House of Commons Hansard #376 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was cbc.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: Bill S-249, an act respecting national action for the prevention of intimate partner violence.
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Taleeb Noormohamed LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage
Madam Speaker, it is a privilege to rise in the House today, as it always is, as we speak in this important debate about the prospect of the tariffs proposed by President-elect Trump. This is an important moment for our country, and it is an important moment for us to reflect on so we respond in a way that is beneficial not just to Canadians but to our shared North American prosperity.
Canada and the United States have a strong and unbreakable relationship that dates back centuries, and when it comes down to this conversation, it is important to start with the facts. We know in Canada that our biggest market is the United States, and the economic prosperity and future of both governments are predicated on the idea that we must work together, because our economies are intrinsically linked and entirely intertwined.
Canada has much to be proud of. We are a world leader from batteries to clean energy and from AI to agriculture. We are a place where investors from around the world want to place bets. They want to be here and be part of the growth happening in Canada. Indeed, Canada is set to be the fastest-growing economy in the G7 in 2025.
There are also concerns we all share about making sure we have a safe and secure border and that our communities are safe and secure. We are all working hard to do that, and we are working with the Americans, as we have always done, to ensure that our border is safe. For our government, standing up to meet domestic and international challenges is not just about partisan politics; it is about working together and having a united approach as Canadians. It worked for us in 2016 and it will work in 2025.
After all, our shared prosperity is built on a set of facts and the facts are clear. In 2023, bilateral trade between our two countries was worth $1.3 trillion, which is about $3.4 billion in trade every single day. For 36 U.S. states, Canada is the number one market. The U.S. is our top merchandising trading partner, with over half a trillion dollars of Canada's merchandise being sent in 2025. The U.S. is the single greatest investor in Canada. In 2022, stock investment was worth over half a trillion dollars, representing half of all investment in Canada.
This is a generational relationship, not one crafted overnight. It was built over successive governments of all political parties, because we have taken an approach that working together is the right way to share and build prosperity.
As we think about those facts, it is important to remember a couple of things. From the opposition we see bluster, paranoia and, as the Prime Minister said earlier, people “freaking out”. That is not what Canadians need. They need to see strong, calm and resolute leadership predicated on the idea that when we craft a good deal, we do not need a winner and loser. If we build together correctly with our American friends, we will build shared prosperity in a win-win situation.
That is the approach our government has always taken. It is the approach we take to everything we do. A rising tide lifts all boats, and that is the approach we intend to take in working with the incoming U.S. administration. It means having meaningful conversations, as the Prime Minister has already done with President-elect Trump. It does not mean gaslighting Canadians and making idle threats, and it certainly does not mean raising panic. It means working hard on the challenges we face and share and building on our common interests. That is how we get over the finish line on these matters, just as we have done in the past.
Whether regarding security, technology or natural resources, our economies are inextricably linked. These tariffs hurt us all. They do not only penalize Canada; they penalize U.S. consumers by making goods more expensive for Americans. Whether it is food, auto parts or energy, all of these things will have an impact on Americans, just as they would on Canadian businesses.
When we look at how to come through this period of opportunity and challenge, it is important for us to remember that the best approach we can have is not to tear Canada down or to approach this from a position of weakness, because we are not in a position of weakness. We are partners with our American friends, as we have been and will be for generations. If we take that approach and take pride in what Canada is, in who we are and in our resources and intellectual capacities, we have the ability to do anything.
Putting Canada first is always going to be our government's priority, but putting Canada first does not mean it has to be at the detriment of our friends and neighbours. In fact, putting Canada first means success not just for Canadians but for our American friends as well. A strong Canadian economy is good for the United States just as a strong U.S. economy is good for Canada, if we do the work together to ensure that our shared priorities are considered and that the concerns each of our countries has are reflected in the decisions we make, and if we are prepared to have difficult conversations with one another. That is what we have always done. Empty slogans get us nowhere. Being negative gets us nowhere. What gets us somewhere is rolling up our sleeves and doing the hard work that is required to get to good deals.
I spent years living in the United States; I studied there. Some of my best friends are Americans, and I have had the privilege to understand, by working in the United States and in Canada, that we have so much in common. We all want to do well for our communities and our families. We want to build national prosperity, but we also want to look out for our friends and neighbours. We want to make sure the people we care about are taken care of, which is an important principle as we enter into conversations and build a team Canada approach.
This is a time for us to put aside differences and to focus on what is important. What is important is to make sure Canadian interests are protected; to understand our shared interests; to understand the areas of opportunity for both countries; and to build, with resolution, into those areas of strength and opportunity. In so doing, we will strengthen our economy, the U.S. economy and, as we look at North America, the Mexican economy. We will build a strong economic ecosystem that allows for small and large businesses to prosper and allows for Canadians, Americans and Mexicans to prosper. Most important, we will continue to share those things we have in common while also celebrating the things that make Canada unique.
That is why we have already started the work, working with our premiers from coast to coast to coast and engaging with the incoming administration in the United States. Our job is to work for Canadians. Our job is to make sure Canadians see a government that is capable of handling difficult situations with measured, thoughtful responses, by showing that in conversations and being willing to listen to points of view that are different from ours, but never backing down on things that matter most to Canadians and to our prosperity.
The point I would emphasize is that our history is clear. Our history has been one of getting good deals done in the interests of Canada. The Conservatives' record on this is suspect at best; they would capitulate at every turn. Our track record is one of making sure Canadians are protected, but done in a way that the partners with whom we do these deals also feel they are benefiting, which is how good deals get done. Good deals are done when people respect one another, talk about the things that need to get done and do them together. It is an important lesson for all of us in the House as we engage in this debate. Perhaps the most important lesson we should all take away from tonight's conversation is the deep care that all of us are showing in ensuring Canada's interests are protected.
What I think is different is that many of us, certainly all of us on this side of the House, believe that putting Canada's interests first means being able to work with others, to have difficult conversations, to negotiate, to be strong in our values and to put those values at the centre of every conversation we have. Economic prosperity is built on the idea, ultimately, that we take the best of who we are, we support that, we grow and we prosper on the backs, on the intellect and on the hearts and minds of every Canadian from coast to coast to coast. Our businesses, big and small, have a role to play in this conversation, as do American businesses.
It is my hope and aspiration, and I certainly think it is everyone's on this side of the House, that by taking a team Canada approach, by showing a unified front and a willingness to negotiate and work hard without compromising what is important to Canada, we will create a win-win-win situation for all of our partners in North America.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Madam Speaker, tonight we have heard a lot about a united Canada. We have heard a lot about Canada first. The leader of the Conservative Party, when he speaks of a weak Prime Minister and a weak Liberal Party, happens to represent the national Conservatives here in Canada. No one in our country is buying that this guy, the leader of the Conservative Party, is in any way, shape or form opposed to his big brother, his best friend, Donald Trump. That has been clear. Canadians know this. He gets his talking points directly from the guy.
Does the member believe in any of the words coming from the leader of the Conservative Party in relation to any of the real facts on this issue, or in his opposition to Trump?
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Speaker, I do not believe much of what the Leader of the Opposition says. When it comes to protecting Canadian interests, he is an individual who refuses to get a security clearance to ensure that he has the information to protect his own party, let alone his own country. He is a man who speaks of freedom but refuses to let the members of his caucus speak freely, vote their conscience or represent the interests of their constituents.
What troubles me most is the fact that when there is an opportunity to talk Canada up, when there is an opportunity to focus on the strength this country has economically, the Conservative leader chooses to talk Canada down at every single turn, to make up facts and to present whatever he has seen on the Internet as somehow being relevant. All that does is break and shake the confidence of Canadians.
However, Canadians know better. They know that facts matter and they know that this is the best country in the world. We have work to do, but they will see the numbers for 2025 and know that this will be the fastest-growing economy in the G7.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, my colleague is a fellow British Columbian, and I know he understands the very desperate state of British Columbia's forest industry. The region I represent has lost numerous sawmills over the past several years. Across British Columbia there have been many more. The current softwood lumber dispute with the United States is a worrisome contributing factor to the downfall of the forest industry.
When the softwood lumber agreement and the softwood lumber dispute are raised in the House, often we hear platitudes and rhetoric along the lines of taking the issue very seriously and working in a concerted manner. We rarely hear unique and new strategies for actually addressing and resolving the dispute with the Americans.
What ideas does the Liberal government have for resolving the dispute? We hear that it is a priority for it, yet we do not see very much progress in terms of resolving it. What ideas and strategies can be brought to the fore?
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Speaker, I share my colleague's concern for the forestry sector in British Columbia that tragically took its biggest hits as a result of decisions made by the Harper government, of which the current leader of the Conservatives was a member.
We all know that the incoming president of the United States is a deal maker. This is an opportunity for us. It is a chance for us to sit down with someone who likes getting a good deal done, and to sit down at the table and say that these are the concerns that have been lingering for quite some time.
It is in the President-elect's interest to get the deal over the finish line, because it will make homebuilding and construction better and cheaper in his country, and it will continue to support businesses in my home province. This is an opportunity to sit down with somebody who, at their core, loves the art of the deal.
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
Madam Speaker, New Democrats have been consistent in our approach to strengthening our industries here in Canada and strengthening good-paying union jobs. How we do that is by making certain that there is predictability for the export of goods, the creation of those goods from raw material and value-added production for those goods here at home.
Why has it taken so long, even today, for the government, for the Liberals in particular, to reject the strategy? Why not participate in a policy like the one the New Democrats are calling for, which is to increase our ability to create value-added products we can make here at home?
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Madam Speaker, any strong economic strategy has to encompass all elements. It is not “and/or”. It is not “this or that”. It can be both. We do need to talk about how we continue to build industry and to take elements from natural to production in this country, just as we do need to do for other parts of the supply chain. That is the beauty of having an integrated North American economy; it allows us to be able to play in any and all portions of those sectors in the economy.
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Let us go back 10 years ago, to 2014. On April 30, 2014, The New York Times published an article entitled “Life in Canada, Home of the World’s Most Affluent Middle Class.” The article stated that “median income in Canada appears to have surpassed median income in the United States, based on more than three decades of international income surveys analyzed”. That was in April 2014.
We can then fast-forward almost a decade, to 2022, when the current government had been in power for six years. On April 8 of that year, in 2022, the Minister of Finance delivered her budget, budget 2022, and in that budget, the government published a chart on page 25 entitled “Average Potential Annual Growth in Real GDP per capita, Selected OECD Countries, 2020-2060”. In this chart, Canada is dead last.
I do not know who put that chart in the government's budget. I suspect it was not the minister's exempt staffers, and I suspect it was not the minister herself. I suspect it was Finance Canada officials, who put it in the budget to demonstrate how much trouble Canada's economy was in after six years of the government's fiscal and economic management.
That chart, where Canada was dead last in projected per capita GDP growth in selected OECD economies from 2020 to 2060, was an indictment at that time of the government's economic policies. Despite that chart being in the budget, and despite a number of people commenting on that chart, the government failed to heed the principles of good budgeting and fiscal management.
It failed to heed the principles outlined by former Liberal finance minister Paul Martin in his budget speech of 1996. I am going to quote from that budget speech because I think it is instructive for the House, and the government should heed the lessons. It reads:
Here are our principles. First, governments created the deficit burden and so governments must resolve it first by focusing in their own backyards by getting spending down, not by getting taxes up.
Second, our fiscal strategy will be worth nothing if at the end of the day we have not provided hope for jobs [and growth]. We must focus on getting growth up at the same time as we strive to get spending down.
Third, we must be frugal in everything we do. Waste in government is simply not tolerable.
Fourth, we must forever put aside the old notion that new government programs require additional spending. They do not. What they do require is the will to shutdown what does not work and focus on what can. That is why a central thrust of our effort is reallocation. Whether on the spending side or on the revenue side, every initiative in this budget reflects a shift from lower to higher priority areas.
Finally, we must always be fair and compassionate. It is the most vulnerable whose voices are often the least strong. We must never let the need to be frugal become an excuse to stop being fair.
That was finance minister Paul Martin in the 1996 budget speech he delivered in the House, outlining the principles for responsible budgeting that the current government has utterly failed to heed. Because the government failed to heed the warning on page 25 of budget 2022's document and the warnings of former finance minister Paul Martin, the economy continued to falter.
A year later, on April 17, 2023, Jonathan Deslauriers and Robert Gagné at the Centre for Productivity and Prosperity at the Walter J. Somers Foundation did an analysis of Canada's living standards. Here is what they concluded:
In 1981, Canadians enjoyed a $3,000 higher per capita standard of living than the major Western economies (adjusted for inflation and currency fluctuations). Forty years later, Canada was $5,000 below that same average. If the trajectory continues, the gap will be nearly $18,000 by 2060. Canada’s Department of Finance has also reported these alarming projections.
According to their analysis, on the current track the government has put Canada on, we will go from having the sixth-highest living standard in the leading OECD 19 economies in 1981 to dropping to 15th place. All the while, our closest trading partner and ally, the United States, ranks at third place, with the third-highest standard of living in the group.
Subsequent to that analysis in Policy Options, many, many other experts rang the alarm bell about Canada's faltering economy, people like the former governor of the Bank of Canada David Dodge, the former Liberal finance minister John Manley and former policy and budget director to former finance minister Bill Morneau, Robert Asselin. However, despite all the warnings coming from experts across the country in academia and in political and policy circles, the government failed to heed the warnings.
This year, the senior deputy governor of the Bank of Canada, Carolyn Rogers, added to these warnings. With respect to Canada's economy, on March 26 she noted that productivity improved in the U.S. economy coming out of the pandemic, but that this had not happened in Canada. It was quite the opposite. She noted that Canada's productivity is unchanged from where it was seven years ago. In fact, she issued this very stark warning: “You know those signs that say ‘In an emergency, break the glass’? Well, it's time to break the glass.”
This is very strong language coming from a central banker. Canada's central bank is saying publicly that we are in an economic emergency. It is using the word “emergency”. It is saying that Canada is falling behind other countries because of weak business investment, a lack of competition and a failure to integrate new immigrants into the workforce, all of which are responsibilities of the government.
A couple of months later, on May 6, 2024, the Financial Times of London did an analysis titled “A warning from the breakdown nations”. Here is what its analysis concluded:
Take Canada first. Widely admired for how it weathered the global financial crisis of 2008, it missed the boat when the world moved on, driven by big tech instead of commodities. Canada’s per capita GDP has been shrinking 0.4 per cent a year since 2020—the worst rate for any developed economy in the top 50. New investment and job growth is being driven mainly by the government.
Private-sector action is confined largely to the property market, which does little for productivity and prosperity. Many young people can’t afford to buy in one of the world’s most expensive housing markets. Pressed to name a digital success, Canadians cite Shopify—but the online store is the only tech name among the country’s 10 largest companies, and its shares are trading at half their 2021 peak.
That is the end of its analysis.
On September 30, The Economist published an analysis titled “Why is Canada's economy falling behind America's? The country was slightly richer than Montana in 2019. Now it is just poorer than Alabama.” A couple of weeks later, The Economist also published a very harsh, I would say, but accurate assessment of the Prime Minister.
I will just finish by saying this: The government has put Canada in a very poor position, and it is unable to meet the challenges of the new administration south of the border.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, I find it amazing that we have Conservatives who truly want to believe that they are in a better position to negotiate a trade agreement; in fact, they were the first to capitulate in the last go-round with President-elect Trump.
As much as the member opposite tries to give the false impression that Canada is broken, when it comes to foreign investment, where people are placing their money, Canada was number one in the G7 and number three in the world on a per capita basis.
The Liberal government has generated over double the number of jobs that Stephen Harper did in the same time span. That was attributed, in good part, to the record number of free trade agreements that the government has signed off on, far outnumbering the trade agreements with the Conservatives.
Why should Canadians believe that the Conservatives have a chance at negotiating a fair deal for Canadians when they have demonstrated capitulation?
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Speaker, the member is utterly wrong.
Here is an analysis from National Bank Financial by Matthieu Arseneau and Alexandra Ducharme, from several weeks ago. They say, “Consequently, GDP per capita has fallen by around 4.0% cumulatively since 2022, which is unprecedented outside a recession.”
Speaking of investments, I will quote the Governor of the Bank of Canada, Tiff Macklem, who was in front of finance committee about a month ago. On investment in the Canadian economy, he said, “Foreign capital, even some Canadian capital, is going to the United States, because they can get faster regulatory approvals.”
The fact of the matter is that the government has driven investment out of this country. As a result, it has driven down productivity, driven down per capita GDP, and made Canadians a lot poorer and this country a lot more vulnerable to an incoming new administration.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, I listened to my hon. colleague's intervention, which was very focused on the productivity problems in the Canadian economy. This is a topic that obviously concerns everyone.
What industrial policies does he think Canada should implement to correct this productivity problem?
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and I note that he represents the former riding of the Right Hon. Paul Martin.
I would like to respond by saying that it is clear that we need to attract domestic and international investment in the Canadian economy. We have to start by lowering taxes on investments. The government is doing exactly the opposite by taxing capital gains, which reduces Canadians' investment in our economy and foreign investment in Canada.
Taylor Bachrach NDP Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC
Madam Speaker, the United States under President-elect Trump is likely to withdraw from the Paris Agreement, as it did in his first term. This is something that will have severe implications for trade.
My question for the member is this: Does he feel Canada should maintain its commitment to the Paris Agreement, particularly in light of the fact that other markets, such as the European Union, are increasingly considering climate commitments as part of their trade relations.
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Madam Speaker, it is really important for Canada to ensure that our approach to climate change is integrated with that of the United States. Our economies are integrated, from autos to food manufacturing and from energy to services. We cannot have a regulatory environment here that is substantially different from that of the United States.
It is really important that we ensure that there is a redoubling of our efforts on regulatory synchronization between the two countries. It is an initiative that was started under former prime minister Stephen Harper that was largely abandoned by the current government. I note that the minister has recently resurrected the initiative, but it seems to me to have been too late in doing that.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to a truly vital issue this evening. Over the past nine years, a number of yellow flags have been raised by our NATO partners, members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the defence industry. Now, our number-one defence partner, the United States of America, has raised a huge red flag.
The U.S. government has had enough of potential threats to its citizens' safety originating in Canada. It has had enough of Canada always trying to avoid paying its fair share in terms of military obligations. It obviously thinks it is a shame it does not have a serious partner to work with.
Canada is in this crisis situation because of the Prime Minister's foolishness. Members on this side of the House have brought these issues to the Prime Minister's attention many times. Maybe this time, he will do something. There are so many things I could bring up this evening to demonstrate just how incompetent this Prime Minister and his ministers have been. I will focus on the disaster this government caused at National Defence.
Where do we start? For nine years, we have been criticizing the Liberals for making big promises on this file, on defence, and then failing to keep their promises every time. They keep deferring spending and deferring funds for goods and equipment to future years.
Significantly, the Liberals have also changed the rules of the game when it comes to defence spending. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, reported defence spending increased by approximately $7 billion in 2017 over the previous fiscal year, but only because of NATO's more flexible guidance on what constitutes defence spending. As a result, Canada's numbers on spending came to include measures not previously considered defence spending. Veterans' benefits and expenditures on the Canadian Coast Guard, peacekeeping and DND IT support are now part of Canada's NATO calculation.
In other words, the Liberals created $7 billion in new spending out of thin air. As a result, any comparison between the current government's spending and that of the Harper government is like comparing apples to oranges. Canada is now the only NATO country that is not meeting its two investment pledges: to invest at least 2% of its GDP in defence and to invest at least 20% of its defence budget in new equipment and R and D.
The Liberals cut the Canadian Armed Forces' budget by nearly $1 billion, despite their promise not to do so, and yet the 2023 budget specifically promised to exempt the Canadian Armed Forces from the government's spending review. Let us remember that, in budget 2023, the current President of the Treasury Board, the former defence minister, asked all departments to start being more careful and making budget cuts, but there was an exemption for the Canadian Armed Forces. Despite all this, $1 billion was cut from the Department of National Defence's budget.
Last year, the former chief of the defence staff, Wayne Eyre, said it was impossible to cut almost $1 billion from the defence budget without that having an impact. He went on to say that it was an issue the department was facing, and that he had had a very difficult session with the commanding officers of the different branches as they tried to explain this to their people. Those people knew the security situation was deteriorating around the world, so trying to explain it to them was very difficult.
According to the Public Accounts of Canada, the Liberals have left billions of dollars in defence funding unspent since 2015—
Mario Simard Bloc Jonquière, QC
Madam Speaker, I am really fond of my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. I really like him.
We are supposed to be talking about tariffs, but he is talking about national defence. Perhaps because of my limitations, I am trying to understand the connection between the two. I am sure my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles will be able to tell me the connection between national defence and tariffs. I am sure he can tell me, because I am not following for the moment.
The Assistant Deputy Speaker NDP Carol Hughes
As we know, members are given a lot of latitude during their speeches. However, the points raised during a debate must be related to the subject at hand. I am certain that the hon. member will be sure to make the connection with the motion before the House.
The hon. member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles.
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Jonquière must be following what is going on right now and why the new U.S. president-elect is threatening to impose 25% tariffs. These are the consequences related to border management and drug trafficking. Canada's national defence, which is a bit player as far as the Americans are concerned, only adds to the friction. That is why we are taking stock of Canada's military situation in relation to our partnership with the Americans. It is part of our overall national security. That is why Canada is currently being criticized.
According to the Public Accounts, the Liberals have let billions of dollars in defence spending fall by the wayside since 2015. This essentially means that through their mismanagement, they have failed to spend the billions of dollars that were allocated for national defence. Only 58% of the Canadian Armed Forces would be able to respond to a crisis if called upon by NATO allies today. Nearly half of all military equipment is considered unavailable and unusable. This is one reason why the American president is fed up. It seems pretty clear to me.
The Liberals ended up choosing the F-35s to replace the aging CF-18s, but that happened only after several years of mismanagement and political interference in the procurement process. That is something else the Americans are sick of. Richard Shimooka of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute described this situation as disastrous in a 2019 report.
For our part, when we were in power, we took our military obligations seriously. For example, we quickly acquired five C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft, 17 CC‑130J Hercules transport aircraft, 15 Chinook helicopters, some Leopard tanks. We modernized the CP-140 surveillance aircraft, as well as the Halifax class frigates, and so on. That made our American colleagues happy. We were with them in Afghanistan to fight against the Taliban.
Retired Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie said something about Canada's ailing military. Let us not forget that he was a Liberal member for four years. He did not seek reelection because he understood the problem I am talking about. He said that in the past decade, the Liberals “spent more money on consultants and professional services than it did on the Army, Navy and Air Force combined”.
Here are a few facts. We have fewer than 35 personnel deployed on UN missions, compared with almost 2,500 in 2003. We are the only NATO country whose level of military operational readiness is falling, while all the others' readiness levels are soaring. We have the longest and least efficient supply system in NATO, of all member countries, in fact. We are the only NATO country without a concrete plan to reach 2% of GDP, a target that was agreed to by the Minister of Defence in 2008, reiterated in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and I could go on. We are the only NATO country whose defence minister has publicly admitted that he failed to convince his cabinet colleagues of the importance of NATO defence spending and the 2% GDP target.
“This is borderline atrocious”: That is a quote from Vice-Admiral Mark Norman, for those who were here in 2016 and 2017. Members will remember Admiral Norman. Vice-Admiral Norman said, “Readiness is all about measuring the ability of your armed forces to do what it is they're expected to do. And fundamentally, that's all about going somewhere and fighting. And, you know, it's a pretty dire situation when you're...not where you need to be”. What Admiral Norman was basically saying is that we need to be ready for combat. We always need to be ready for any deployment we are asked to do. That is not happening now. We are not ready.
The Liberal government has a disastrous record on national defence. Canadian forces members have not had any leadership in 10 years. As we used to say back in my day, when the situation changed, it went “order, counter-order, disorder”. For nine years, it has been “disorder, disorder, disorder”.
We want to put Canada first again. For that, there needs to be a plan.
Where is the plan?
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Madam Speaker, the member spoke in regard to the percentage of the GDP. I can tell the member that, for the last four years in which Stephen Harper was the prime minister, the highest percentage of the GDP was actually lower than our lowest amount of spending as a percentage of the GDP. In fact, the Conservatives were so bad under today's leader of the Conservative Party that they were actually less than 1%. Now, the Conservatives want to come across as if they believe in investing in the Canadian Armed Forces. That is a joke. All one needs to do is take a look at the Conservatives' last four years in government.
Does the member not recognize the hypocrisy of the leader of the Conservative Party regarding his position on that issue alone?
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, if the member opposite had listened carefully to what I said earlier, he would have heard that today's numbers are different from earlier figures because NATO rules changed in 2017. NATO allowed Canada to include the Coast Guard, veterans' pensions and the Department of National Defence's IT expenses in the defence budgets. Some $7 billion was been allocated to this spending, which suddenly, magically, ended up being factored into the GDP target.
The Liberals came in and said they were doing more than the Conservatives. I understand how. They took a bunch of expenses that were already being incurred and included them in the calculation. That helped boost the figures. What did they do in 2023? They cut a billion dollars from the budget, even though the President of the Treasury Board said that the government would not normally touch National Defence. They made cuts. Some $7 billion was added, and it has been going down ever since. They are talking nonsense.
Louis-Philippe Sauvé Bloc LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC
Madam Speaker, 60 years ago, the Canadian philosopher George Grant published Lament for a Nation.
We are talking about tariffs. The Conservative response seems to be to do whatever the Americans want us to do. The member for Wellington—Halton Hills said we need more integration. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles says we need more defence spending. The Conservative leader even said we need to develop a warrior culture. The member for Thornhill echoed the U.S. President-elect's comments, saying that we must acquiesce to U.S. demands on the issue of border management.
I am committed to Quebec independence. That is what I wish for. Is Canadian independence important to the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and his colleagues?
Pierre Paul-Hus Conservative Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC
Madam Speaker, I will remain respectful because my colleague is new here. He is flexing his muscles and having a bit of fun, but he has no idea how the Canadian and U.S. forces work together.
Maybe he should check his notes and look up what NORAD is. Canada and the United States work together as part of a larger, binational military organization. That is NORAD. Together with NATO, we are all interconnected. Canada and the United States are NATO's western flank. We are geostrategically important, and we have to work with our American partners. We cannot work independently.
I would remind him that if Quebec should delight him by separating someday, it will have to engage with the rest of Canada to help defend Quebec. He should keep that in mind.