must do more. We have a lot of surplus military vehicles that could be dispatched around the clock with our C-17s. However, the government has not indicated whether it has even considered such action. We could also call upon third parties to buy air defence equipment, such as Stinger missiles or drones and send them to Ukraine. Once again, the senior officials who appeared before the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates repeatedly suggested that these ideas are not even being considered right now.

Furthermore, all military purchases under this Liberal government are or have been delayed. For example, when will Canada sign the notorious F-35 contract? We have been in the consortium for decades. Why do we have to wait seven months to enter into dialogue with Lockheed Martin? We have already been talking to them for quite a while now. In addition, when will construction on the polar icebreakers begin? Why is the Davie shipyard still not officially part of the national shipbuilding strategy? What is this government waiting for? How are we going to protect Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic? The NORAD alert system is totally obsolete. Has the government considered purchasing airborne warning and control system aircraft? What are we doing to speed up the procurement process? What is the status of the submarine replacement program?

In addition, this partnership between the Liberals and the NDP is a pretty good indication that this government is unlikely to increase investments in the Canadian Armed Forces in the short term. Indeed, how many times have we heard NDP statements or resolutions calling for Canada to withdraw completely from NATO?

When we, the Conservatives, were in power, we finalized the purchase of five C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, 17 CC-130J Hercules transport aircraft, 15 Chinook helicopters and some Leopard 2 tanks. We modernized the CP-140 Aurora surveillance aircraft and the Halifax class frigates. We approved the construction of the Asterix auxiliary supply ship, which the Liberals tried to cancel at their first cabinet meeting in 2015, despite Admiral Norman's objections. We established the national shipbuilding strategy, which, despite all its problems, is finally starting to produce some ships, such as the Coast Guard's science vessels and the Arctic offshore patrol ships.

The Conservative government has always taken the need to provide adequate funding to our Canadian Armed Forces seriously, whereas the Liberals are known for spewing empty rhetoric. I will close by saying this. Let us do better in military procurement, let us be efficient and let us ensure we have the means to do so.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention today. I know that when he and I were on the defence committee together a number of years ago, I believe it was in 2016 or 2017, the defence committee had brought forward a report that had a recommendation in it. It was the opinion of the committee at the time to increase defence spending to 2% of GDP, notwithstanding the fact that there can be a lot of complications with respect to that 2%, because not every country calculates it the same way.

Can the member comment on what, if any, work the committee has done since my time with him on that committee in terms of making any further recommendations around this issue?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

I am no longer a member of the Standing Committee on National Defence, so I am not completely up to date on all the reports that have been produced over the past five years, but the fact remains that the 2% issue keeps coming up. Something tangible needs to be done. The budgets have been lacking the past few years. For example, there is the “Strong, Secure, Engaged” policy. The committee can say what it wants, and it makes recommendations in its reports that are often quite good, but the government never follows through.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is some catching up to do when it comes to equipment. My colleague talked about that. The national shipbuilding strategy is very costly and is experiencing near‑record delays.

Would immediately fast-tracking the inclusion of a third shipyard be a solution not only to improve this 2%, but also to increase youth engagement in our naval force and in shipbuilding?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. Everything having to do with defence forms a big circle. Having operational resources and good, modern equipment encourages young people to enrol in the Canadian Forces and serve their country.

I doubt that 17- or 18-year-olds are reassured by what is happening with the jets and the ships. They are not sure what is going to happen. Eventually, they will decide to do something else with their life.

An acquaintance of mine, who had dual French and Canadian citizenship and wanted to be a pilot, decided to return to France after seeing the state of the F‑18s compared to France's aircraft. Now he is piloting French jets. That just proves that we really do not have anything to offer that would appeal to young Canadians, unfortunately.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles has missed a couple of things. I know he was only elected in 2015, so he missed the fact that the Conservatives let defence spending drop to its lowest level since the 1930s while they were in government. He seems to have missed that the NDP has voted for every increase in military spending since 2016. He also seems to have missed that the NDP changed its policy on NATO nearly 30 years ago.

I wonder if the hon. member would like to explain how the Conservatives have gone from taking defence spending to its lowest level ever to now endorsing an arbitrary doubling of defence spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question. Those were different times. Let us not forget Afghanistan and spending on the operation in Afghanistan. The equipment I mentioned in my speech was purchased by the Conservatives to quickly meet an urgent need to support the troops.

Ask anyone who was in the Canadian Armed Forces when the Conservative government was in power if they were ashamed to serve their company, and no one would say they were. The military knew very well that the Conservative government was there to support them to the fullest extent, and that it could react quickly and send in the operational equipment that was needed on the ground. That is more important than any speech.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank and congratulate my colleague for the good work that he does at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and on this type of national security file.

I filled in for my colleague once at a committee. At that meeting, we learned that contracts to upgrade radar systems in the Canadian Arctic had not been awarded.

Are there concerns about the government's refusal to upgrade radar systems in the Canadian Arctic?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. The Arctic is an immense and complex area that requires surveillance. Essentially, that requires an effective radar system. At present, the radar system in place is outdated. The government has stated that it has invested more than $600 million, but that is for standard maintenance. It is not deploying any new equipment. The U.S. is worried and is asking us to do our fair share and invest in equipment in order to provide air and maritime surveillance as quickly as possible.

[Bryan May, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Don Valley West this morning.

I rise in the House to talk about the progress we have made in implementing Canada's defence policy of Strong, Secure, Engaged. When we first released SSE back in 2017, we provided a comprehensive list of capital projects, policies and procedures to ensure that our military could meet our biggest defence and security threats now and into the future. To help fund these items, SSE also forecasted a steady increase in defence spending from $18.9 billion in 2017-18 to $32.7 billion in 2026-27. That is an increase of 70% to our defence spending. Even prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, Russia's unprovoked war in Ukraine and the myriad of other defence and security challenges we have faced over the past five years, we were already on track to increase defence spending by more than 70%.

While SSE remains our main guide for making sure CAF members are well supported and well equipped, the evolving global security environment has underscored just how important and urgent our investments in defence are. That is why, as both the Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence have indicated, we will be further increasing our investments in defence, including a comprehensive spending package going toward continental defence.

With that in mind, I want to give the House an update on the progress that DND has made in implementing this policy so far, and on the work that we are doing to safeguard our country and continent and support our allies and partners in good times and in bad. Key to these efforts is having a well-supported, resilient workforce that feels safer coming to work every day. When DND launched SSE in 2017, it included several critical initiatives aimed at supporting CAF members and their families throughout their entire careers. This included developing a total health and wellness strategy with the goal of supporting defence team members' mental and physical well-being at all times.

I am pleased to note that National Defence launched this strategy earlier last month. Over the next several years, it will invest more than $950 million to enhance health and wellness programs and services for defence team members, including expanding the Office of Disability Management by adding more regional offices across the country, providing personalized support services to injured, ill and impaired public service employees, and improving care for Canadian Armed Forces members who are recovering from an illness or injury. Through SSE, National Defence has also done important work expanding the services offered to military families through military family resource centres, and has helped address the challenges that come with a life in uniform through the seamless Canada initiative, which helps to address gaps in service when military families are posted across the country and must navigate new school systems, careers and health care settings.

These are just a couple of the initiatives in SSE aimed at supporting defence team members and their families. We know that Canada's position in the world and our safety and security here at home come down to the well-being of those who serve in it. All that we do, from procurement to health care to cultural change, must be focused on the people who put service before self, the members of our Canadian Armed Forces.

At the same time, we know that our people in uniform need the right equipment to do the difficult jobs that we ask of them. They need state-of-the-art fit-for-purpose tools that can meet the challenges of modern warfare across all domains. In SSE, National Defence outlined over 300 capital projects critical to our military success and our continued interoperability with allies and partners for decades to come. While the COVID-19 pandemic has certainly contributed to project delays and supply chain disruptions, we remain committed to delivering on these projects, providing the very best equipment for our people in uniform while ensuring Canada's economy benefits from our defence investments.

Despite the challenges of the past few years, we are making progress. In fact, since 2017, 75% of the policy's capital projects, which is 258 projects, are in the implementation phase, near completion or completed. Several high-profile projects kept moving forward even as much of the world shut down.

Just last week, the Minister of Public Service and Procurement and the Minister of National Defence announced that Canada was moving into the finalization phase of the future fighter competition with Lockheed Martin and the U.S. government. If an agreement is successfully reached, Canada could see initial aircraft deliveries as early as 2025. This is the most significant investment in the Royal Canadian Air Force in over 30 years, so we have been taking the time. We need to get this right and ensure that we are purchasing the right jet with the right value for CAF and Canadians.

We have taken the same careful, considered approach to building our fleet of Arctic and offshore patrol ships for the Royal Canadian Navy. The first of these ships, HMCS Harry DeWolf, has already participated in missions like Operation Nanook and Operation Caribbe, and has transited through the Panama Canal. It also recently completed a circumnavigation of North America, the first Royal Canadian naval ship to do so since 1954. The second ship, HMCS Margaret Brooke, has completed the ship's icebreaking and Arctic environmental trials and will return to Arctic waters to participate in the maritime portion of Operation Nanook this summer. The third, fourth and fifth AOPS are in various stages of construction, with the construction of the sixth AOPS expected to begin later this year.

As we deliver on these critical projects for our navy and air force, we are also delivering on our promise to provide the Canadian army with a fleet of 360 armoured combat support vehicles. These vehicles have been designed to replace our current fleet of LAV II Bison and M113 tracked LAV fleet. They are more mobile with longer operational range, better equipped to conduct operations at night and in bad weather and safer for our people in uniform, offering improved protection against weapons and explosives. The first of these vehicles are expected to be delivered to the Canadian army later this year.

The investments under Canada's defence policy ensure that we deliver the equipment, infrastructure and innovation to help our military advance our national security objectives and interests. However, they are also critical to our national prosperity, resilience and economic well-being. As the largest federal employer, National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have a significant presence in every province and territory, so investing in defence also means creating more jobs and generating economic benefit for communities from coast to coast to coast. These investments also mean that we are better positioned to support our allies and partners across the globe, including those under threat from Russian aggression.

Through SSE, we are committed to remaining engaged in the world now and into the future. We are supporting Ukraine in its fight for freedom and self-governance, standing shoulder to shoulder with our NATO allies on Operation Reassurance and Operation Impact, both of which we recently extended, and deploying wherever and whenever CAF support can make a difference. In times of global uncertainty, we know that our mutual relationships are even more important, and our SSE investments will help us remain effective and a reliable, stable partner within NORAD and NATO for decades to come.

When we launched Strong, Secure, Engaged back in 2017, we made sure that it was flexible enough to deal with a rapidly evolving defence and security environment. This means that while there are certain challenges that DND and CAF could not have anticipated, chiefly the global pandemic, they have remained ready to respond and had the flexibility to adjust timelines accordingly. As we continue discussing ways to increase defence spending, this policy will remain our government's road map, enabling us to strengthen our defences here at home and help uphold peace and security across the globe.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask again about the Cormorant helicopter fleet. My understanding is that these helicopters are reaching their end of life. We are having to cannibalize parts from other helicopters to keep them in the air. They were essential in the search and rescue operations during the floods in British Columbia last summer, and they are a key factor in our air and sea search and rescue operations. Some 360 jobs would come from the upgrading and refurbishment of these helicopters, yet they were budgeted for in 2017 and nothing has happened. Fixing these helicopters would cost about $1.4 billion and would go a long way in helping us meet our NATO target of 2%.

Could the member comment on that specific project?

[Bryan May, Liberal, Cambridge, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the safety of our personnel is always top of mind and the RCAF has a robust flight safety program. We know that we need to move forward in looking at a procurement project for these. As the member spoke about, cracks were discovered on the tail of the Cyclone helicopter undergoing a recent maintenance inspection. We know that we need to maintain safe equipment for all members of CAF, and we will make sure that all equipment is capable before it is used.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague spoke about the importance of securing the supply chain, which has been weakened during the pandemic.

I would like to talk about something that is very important for Quebec. The government is set to spend a huge amount of money on F-35s, but there is no guarantee of any industrial or technological benefits. Quebec accounts for more than 50% of Canada's aerospace industry.

When will the member's government adopt a real aerospace policy that recognizes the importance of this sector, in particular in Quebec? This could help secure our supply chain.