Debates of April 5th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Spending on national defence

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

Mr. Speaker, here we have a Conservative motion. I find it very fascinating for the simple reason that, when I was in the opposition back in 2013, the Conservatives' spending as a percentage of GDP was actually less than 1%. That was in 2013. Now, we have advanced considerably further than that, and we will wait and see what takes place in the budget.

Does the member not agree that there is a bit of irony there, with the Conservative Party saying 2%? Back in 2013, when the Conservatives were in government and I sat in the opposition benches, their spending was actually at less than 1% of the GDP.

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

Mr. Speaker, I began my speech with proverb. I will now begin my answer with another proverb: Only fools never change their mind.

That being said, when we make a decision, whether it is personal, general, political or governmental, we choose one of the best solutions at the time. It may not be the best decision in hindsight, but, under the circumstances, it was the best choice.

Today we are realizing that we made a mistake that we need to correct. Let us not be fools; let us simply correct it.

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

Mr. Speaker, when my hon. colleague spoke, she addressed the sexual misconduct crisis in the military. I sat on the status of women committee when we heard testimony from the incredibly brave, strong women who came forward.

Two per cent is a huge increase, but certainly there are increases to military spending that could happen in terms of support for women: for those survivors of sexual misconduct in the military. Where would the member like to see some of those increases to military spending go for supporting those women?

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

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that we need to support victims of harassment and sexual assault.

We talk a lot about women. They are incredibly strong, they get through it, but the impact, the images and the flashbacks are there for life. Let us also consider the other victims of harassment, bullying and sexual assault we rarely talk about: men. Men can also be victims. All of these people need support.

What we really need is a major change in mentality. Assaulting someone is not being manly, and I will keep my insults to myself.

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

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the MP for Edmonton Strathcona.

Today, I rise in the House to speak to the opposition day motion proposed by the Conservatives about Canada's future defence spending requirements under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. I have much respect for my colleagues, especially the member for South Surrey—White Rock who introduced this motion, with whom I sit on the Standing Committee for National Defence. I have enjoyed working with her thus far; however, I cannot agree with her today.

I want to be very clear and ensure that New Democrats are on the record for being in favour of adequate federal government spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. New Democrats have long pushed for the government to make sure that our troops have the equipment, training and support they need to do the difficult and dangerous work we ask them to undertake. We support upgrading outdated equipment and providing a clear mandate, while also providing a realistic and responsible spending plan to deliver on these goals. We need to make sure funding is adequate to support our national and international roles, but should not adopt an arbitrary target for spending.

Therefore, we cannot support a call for the federal government to increase its defence spending to hit NATO's target of 2% of GDP, as we believe this request from the international military alliance is just that: arbitrary. Members do not have to believe me on this. I will quote Dr. Robert Huebert, associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary, who said:

“Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. We need to have the ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers. They don't mean anything.”

I could also quote Dr. Kimball, associate professor of political science from the University of Laval, who said:

One thing that is clear is that 2% is clearly a political target. Two per cent does not come from any sort of quantitative analysis. It doesn't come from any sort of strategic analysis or anything like that, and I can say that relatively confidently because, in doing my NATO research, I've looked at over 200 pieces of research published on NATO burden sharing—policy papers, books, articles and all of that. The first thing I can say is that 2% is something that politicians created, which defence budgets had to very much react to and try to attain afterwards.

If 2% is arbitrary, why specifically demand that it be spent? The Conservatives are demanding a huge increase in military spending based on an arbitrary political target. Currently, Canada spends $24.29 billion on the Department of National Defence. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, hitting NATO's 2% target would mean spending $54 billion to $56 billion a year on defence.

The PBO recently reported that the Department of Defence struggles with actually spending the current allocation of $24 billion, and it delays planned expenditures until later years. Former Liberal MP and retired general Andrew Leslie commented clearly on this inability for the Department of Defence to spend its full allocation, saying:

The department has a chronic problem with actually using the funds. You can promise the moon and the stars. If you can't get the money out the door, then it's of no value.

The department cannot spend what it has now, so how can the Conservatives expect it to spend double? I do not believe that we should be spending double our current budget, but there are reasons why we should increase defence spending.

We in the House know that the Canadian Armed Forces have a significant recruitment and retention problem, and it is absolutely something the federal government needs to address. Each year, the Canadian Armed Forces must select and train thousands of recruits, and retain a substantial number of its trained personnel to maintain operational readiness.

The CAF comprises approximately 65,800 regular force members, 27,000 reserve force members, 5,200 Canadian rangers and more than 27,000 civilian employees, who support the CAF. At the end of February 2022, we were almost 4,000 people short of the 69,750 funded positions that would make up the CAF's authorized strength. At approximately 37%, the largest portion of DND's budget is allocated for personnel, but of course if it does not have the personnel to pay, it is unable to spend that money that is allocated.

A lack of inclusion is also a major barrier to both retention and recruitment. The CAF must attract, recruit and retain talent that is representative of Canadian society.

New Democrats have called on the government to create and fund a special program within the Canadian Armed Forces aimed at the recruitment of women and under-represented groups, as recommended by the Auditor General in 2016.

In the last Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We studied the horrific problem of sexual misconduct in the armed forces. This has, of course, impacted the CAF's ability to attract and retain individuals. Articles in Maclean's and l'Actualité in 2014 estimated that 1,780 sexual assaults per year occurred in the CAF.

New Democrats continue to call on the Canadian government to fully implement all recommendations of Justice Deschamps's 2015 report. Despite having the Deschamps report, the Justice Fish report and two other reports from the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, this Liberal government has delayed action and stated that it will wait yet again for another report from Justice Arbour. It continues to wait. It continues to make women in the CAF wait, and the solutions are already known.

All women, including women who serve, deserve much better from this government. We need to ensure that women who serve can do so equally. We need to adequately fund the supports for women who serve, and adequately fund the educational programs needed to change the toxic culture within the forces.

I would add that the Canadian Armed Forces must do a better job of responding to mental health issues among its members. This plays a huge role in retention as well, and it is something that the federal government must invest in for its members. On average, the Canadian Armed Forces still lose one serving member per month to death by suicide.

My colleague for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke has a bill, Bill C-206, that would remove self-harm from the military code of conduct as a disciplinary offence. By making this change, the government could show leadership and mark a major shift in attitude and policy on mental health. In addition, it could provide more funds for mental health supports to all forces members. It needs to start by recognizing that although not all injuries are visible, those invisible injuries are injuries all the same.

Again, I say yes to responsible spending for the Canadian Armed Forces, but I return to the question of the arbitrary 2%. If spending was increased to 2%, this would make military spending the largest expenditure of the Government of Canada, even compared with the Canada Health Transfer of $45 billion per year.

I find this a bit strange for a party that touts fiscal responsibility. Why would the Conservatives push so much for such an incredible increase? When the NDP calls for a national pharmacare program, a national child care program or a national dental care program, they scream bloody murder. When we call for the federal government to put money back into the pockets of taxpayers in the form of services and programs, they say that we are being unrealistic, irresponsible and, dare I say, socialists. This increase in spending that the Conservatives are calling for in today's motion is equivalent to a national pharmacare program and a national dental care program combined.

New Democrats certainly agree that Canada needs to spend more on defence to make sure we can meet our international obligations and to make sure the Canadian Forces have the support, training and equipment they need. The war in Ukraine, and the growing tensions around the world, demand that we take a serious approach to upgrading and equipping our military. Our armed forces stationed in Latvia and protecting us at home certainly deserve it. Canada needs to be a force for stability in this increasingly unstable international climate, but I do not think we get there by choosing an arbitrary figure. We must plan efficiently, effectively and reasonably.

Canada can be a stabilizing force by increasing our funding to international humanitarian aid and increasing resources to our diplomatic efforts. We could take a leadership role in fulfilling NATO's goals of creating the conditions for a world free of nuclear weapons. Canada could support the agenda of the NATO Secretary General's Special Representative for Women, Peace and Security with a commitment of additional resources to that agenda, including measures to promote increased recruitment of women in peacekeeping.

We can increase military spending wisely by streamlining our defence procurement system and ensuring that we get better value for our money by ensuring that money is spent domestically. We can invest intelligently by stopping the outsourcing and privatization of Canadian Forces maintenance and repair work: This is work that has traditionally been done by either DND employees or regular serving members. We can provide those stable, public jobs as part of that domestic economic health. We can invest in the programs and services needed by members of the armed forces, such as supports the department used to provide for members to secure affordable housing, family and medical services.

All of this is necessary and is a valid argument for responsible defence spending, but to double the budget based on an arbitrary political figure to simply appear as though we are contributing to the international defence community is unsound, and New Democrats will not support such fiscal folly.

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

Mr. Speaker, Russia has a population of about 145 million people and a GDP of $1.7 trillion. Canada's population is 38 million with a GDP of $2 trillion. Russia spends 4% of its GDP on its military, or about $68 billion. In that context, and in the context about the brutal assault of Russia on Ukraine, does the member not agree that a 2% target is a reasonable target, given the state of the world in which we currently live?

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout my entire speech, I talked about the increase in funding. I talked about smart procurement. I talked about ensuring we have the equipment to fulfill our international role, but 2% is a political and arbitrary figure. I said that repeatedly. It has been said by experts repeatedly. I say yes to planning long term and yes to ensuring that we have what we need to fulfill that international role, but I say no to a political and arbitrary figure.

[Sylvie Bérubé, Bloc, Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned a reasonable spending plan. I think that it is reasonable to devote 2% of the GDP to the army so that it can fill in the gaps in the procurement system, which is slow, and with respect to recruitment, where it is not meeting any of its targets, and personnel retention, which is a major problem.

Can she explain to me why she opposes the 2% of GDP target?

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

Mr. Speaker, again, this is a political and arbitrary figure that has been pulled out of the air. In order to meet what we need to fulfill those international obligations, ensure we are keeping people safe around the world and fill those gaps, we have to spend it in a smart, reasonable and responsible way. We need to absolutely invest in terms of recruitment and retention. We need to ensure that the Armed Forces are moving ahead to provide the educational support, training and equipment. Again, 2% is arbitrary, and that would be up to $56 billion. That is a huge amount of money, and that needs to be done in a very smart, responsible way.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member has indirectly, if not directly at times, referenced, Canada does have an obligation to continue to play a strong leadership role. When we think of NATO as an organization and the role it is playing today in Europe, we can quickly understand why it is so critically important to have faith and to support NATO countries, our allies.

I am wondering if my friend could provide her thoughts on leadership. It is about more than us just speaking. It is also about materializing, and that means supporting our military the best way we can, rather than comparing Canada to other nations. Yes, the member does not want to talk about the hard 2%, but there is an obligation to increase from the low of 1% that it was in 2013. Would she not agree?

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

Mr. Speaker, yes, and through my speech I talked about increasing spending, doing it smartly and doing it in a way that will have significant impacts for the people in the Armed Forces. I also talked about other ways that Canada can play a huge leadership role. In terms of the ending of nuclear weapons, Canada could sign on to the treaty to prohibit nuclear weapons or increase nuclear disarmament. I do not have the exact terminology for that treaty, but these are key ways that we can show leadership. Canada has not signed on yet, and it should.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe for her excellent contribution to this debate. She has been a staunch supporter of our women and men in military for many years. I have learned a great deal from her on this topic.

I would also like to thank the member of Parliament for South Surrey—White Rock for moving this motion, giving us the opportunity to discuss how to support our military and highlight the deplorable state of Canada's military. I am the daughter of a veteran, and the opportunity to stand in this place today and speak about this is vitally important to me.

As my colleague from London—Fanshawe mentioned, New Democrats have always pushed for the government to make sure that our troops have the equipment, training and support they need to do the very difficult and dangerous work we ask them to undertake. New Democrats have always strongly believed that the federal government must play a larger role in supporting the Canadian Armed Forces. We know that we need a military that can work safely, can get the support that they need when they need it and can count on their policies from our government. What we have seen instead is years of cuts from both Conservative and Liberal federal governments.

I have to say that I am somewhat amazed at the audacity, I guess, of the Conservatives standing in the House and talking about support for the military, when we saw very clearly the decimation of spending on the military and the abandonment of our peacekeeping efforts under Stephen Harper's Conservative government. I will speak to that a little bit later on, but I do think it is important to note that we are in a place where our military has not been supported by multiple governments.

Part of the reason that New Democrats believe so strongly in the support of our men and women in the military is because we are the party of working people. We are a party that has always believed that workers have a right and they are entitled to all the tools they need to do their work safely and effectively.

With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces, that becomes more important, as their job is to protect us, to look after Canadians, to hold Canada's place in the world, to protect Canadians during climate emergencies and to protect Canadians during the COVID pandemic. What we saw the armed forces do in Quebec during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic, what we asked them to do, was incredible. If we do not give them the tools to do those jobs, it is a stain on our reputation, on the federal government and on parliamentarians.

One of my colleagues from the NDP caucus has brought forward the argument that she represents many men and women in the military, in the armed forces, who do not have the tools to do some of the things in Canada that we require them to do, so they do not have the tools to do the search and rescue that we ask them to do. She raised the issue in the House earlier today of helicopters and equipment that we are asking the men and women in uniform to repair by creating their own parts because these supplies are so old and so dated that they can no longer get parts. The military is being asked to patch together things so they can do the incredibly difficult work we are asking them to do, which is unsustainable. It is impossible to sustain.

Canada, right now, is looking at the world, the world that changed on February 24. I think we all should be looking at Arctic sovereignty. It is very clear that global climate change is making more of Canada's Arctic accessible and that global powers have their eyes on the Arctic as a place to exploit natural resources.

We have seen what Russian aggression has meant to stability in eastern Europe and the sovereignty of Ukraine. We must be prepared to protect Canada's Arctic from Russia and from other powers that may threaten our sovereignty and our environment. We have to have a plan in place to protect the north, and our armed forces must be that plan. They must be supported to undertake that work.

What do New Democrats want? New Democrats want a military where armed forces members can work safely, can get the support they need when they need it and can count on their government to produce policies that will work for them. We want our military to be able to work within NATO. New Democrats have regularly called for the government to take a leadership role within NATO in beginning the work necessary for achieving a world free of nuclear weapons.

I have called many times for the government to sign onto the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. We have not done that. At the very least, and I have asked this of the government, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and chairs at the foreign affairs committee, we could send an observation mission to Vienna this June for the first member meeting of the TPNW. I have pushed as hard as I can on this.

New Democrats want more commitment to peacekeeping. We have pledged 860 members to go into the field as peacekeepers. Canada used to play a vital role in peacekeeping in the world. We have 58 members in the field currently. Before the election in 2015, Trudeau criticized Stephen Harper's government for the decline in the number of—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Could I remind the hon. member that we do not use member's names?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my apologies.

The Prime Minister criticized the Conservative government of Stephen Harper for his decline in the number of uniformed personnel. We were, at that time, 66th in our ranking, but since then, it has gone lower and we are now at the 81st—

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Immediately after you asked the member not to use the name of the former prime minister, she used it again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We can use the names of former prime ministers and people who are no longer members of the House.

The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would point out to my colleague that the Speaker has outlined why I am allowed to use the name of Stephen Harper.

We would like to see an improvement in government procurement. As my colleague from London—Fanshawe pointed out, we have not been able to spend the money we have allocated to the armed forces. In fact, we heard Andrew Leslie, a former Liberal MP and retired general, say, “You can promise the moon and the stars. If you can't get the money out the door [and if that is the reality] then it's of no value”.

I also want to highlight something else that my colleague from London—Fanshawe said. She spoke about what 2% means. The PBO has said meeting that 2% budget would mean $54 billion to $56 billion a year being spent on defence. It would be a doubling of our military spending, which would be over our current $24.29 billion per year. This would make military spending the largest expenditure of the Government of Canada. It would be more than we spend on the health care transfer, which is $45 billion a year.

We all need to think about that. We all need to think about where Canadians would like to see those investments. I hope I have an opportunity during questions to ask my colleagues within the Conservative Party how they would pay for this. As party members who constantly stand in this place and say taxes and revenue is not something they are interested in, what things would they cut? What things are they interested in cutting away from Canadians for this?

I would like to talk about humanitarian spending. When we look at defence spending, we must tie it to humanitarian spending. We must look at the fact that in Canada right now, we are spending approximately 0.3% of our gross national income on humanitarian support. We all know that war is a failure. No one wants to go to war. Nobody wants to see what is happening in Ukraine. We need to commit to that humanitarian support, the diplomatic and multilateralism, and the efforts we can do so that we are not required to go to war.

Yesterday, David Beasley from the World Food Programme came to the international human rights subcommittee. He said that, if we do not invest in food security, humanitarian aid, diplomacy, multilateralism and all of these things, then we will pay 1000 fold in conflict and impacts on populations.

I will end by thanking every woman and man in our military. I am so proud of all of our people in the Canadian Armed Forces. They punch above their weight. They defend the world's longest coastline covering three oceans. They are experts in all of the work they do, and they are world-renowned. I want to say thank—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, I would echo the appreciation and care that the member just expressed to members of our Canadian Forces for the fantastic job they do in Canada's best interests all the time, seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day.

I want to pick up on what I emphasized earlier. If there were no NATO forces or organization, there would be that much more pressure on Canada to spend even that much more of our resources on a military. Because we have a NATO organization, countries around the world come together to protect the common interests of those countries.

I am wondering if the member could provide her thoughts in regard to why, from her perspective, it is important that Canada meet its NATO obligations in whatever way it can.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I think that Canada has to find its way back to playing an important role on the world stage. Not only has our role within NATO diminished, but our role within the United Nations has diminished, our role in peacekeeping has diminished, our role in diplomacy has diminished and our ability to move things forward has diminished. As a country that used to be a leader in diplomacy and multilateralism and all of these things, including Canadian peacekeeping, which Canadians saw their identity in, we are those things no longer. We spend all of our time investing solely in trade and forget to look at these other areas.

Yes, I agree with the member that we do need to live up to our obligations within NATO. February 24 changed the world, and we need to also live up to our obligations to the world and other countries.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, my one question for the member for Edmonton Strathcona is that I thank her for changing her opinion. On January 31, in an exchange with the member for Calgary Shepard, she said, “Mr. Speaker, I have to disagree with my colleague across the way. Hitting a bully is not the best way to deal with bullying.” We were talking with about Vladimir Putin and Russia. On January 31, this member was against any aggression toward Russia and then, just yesterday, she had an excellent unanimous consent motion passed to provide Ukraine all military assistance possible to defend themselves against Russian aggression.

One thing I will say about the NDP member is that she does always have the ability to change positions and listen to reason. I want to ask her what made her change her mind, as she is now supporting Ukraine and supporting Canada sending military assistance there after she was so against it.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I would like to point out that when the member quoted me, we were in a very different world than we are now. Of course, in January, Ukraine had not been invaded to date.

In fact, in January, we were still trying to find ways to avoid a war. Yesterday, when I stood in the house, I was responding to the crimes against humanity and war crimes perpetrated by Putin. That had not happened on January 31. I certainly hope every member of the House is able to adapt their opinion to the changing realities that we see on the ground. If we are not able to change our opinion when the world changes, what is the point of us being here?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about another aspect she only touched upon, namely the difficulty in recruiting.

Does she agree that the Liberals, by filibustering at the Standing Committee on National Defence and the Standing Committee on the Status of Women when they were reviewing the cases of sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces, only made it more difficult to recruit women? Their objective is 25% by 2026. They are far from that number. Moreover, given the new allegations made public recently, they are not getting any closer.

Does she agree that they should apply the recommendations in the Deschamps report, which the Liberals still have not implemented?

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, of course, I agree 100% with my colleague from the Bloc Québécois. Of course, we should be implementing those so that we can help recruit women. We also need to bring forth the feminist foreign policy. The government has promised this for some time and has not brought forward our feminist foreign policy. We need to do everything we can to make sure that our military is a welcoming space for women who want to contribute and who want to represent Canada. I thank her for her advocacy on this issue.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for me to speak to this motion, seeing that I moved the motion but did not speak to it when it was initially moved in the House.