Debates of Nov. 27th, 2023

National Defence

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I am happy to speak on behalf of Nunavummiut on this important report that my colleague, the member for London—Fanshawe, worked on. I really want to acknowledge as well the great work that she does at this committee. I have had the great honour of working with her when the announcements were made regarding NORAD improvements, and her leadership on this file is so much appreciated. It is because of her work that I have started saying that Nunavut does not just have one Nunavut MP but 25 great NDP MPs advocating for Nunavummiut.

I also want to share very briefly that I remember when my dad was still alive in 1981 watching a movie, which was rare in Igloolik, because it did not get TV until much later. The community of Igloolik had chosen quite late compared to other Canadian communities to accept television, because it felt it would be a threat to Inuit culture and lifestyle. So, when we arrived in Igloolik we were quite lucky, or maybe unlucky, I do not know what the right word is, as we already had TV when we had been living in Resolute. When we arrived in Igloolik, one of the videos I remember watching vividly, because TV had not been allowed at the time, was Mary Poppins. At that time, Mary Poppins was very special to me, because it was the same year that my dad had died. However, before that, part of the reason that Mary Poppins was so special was because I was learning English and there was this foreign word “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious”. I was like, “Whoa, what a crazy English word.” It was something I did not think would have an impact on my thoughts about Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty, but here we are with me thinking back to my childhood and the work that had already been done to secure the Arctic.

Before that, just to remind Canadians, Canada had the High Arctic relocatees where Inuit were forced from northern Quebec to two communities, Resolute and Grise Fiord. Actually, my dad's family helped train Inuit from northern Quebec. My dad, Joseph Idlout, is actually quite famous because he taught the Inuit from northern Quebec how to survive in the High Arctic by teaching them hunting skills. They were filmed by Doug Wilkinson, who was a famous photographer, and a lot of his photographs are in Archives Canada. One of his photos actually ended up on our currency. Members will remember the old two-dollar bill with the Inuit hunting scene. It was my grandfather and uncles on that two-dollar bill. The story behind that two-dollar bill is regarding Arctic sovereignty and security, which is why this topic is so important to me, because I have very direct personal experience with what Canada did in the name of Arctic sovereignty.

I also want to read what one of the witnesses said. I should say that I was not part of this study, and so I am not sure that I will be able to answer any direct questions regarding the study, but with my experience, I might be able to answer general questions if they are posed to me. However, I did read the report, and one witness, Dr. Lackenbauer, said that “climate change is the existential threat to humanity”. This goes to show what is real in the Arctic.

We know that Russia's invasion of Ukraine may have increased the level of threat in the Arctic, but I know from people I work with and people I have visited in all 25 communities that climate change is among the higher topics that are mentioned to me. They mention that elders are not able to teach as efficiently as they did regarding the environment, with the changes that they see on the snow, the ice conditions and even the wildlife and the migration patterns changing because of other external factors. For example, in Pond Inlet a couple of years ago, after Baffinland iron mines opened up Mary River Mine and increased its shipping, there was a huge decrease in narwhales, and many Inuit hunters were saying that they were robbed of their opportunity to teach their sons how to hunt narwhales because of the change in patterns that the shipping had created in the name of corporate profits.

I also want to mention very quickly that, having read through the report, the recommendations I thought were particularly important to the Arctic are numbers 7, 8, 10, 13, 16, 17, 21 and 22. The reason I highlight these recommendations specifically is that they speak directly to what my colleague, the MP for London—Fanshawe, was saying about ensuring that we are doing better capacity development for indigenous peoples and for northern residents who are always living in the Arctic. When it is their environment, if those residents are not given the investments and the resources, then it will be that much harder to fight for Arctic security if there are threats coming our way. My colleague was talking about investing in the north being so important, such as in housing, training, health care and education. If these investments were to the level that they should be, I know for a fact that Arctic northerners would be better able to help ensure that the Arctic is secure and that they are able to help fight against threats that are impacting their lives.

I also want to mention in my statement that as part of the work of the indigenous and northern affairs committee, we also studied Arctic security. The name of our report is “Arctic Security and Sovereignty, and the Emergency Preparedness of Indigenous Communities”. It is good to see other members of our committee here in the chamber. When we did our study on Arctic security and Arctic sovereignty, a huge portion of our conversation also related to some of what is in this report with respect to the Canadian Rangers. We also had Aivgak Pedersen as our witness, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger and a great leader in Nunavut and Cambridge Bay. He lived in Kugluktuk at the time and has now moved to Cambridge Bay. He spoke about making sure that we actually invest in Canadian Rangers.

When I was in Iqaluit recently for Remembrance Day, I had the pleasure of visiting with some of the Canadian Rangers who were at the Remembrance Day ceremonies, and they reminded me right away that as a part of my advocacy, I must also advocate for improvements in investments in Canadian Rangers. They said to me that they get beautiful uniforms and relics for rifles, and they can get reimbursements from the Canadian Armed Forces, but those reimbursements take forever. Therefore, if Canada is going to do better with respect to investing in Arctic security, a huge portion of that must be to invest in Canadian Rangers, who know the land and the environment. Investing in them would help make sure that we are keeping the Arctic secure.

I want to end my statement with a quote from Mr. Aivgak Pedersen, who reported to our committee:

As Canadian Rangers, we're on the ground. We live here. We are from here. We know the land....

Having local knowledge and expertise makes a huge difference. It will make a difference in saving people's lives in a timely manner.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague from Nunavut for bringing to light the parts of this report that are very important to her.

My mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and spent most of her childhood in the Arctic. She has great memories of her time there, with two different tours through Pangnirtung. Most of the time she was there, but she was also in Cambridge Bay and Rankin Inlet, as they worked for the northern stores department of the Hudson's Bay Company.

I want to ask my colleague about recommendation 5 from the report. We heard from Madeleine Redfern, former mayor of Iqaluit, at committee about making sure we know what infrastructure is out there. How can we make dual use of infrastructure for communities and the Canadian Armed Forces as we modernize NORAD and continue to make sure we have a more positive posture in the Arctic, knowing the threats we are currently facing from Russia, the PRC and other nations that want to take advantage of the great outdoors we have in Canada's north?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I grew up for a portion of my life in Chesterfield Inlet as well. It is such a beautiful community. I have fond memories.

Regarding the member's question on dual use infrastructure, I completely agree. I know that if Arctic security was taken more seriously, the community of Cambridge Bay, for example, which is a regional hub in the Kitikmeot region, would have a paved airport. That could be dual use infrastructure to help make sure that fighter jets can land there, if need be. At the moment, because the airport is not paved, the main airline that goes there has decided to cease jet service, only relying on ATRs, which have less capacity, resulting in more cancellations of flights, impacting medical travel appointments and impacting the cost of food.

Dual use is a great way to make sure we are better investing in the Arctic.

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

Madam Speaker, I knew the hon. member would not disappoint. I really appreciate her taking part in this debate tonight.

At the defence committee last week, we had the Minister of National Defence before us. When I was asking about following up on support for rangers, the chief of the defence staff said something I found quite disturbing. I would love the member's input on it. He said that when it comes rangers, “We've noticed that perhaps some of those traditional skills are eroding”.

Could the member comment on why they believe that to be the case and how we can stop that from happening?

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, that is definitely a concern, and part of the reason is climate change, as I mentioned in my statement.

Elders are telling us that it is harder to teach their children and grandchildren about ice conditions when winter is arriving sooner. It is harder to teach when not to go to certain ice areas because the ice is not as thick as it used to be.

All those things, which were very important to our survival up to this point and remained traditional expert knowledge, are eroding. We need to expedite ensuring that we regain that knowledge so we can make sure that Inuit today are able to adjust and that we are continually adapting to our changing environment.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak to a concurrence motion. For those who are just tuning in, to understand the context of what we are doing right now, back on November 3, the government had on the Order Paper that we would continue to debate the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. However, as was becoming very consistent around that time, every time we brought forward that particular bill to be debated, Conservatives would put forward concurrence motions to basically prevent us from discussing the bill. The reason I am willing to go out on a limb to say that they were intentionally preventing us from debating that bill is not only that they had done it a number of times already, but also, and more importantly, that they were continually doing it with reports from committees that were unanimous. This was another unanimous report that came from committee.

Just so the public knows, when a report is tabled in the House by the chair of the committee, there is no obligation to debate it as it is considered received. As a matter of fact, the government responded to this particular report from the committee, so there was really no need to have a debate on it. The committee report was unanimous. The government, in its introductory reply, thanked the committee, said that the majority of the committee's recommendations were in line with work already being undertaken by the government, and went on to address each and every specific recommendation in the report.

On Friday, November 3, Conservatives put forward a motion to concur in this unanimous report from the committee, which had already been responded to by the government. It was just to delay and prevent us from talking about the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement. Of course, at the time, none of us really understood why. We could not fathom that Conservatives would be against that piece of legislation, which was the result of a trade agreement that had been signed by President Zelenskyy and the Prime Minister. It also has the endorsement of the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and had all of the important elements built within it to help Ukraine rebuild. This side of the House, and probably all parties but the Conservative Party, were under the impression that it was going to be a pretty easy debate. We thought that everybody would agree and then we would pass it.

However, very early on in the debate process, the member for Cumberland—Colchester rose and referred to the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement as being woke. That was the first sign for us on this side of the House. At that point, we started asking what was going on and if it were possible that the Conservative Party of Canada does not support this very important piece of legislation.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I am wondering about the relevance of the member's speech. The report is about Arctic sovereignty, and he is talking about procedural processes in the House of Commons.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind members that there is a bit of flexibility in debates and that members need to make sure that their speeches are relevant to the motion or legislation before the House. I am sure the hon. member will bring it back to the concurrence motion being debated.

The hon. government deputy House leader has the floor.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

It is relevant, Madam Speaker, and I should remind the member across the way what we are actually debating is not the report. We are debating a motion to concur in the report. The report has already been established, the report has already been unanimously supported by committee and the motion was to concur in it.

My analysis and my reflections on why Conservatives chose to put forward that motion is extremely germane to the debate and specifically speaks to why I think they did this, which is very important. The member can get up and call a point of order as often as he wants. He probably does not want to hear the truth from me, and that is fine. He does not have to accept what I say and I am happy to answer his questions on the subject matter afterward.

However, I would remind him we just spent the whole afternoon talking about a bill on scab labour that the Conservatives never even mentioned in any of their speeches. They just talked about everything other than the bill, and would not even say whether they thought the bill was good or not. They were asked the question probably about half a dozen times and never even indicated whether they support the bill. It is very rich coming from a Conservative member right now, who is trying to call me out on relevance, when I have established how the relevance of my speech is related to this concurrence motion.

What we saw is Conservatives eventually vote against the Canada-Ukraine free trade bill, after continually putting up concurrence motion after concurrence motion on various different issues. The reality is we started to hear them talk about it being woke. I know there has been a lot of buyer's remorse since we had that vote, and a lot of Conservatives have stood up in the House and talked about how much they supported Ukraine. I know four, five or six of them stood up right after question period today and said that.

My sense is they are probably feeling regretful for their decision. They are probably feeling a bit upset with their leader for forcing them to do that and now are trying to justify to their communities why they voted that same way.

However, it does not end there. I say this to my Conservative colleagues who are in the House and who stand up and say that they unequivocally support Ukraine at any cost, no matter what. The member for Provencher, in the remaining few speeches we had before we voted on this, actually said:

That said, the Prime Minister and the government have been consistent and unequivocal in saying, “We will...support Ukraine with whatever it takes, for as long as it takes.”

Then he went on to say, “That concerns me a bit”. That is in Hansard; one can go find that. That does not sound like somebody who is unequivocal and stands with Ukraine right until the very end.

When we talk about this report and we talk about Arctic sovereignty and who we are really concerned about maintaining our sovereignty from, it can only be our neighbours that share the Arctic region with us or that impede upon the Arctic region. I know this because I was on the Standing Committee for National Defence for three years, where at the time we studied Arctic sovereignty, and there were some real concerns over it. Of course, one of those is Russia.

I have a problem with listening to my Conservative colleagues talk about Russia, because we know Conservatives are also getting very close right now to Prime Minister Orban, who is the Prime Minister of Hungary, who is very close to Vladimir Putin. Recently, there is a story titled “Putin and Orban reaffirm Russian-Hungarian ties amid international strains.”

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

There has been a lot of conjecture back and forth this afternoon about things that were said on that side, and he straying into that territory again of getting into conspiracy theories and tinfoil hat commentary. This is about Arctic sovereignty and security. There are some in this place who actually want to get to that conversation and that debate. I wish the member would get back on to the topic instead of talking about tinfoil Liberal theories.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Again, I want to remind members. I am listening very closely, because certainly I am very well aware of the points of order that were raised today and I want to make sure members are being very respectful in the House. I do not think we do any favour to our allies and to the parliamentarians of this House if we are not careful with the wording we use.

I want to remind members again there is some leeway during the speeches but that the speeches need to be focused on the concurrence motion. The concurrence motion should be mentioned on a regular basis, or the content of it should be.

I will turn it back to the hon. government deputy House leader. Again, make sure we stay on track.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I had been quite relevant there and will draw the direct link for the member: Canada, Arctic; Arctic, Russia; Russia, Hungary. Vladimir Putin and the Hungarian prime minister are very close right now. Stephen Harper is very close with the Hungarian prime minister. One Conservative member travelled at the expense of the Danube Institute, a right-wing Hungarian think-tank, which paid for all of his expenses. Coincidentally, right around that time, Conservative members started talking about exactly what they have written about in their most recent report on what a Conservative world looks like in 2023. Right after Conservatives went on this trip to London, paid for the Danube Institute, they came back and started talking about a free trade agreement with Ukraine as though it is woke, which is a direct link.

This is my concern. There is a mega faction among the Conservatives, probably including their leader, who have stood up and said that they will not support Ukraine and have won over the more progressives in the Conservative Party. I know there are progressives in the party who care about Ukraine. I have travelled with them to Ukraine to study Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance. I did that back in 2017. I know where their commitment is, but I do not believe the commitment is within the entire Conservative caucus. Those who are not committed just need to stand up and say so. Those members should, out of decency for their colleagues who do stand up for Ukraine, publicly say that they do not so their colleagues can say they do and then there would be no confusion among the Canadian population, because there is a lot of confusion right now. That is the reality of the situation.

When we talk about this concurrence report, which is about Arctic sovereignty, it is something we have debated and studied on a number of occasions. When I was on the defence committee, we studied it back in 2017-18, I believe. When we talk about our Arctic sovereignty and the importance of ensuring that we have everything in place to provide that security, we have to reflect on the fact that there are some who might be buying into Russian propaganda that suggests that Ukraine does not have the best intentions with respect to its sovereignty. That is what my concern is.

When Conservatives brought forward this concurrence motion on this topic, it was very clear to me and everybody else that what they were doing was trying to prevent a debate on something else. It is not the first time we have seen that and we are witnessing it again right now. When it comes to scab labour, Conservatives will not stand up and say how they feel about a piece of legislation. They wait until it has gone well down the road, avoid talking about it, and then think they can just slip their vote in, get it on the record and then move on to the next subject. That did not happen with the Canada-Ukraine free trade agreement, but guess what? There is good news. There is still another opportunity because we only voted on it at second reading. They have another opportunity at report stage to do the right thing and stand up for Ukraine the way that every other member in this House is doing, so I would strongly encourage my Conservative colleagues to do that when we get to that point.

This goes to a larger point that I was talking about, which is that the Conservative Party of Canada today is not what it used to be. If we look back to Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell, they were Progressive Conservatives. They had important issues top of mind that genuinely meant something for Canada. They did not complain about what they thought would win them a couple of votes. It was Brian Mulroney who dealt with acid rain and the depletion of the ozone layer. He led the world literally in the Montreal accord. He brought 42 countries to Montreal to talk about how we could save our planet. That is not what we are seeing now.

I am not the only one who is saying that. This is what Joe Clark said, “I think it's a party that does not respect the progressive traditions of the Progressive Conservative Party and, consequently, does not reflect the country. ... My party is over. This was not just a change of decision about a policy; this was a change of decision about life or death, the party to which I had an obligation has been taken out of existence.”

Brian Mulroney said something very similar. He said, “I led a Progressive Conservative government. We were very progressive in areas like international affairs...and human rights, the creation of the...Francophonie and all of those things, and in social policy as well. We were more Conservative. Radio-Canada established last night, [with] privatization, deregulation, low inflation, cutting government expenditures, we were more Conservative than the Harper government. I thought that was a good mix.”

This is what Kim Campbell said. She said, “Well, I have never joined the Conservative Party of Canada. I think Joe Clark expressed that he did not leave the party, the party left him. It is not the Progressive Conservative Party, and our party was the party of the acid rain treaty, the Montreal Protocol. I am sorry. I have no time for climate deniers and anybody who is trying to pussyfoot around it.” Those are the words of Kim Campbell.

I guess what I am saying is that we have seen a huge shift in the Conservative Party of Canada. It is not what it used to be. I am very concerned that the shift is continuing further and further right. It is emulating what comes out of the United States and the Donald Trump politics of the MAGA movement. I find that to be very alarming. I think that Canadians should be seriously reflecting on the path we are going down.

I do not believe Conservatives need to occupy that space. I believe they are choosing to occupy that space. I really encourage them to stop doing that, come back around and start looking at our country as a whole in a way we can genuinely improve it together.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will stay relevant to the topic at hand tonight.

The member said he did not feel that the Arctic sovereignty was that important. I think he should have listened to the NDP member who spoke just before him. She actually spoke on November 3 and got very upset at the complaints that were coming from the House. I am sure she will have an opportunity to speak.

I remember the member very well when he was on the national defence committee, and he was successfully filibustering the committee while it was looking into, during the previous Parliament, the sexual misconduct in the Canadian Armed Forces at the highest levels and the censorship of the previous minister of national defence.

I want to get to the point of this motion, which is Arctic sovereignty. He represents, or supposedly represents, a riding and its Canadian Armed Forces members. I want to ask specifically about the capabilities of signals. Recommendation 24 talks about “the expansion of Very High Frequency radio capabilities and other communications in the Arctic that support search and rescue efforts.”

Could the member elaborate on what needs to be done? How are the Canadian Armed Forces members he represents in Kingston crucial in making this happen and continuing our Arctic sovereignty?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I never said that Arctic sovereignty was not important. It is quite the contrary. I said it was important. I said my concern was that the Conservatives were just using this report as a way to block something that they did not want to talk about. It was something that they did not want to talk about so badly, the Canada-Ukraine free trade deal, that they ended up voting against it later on.

Arctic sovereignty is extremely important. I do not believe I was on the committee, and I do not believe I filibustered as he referenced. I will say that, when I was on the committee and we studied it, we looked into the different things we could recommend to the government. When it comes to recommendation 24, I would have him note that the Government of Canada agrees, in principle, with these recommendations. Nobody is disagreeing.

This is my point: Why is it so important that we talk about this report on the floor of the House of Commons when the reality is that the government agrees with the majority of the report?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the key recommendations I have a big problem with in this report is number 3, which states, “That the Government of Canada reconsider its long-standing policy with respect to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program.” General Wayne Eyre specifically stated, “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant.”

As the member is a member of the government, I want to know what its stance is on that positioning? Is the government going to reconsider the long-standing policy it had for ballistic missile defence?

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, I cannot tell the member what the government's plans are specifically, other than to let her know that the government has noted the recommendation.

I can tell her, though, that when I was on the committee, and after I went with the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman to NORAD headquarters and was able to see the manner in which Canadians and Americans were working so closely together, I found it very confusing that there was a particular program in North America that impacted Canada but that Canada was not involved in. No one should quote me on this, but I believe it was Paul Martin who said that Canada would not be in the program, but, at the time, I questioned that. When I was on the committee as an independent member, not speaking on behalf of the government, I questioned why Canada was not in the program and challenged that perhaps we should be looking into whether or not that was a good decision.

I do not disagree with the recommendation. I know that the government does not disagree with the recommendation, because it said it would take note of it, and then went on to explain the basis behind it. Unlike the member from the NDP who asked me the question, I am a little more open to seeing what Canada's role should be in the program.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, who is the shadow minister for the Arctic and Northern Affairs for the Conservative Party.

I am glad to get the debate back on the report. We just listened to a bunch of bafflegab, but I am going to drill down on the issues at hand.

I am really pleased with the third report, which came from the national defence committee, on having a secure and sovereign Arctic. I like how the report was organized. It started off by talking about the threats in the Arctic, climate change and its impact, the great power struggles going on that also pull in the Arctic, like the Russian threat, the threat from Beijing and how we might be able to overcome that.

Then it talks about what we are doing there from the standpoint of domain awareness and surveillance. It talks about the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD, as we call it, and its modernization, as well as missile defence, which is very important. That is not just about ballistic missile defence but also other threats, such as cruise missiles and hypersonics, and what types of air defence systems we should have in Canada to defend the Arctic, as well as our coasts.

I will talk about readiness in the Arctic: the equipment, the personnel, the search and rescue, and the infrastructure. I want to drill down on the threat environment; all too often, this is one thing that Canadians do not think is at risk at all in the Arctic. We know for a fact that the People's Republic of China now sees itself as a near-Arctic state or near-Arctic power. It has great interest in having a northern passage to move its goods from Asia to Europe and the other side of North America, for that matter, the Atlantic side, and making use of the Northwest Passage to do it.

The PRC has more icebreakers now than Canada and the United States combined that are employed by our coast guards and navy. When we start talking about the heavy Arctic polar icebreakers, the People's Republic of China and the People's Liberation Army Navy have more than the United States and Canada do. That is a very strong indication of their seriousness about accessing the international waters in the Arctic, as well as fulfilling their own belt and road initiative. We know that, within the belt and road initiative, there is a policy called the polar silk road and using the polar silk road as a way to move more of the goods they need to sell and export out of China, as well as to bring more imports back. That transit through the Arctic cuts off over two weeks of what it takes if it needs to go through the Panama Canal. That interest is something we have to take very seriously.

We also know that the People's Republic of China's navy has been there doing surveillance. We saw in a report by The Globe and Mail on February 21 that, in fall 2022, under Operation Limpid, the Canadian Armed Forces retrieved a number of surveillance buoys that were floating in the Arctic Ocean. Retired General Joseph Day assumed that those buoys were there to watch over not just the transit of Canadian ships but submarines, etc., from our allies, especially the Americans, and monitoring their passage through the Northwest Passage and farther north through the Arctic. It has already been there dropping surveillance buoys, electronic surveillance with which it can collect all the data and send it back to Beijing.

In February, there were spy balloons over the Arctic from Beijing. One was shot down in Yukon. One went through Alaska to B.C. and across western Canada down to the United States, which was finally shot down. That one is still being completely analyzed to find out what information the PRC was picking up. Therefore, we really are concerned about what the interest is of the Chinese Communist Party in our Arctic.

Then there is the Russian Federation. We know about Putin's war in Ukraine and how bad it is. We all stand with Ukraine. Despite the rhetoric that comes from the other side, all of us in the Conservative Party stand with Ukraine. The only way this thing ends well is if Ukraine wins, so its sovereign territory has to be protected.

However, as Canadians, we can never forget that we are a neighbour to Russia in the Arctic. We are sharing the Arctic Ocean with Russia, which has a great interest in it. As a matter of fact, we remember a stunt from about 10 years ago when the Russians sent a mini-submarine to the North Pole and dropped a Russian flag on the seabed to claim it as their own. They have put in claims under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea claiming the entire Arctic seabed as their own, coming right up to within 200 miles of the continental shelf in North America. Right up to where Canada's economic maritime zone ends is what they are trying to claim as a Russian interest and what they want to develop. Of course, we can never forget that the Russians continue to fly fighter jets and Bear bombers into our airspace.

We must look at those threats and combine them with North Korea and its aspirations to have nuclear warheads. It is estimated right now by the Arms Control Association that North Korea already has 30 nuclear warheads and has enough fissile material to build another 50 to 70 nuclear warheads. If it ever accomplishes its intercontinental ballistic missile program, it will be able to reach out and touch North America.

This is why we have to take a very serious look at how we protect our Arctic sovereignty and protect Canada and our allies. We have to project our power and protect our Arctic. This is our backyard. Canadians see themselves as an Arctic nation, yet 95% of Canadians have never been to the Arctic. They expect us to protect it, and we better protect it. “Use it or lose it” is the way we often talk about our sovereign territory.

We also have to deter and defend. We have to deter those who want to attack us and defend our continent, not just Canada. We have a responsibility to the United States and our other continental partners to ensure that we are secure here at home. Maintaining continental security, being a trusted ally and being a neighbour and friend are things we have to do, and that is why NORAD modernization is so critical.

However, as we are looking to put all these dollars into modernizing NORAD, the Liberals just cut $1 billion from the defence budget. They have allowed $10 billion to lapse. The question is, how do we rebuild the Canadian Armed Forces? We are short 16,000 troops right now and have another 10,000 troops who are undertrained and non-deployable. How do we do that if we do not have the budget and we do not have the kit? We have to do more.

If we look at the recommendations that came out of this report, there is so much the government should act upon. We came to an all-party decision on all of these recommendations; it was a unanimous report. We need to make sure we have underwater surveillance capabilities in the Canadian Arctic. As in recommendation 2, we need new submarines that are able to go under the ice. How are we going to pay for that when we have a government that continues to cut from national defence? The best way to surveil and deter submarines, which is one of the biggest proliferation weapon systems out there right now, is to have submarines, and our old Victoria-class submarines are at the end of their life and there is no plan to replace them.

We need a partnership with the U.S. ballistic missile defence system. BMD is the way we can protect against things like the North Korean nuclear warhead threat. However, what about other air defences? How are we going to protect against cruise missiles and hypersonic missiles, which are now being proliferated around the world and could be used to attack Canada? We need to make sure we continue to have those discussions.

We have talked about upgrading NORAD with the over-the-horizon radar system, which has a big price tag. It is over $25 billion to put a couple of those in place. At the same time, what about updating RADARSAT? What about getting drones? We were promised in “Strong, Secure, Engaged” that the Liberals would buy new drones by 2025, and that has been punted down the road to at least 2028. We also need low-earth orbit satellites.

All the equipment and personnel we need to defend North America, protect our Arctic and secure our own sovereignty costs money, and the Liberals are not serious about investing in the Canadian Armed Forces or the Arctic.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. I know he has followed defence matters very closely over the years and is a former parliamentary secretary of defence. I wanted to know his thoughts with respect to where climate change fits into all of this and whether or not he understands and recognizes climate change to be not only a matter of environmental concern but also a matter of national security. When ice melts, to be very simple about it, the Russians and the Chinese see that, and the Arctic becomes a focus for them. Is climate change a national security threat, from the member's perspective, yes or no?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, climate change was actually one of the key parts of the report we did at the national defence committee. We all recognized at committee that with the disappearing Arctic sea ice, the Arctic is opening up for greater transit by other nations. That is why we can see countries like the People's Republic of China showing more interest in making use of the transportation routes through our Northwest Passage and elsewhere.

That is why Canada has to be more prepared to make sure we are defending and using our Arctic. If we are not up there and actually capitalizing on the opportunities, supporting our northern communities and building infrastructure to do that, often in a dual-use circumstance, taking into consideration warming temperatures, then we are not going to address the real needs of the people who are up there or be able to defend our own Arctic sovereignty. However, Arctic sovereignty comes at a cost, and we do not see it in the budget by the current government. I do not think the Prime Minister really cares that much about the Arctic.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member mentioned recommendation number 2 in terms of the replacement of submarines. I agree that this is a big issue that will be coming forward. However, one of the big conversations, of course, is with respect to what kind of submarines Canada looks at. The under-ice capability is quite key, as is nuclear versus diesel-electric and all that.

However, one of the key components of all of that conversation, too, is the recruitment, retention and personnel crisis and how all that comes into play. Therefore, I would really love the member to go further into the recommendation because it is something that will be coming up in the future, and I know the government has not been talking about it as much as we need to.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, we know that our current Victoria class submarines cannot go under the ice. We know that, right now, only two of our submarines have had any sea time, and even at that, the two of them combined were out at sea for fewer than 100 days in 2022. We have to get serious about having a conversation about having brand new submarines. My colleague from London—Fanshawe knows from testimony that we have heard at committee that there are no plans by the government to actually look at replacing our current Victoria class submarines. We know for a fact that a defence policy update should be addressing the issue, but it has been sitting in limbo now for over 16 months, and we are stilling waiting to see whether the government's defence policy update will actually contain some hard dollars and hard direction on replacing the submarines that we need in order to defend our Arctic and our coastlines at all three levels. That means that we have to be in the sea, on the sea and above the sea to actually be able to protect our country on the Atlantic, on the Pacific and in the Arctic.

[Alex Ruff, Conservative, Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is a huge advocate for and defender of our military personnel and Ukraine. He mentioned drones; in particular, he mentioned the delay by the government of our medium-altitude drones. They have been delayed, it could argue, for a good reason, if it is to ensure that the development for Arctic capability is there. I am a bit surprised, considering that this is something the government promised within their defence policy years ago. Why would the government think it would develop drone capability in this country that would not be Arctic capable? Could the member just expand on why the government missed this obvious shortfall?

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, we are all shocked to find out that the government spent the past eight years talking about drones and that it never, ever crossed the Liberals' minds that the drones would have to be capable of flying in the Arctic to do the surveillance that we need to do. It is one thing to have RADARSAT, to have a north warning system and to have over-the-horizon radar systems, but having the drones flying up there, eyes on the ground at all times and doing surveillance, is one thing that has proven itself over and over again as being very effective. For the government not to even think that we had to fly in very cold temperatures in the Arctic just speaks to the incompetence of the current Liberal government.

[Bob Zimmer, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River—Northern Rockies, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the question I have to ask tonight, based on the report, and we are going to talk about the defence report in a few moments, is: has the Prime Minister compromised Canada in the Arctic? How bad is it?

We have heard from my colleague, the critic for defence. He did a great job going through some of the shortfalls of what really is not in the north and what needs to be in the north.

Tonight, I am going to go based on a few comments that I had heard from people in the Arctic, who voiced their concerns to me personally, and a little bit about the testimony in defence.

This is the report, “A Secure and Sovereign Arctic”. Anybody can read it online. It is a great report. There are a lot of great recommendations.

As happens often with this government, there is a lot of talk but little action. I criticized the former minister of defence not long ago about promising billions of dollars; we found in the estimates that they had only spent $45 million to modernize NORAD. That is just symbolic of a government that says one thing and does another.

I heard from people in the Arctic that we are not ready, Canada is abandoning the Arctic, Canada has retreated from the Arctic and Canada has vacated the Arctic.

Mayor Simon Kuliktana, the former Kugluktuk mayor, said to me, bluntly, and with a bit of fear in his voice, that we are not ready.

I must say that I was a little taken aback by his comment. I did not think he would be that blunt but these are folks who live right in the Arctic, right on the Northwest Passage. They are right on the water there and they see the traffic go by. They are very concerned about this.

Premier Cochrane, or soon-to-be former premier Cochrane, for the Northwest Territories, had comments: “The current invasion of Ukraine by Russia is a stark reminder of the importance of Arctic sovereignty. We share a unique border with Russia, the Arctic Ocean. As the Arctic takes a more predominant role on the international stage, we want to ensure that the needs of northerners remain a priority for Canada. It also means that the aspirations of northerners be given appropriate attention and that we eliminate the gaps between northern and southern Canadians.”

I asked her, personally, if she felt that northerners are a priority. Her comment back to me directly was, “We're not ready.”

There are a few other comments. We had another professor who testified at the defence committee. I was privileged enough to ask him a question. Aurel Braun said, “If we don't deter Russia, Canada...is going to be affected directly, materially, ecologically and strategically.”

That is one thing that we hear a lot about climate change. The critic for defence spoke to that, about the opening of the Northwest Passage, the more traffic that goes by there.

If we do not claim sovereignty and really spend resources and spend effort claiming sovereignty and being up there, guess who else will?

If we do not, we already have, as the critic for defence said, Russia already making counterclaims for the Arctic seabed that Canadians claim is our own. Do we trust that China, Russia and other countries are going to be as ecologically sacred to our own grounds as we will?

I think we can say no to that.

From another leader, a recent article, as of October 13: “CSIS warning Inuit leaders about covert foreign investment in Arctic, documents show”.

This is more of what I call “Trojan horsing” themselves into the Arctic and through our firewall or our safety fence in Canada. In the north, it is our Arctic sovereignty, of course.

Natan Obed “told CSIS that the ITK”, which is the group that he represents, “is working to find funding for infrastructure projects and needs to be warned in advance if its potential funding partners pose a threat. 'Especially if the Canadian government is not investing in infrastructure development in the Arctic, then it pushes our pursuit for partners in investment into other places,' he said.”

Whether it be a militarily straight-up threat from Russia, or China, perhaps, the other way that we are vulnerable is with foreign investment.

I spoke to the Yellowknife Geoscience Forum in Yellowknife a week ago. A critical mineral mine, a rare earth metal mine, where the Prime Minister cut a ribbon just months ago, has recently claimed bankruptcy.

Alarmingly, can members guess who has shown up as a partner to keep the project going? It is Chinese foreign investment. The critical mineral strategy was a head-scratcher, as said by a member who wrote a critical piece about what happened there. The critical mineral strategy is supposed to be to retain ownership, production and exploration within the borders of Canada, yet we are seeing the actions of the government push even investment, mining investment, out of our country.

I am going to refer to another document that I really relied on a lot when I went up to the north. It is an Auditor General report called “Arctic Waters Surveillance”. There is a lot of rhetoric in this place, but I like to quote people who actually have expertise in these areas. I think we can all agree that the Auditor General gives a very fair perspective of what is going on up there.

I will start off with some of his criticisms. The report states, “Federal organizations’ actions did not address long-standing gaps in the surveillance of Arctic waters”.

The number one criticism is that “Insufficient action taken to address gaps” and “Lack of integration among organizations”. The report continues, “the lack of awareness about vessels in the Arctic creates vulnerabilities that, if left unaddressed, could lead to incidents that would affect Canada’s security, safety, environment, and economy.”

Number two is: “Weaknesses in satellite surveillance capabilities”. We have weaknesses now, and they are just going to get worse in the future. This statement is what probably shocked me the most of all the vulnerabilities that we have in the Arctic: “We also found that these radar imagery satellites are at or will reach the end of their expected service lives long before the planned launch dates of the replacement satellites”.

That means that the end of service life is 2026, and the launch will be in 2035. That means that we will have a nine-year gap in service, satellite-wise, for the Arctic. In this modern era, we will not be able to see what is going on in the north for almost 10 years.

Number three is “Icebreakers reaching the end of their useful lives” before new ones can be built, similar to the satellite problem. “The Canadian Coast Guard’s fleet includes 6 icebreakers that are suitable to operate in the Arctic. These icebreakers are between 35 and 53 years old and are becoming increasingly prone to breakdowns and expensive to maintain.”

I had the privilege of going out to one of these icebreakers and speaking with the head of the Coast Guard and many of its members there. Those folks do a great job. I will give a shout-out to all the men and women, whether they are in the Rangers, the Coast Guard, the military or the air force, who serve the Arctic. We appreciate what they do for us.

The report continues that there are further delays in procuring eight Arctic and offshore patrol ships. “They will allow the navy to exercise Canada’s sovereignty through northern maritime operations and to contribute to the wider efforts...in the North.” Again, as we have heard about so many other things, they are not on schedule and there is aircraft too.

I will read the conclusion in the Auditor General report:

We concluded that the federal organizations we audited—Fisheries and Oceans Canada, the Canadian Coast Guard, Environment and Climate Change Canada, National Defence, and Transport Canada—had not taken the action required to build the maritime domain awareness they collectively needed to respond to safety and security risks associated with increasing vessel traffic in Arctic waters. While these organizations had identified gaps in maritime domain awareness, they had not taken sufficient measures to address them. Moreover, some measures taken had progressed slowly and, in the case of the Marine Security Operations Centres, were not efficient. Furthermore, the existing satellite services and infrastructure did not provide the capacity that the federal organizations needed to perform surveillance of Arctic waters. Delays in the renewal of satellites, ships, and aircraft risks compromising the presence of these organizations in Arctic waters.

I started off by asking if the Prime Minister has compromised us in the Arctic. I think we can all agree that he has, not only from the Auditor General's report, but also from people on the ground. I would repeat something even stronger, which I heard from somebody in Inuvik, who said that the Prime Minister has not just compromised us in the Arctic. He has abandoned the Arctic.