Debates of April 10th, 2024

National Defence

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I do not know if the member knows what he is talking about across the way. Yes, they can fly. Planes do fly.

Madam Speaker, I can suggest to the members opposite that we are being challenged by the official opposition to get legislation passed, but the problem is that when it comes time to allow for that debate to occur, the Conservatives put in blockades of sorts. They will filibuster endlessly. They will bring in things like concurrence reports. What totally amazes me is that one Conservative member will stand up, and then another Conservative member will stand up to say, “I move for another Conservative member to be able to speak”. Then, they cause the bells to ring for 30 minutes. How productive is that?

How productive is it to debate when the Conservative Party says that it is done for the day and that it is going to adjourn debate for the day, again, causing the bells to ring? That is one of my favourites. We all know the Conservative Party does not like to work late. It is more nine-to-five work, and if one goes a little beyond that, its numbers go down.

In the end, we wanted to have more debate. To facilitate that debate, we are prepared to sit late into the evening. We will even sit until midnight to have debates. I am happy to hang around the floor of the House of Commons and to contribute to debates. I do not have a problem going until midnight.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, need their sleep time and need their relaxation. After 6:30, they do not want to have debate, yet they will tell Canadians, “they are trying to ram things through, not allowing debate and cannot get legislation off”. It is like how a little kid wants to get a chocolate bar, and here is a Tory kicking him under his feet so that he constantly falls down and cannot reach the chocolate bar—

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

The hon. member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, Standing Order 18 is very clear:

No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any member thereof.

For the member for Winnipeg North to imply that any of us over here or that any member of the House is not working hard, as we all do, and we sit the same hours as every other member here—

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

I do take note of the hon. member, but it is a debatable kind of thing.

I would invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North to be, perhaps, more respectful of the other colleagues.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay is rising on the same point of order.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just want to follow up. I think it is a question of respect, about people being in the House, and I do remember that my Conservative colleagues were there all night. It was their leader who was off having canapés—

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

We cannot mention absences or presences in the House, as the member well knows.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the interjection by the member, because it reminds me of something. We had 24 hours of votes on the main estimates, line by line, and one of those lines was an increase in salaries for members of the Canadian Forces. There are two things I want to highlight on that. Here is the problem.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asks how the Conservatives voted. Part of the problem was that it was around five o'clock in the morning. Some say they might have been sleeping, but I will not speculate. All I know is that it is public record. At five o'clock in the morning, the vote totals were really low. I can say that, at the end of the day, the Conservatives voted against increasing the salaries of members of the Canadian Forces.

That is kind of hard to imagine. They had a choice. It is not as though they had to vote on the whole budget. It was line by line. For those who were around and decided it was important to vote, the Conservatives voted against that.

A member stood on a point of order with regard to relevance. We voted on additional support for Ukraine under Operation Unifier. Members of our Canadian Forces were training and helping members of the force in Ukraine.

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

It's not Ukraine. They're in England.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Ukrainian soldiers are fighting in Ukraine against the Russians, Madam Speaker, for those who do not quite get it.

At the end of the day, Canadian Forces provided supports; those supports were a line item in the budget. Again, the Conservative Party intentionally chose to vote against that.

It is important to recognize that, when we think of the Canadian Forces, the first priority of the government is how we can support members of the armed forces and their families. For the short term, we should think of the $50 million-plus that are in the budget to help deal with the housing issue. We should think of the $290 million-plus over the next 20 years.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member says the housing we doubled. I really wish Conservatives would do some homework and compare investments in housing by the Harper regime compared with ours. One would think that this in itself would shut them up, or at least they would be quiet about it.

At the end of the day, we will invest tens of millions of dollars in the next year or two; over the next 20 years, we are talking about well over a quarter of a billion dollars. Unlike the Conservative Party, the government understands the needs of our forces, and that is why we will see budgetary actions for today and for tomorrow that will show such support.

I am disappointed that the Conservative Party says it cares about the Canadian Forces but does not take the time to use one of the many opposition days it has. Conservatives could articulate specific concerns, whatever they might be, and then allow for a discussion on it, not for a few hours, but for an entire day. An actual vote would then come of it.

To me, that just demonstrates the lack of integrity coming from the Conservative Party toward what are important issues of the day, because its sole focus is on being a destructive force. I can tell members and those who might be following the debate that, day in and day out, as a government, we are continuing to be focused on Canada's middle class and those wanting to become part of it, including generation Z, on that sense of fairness and on making sure that we are there to support our forces, their family members and so forth through budgetary measures in many different ways.

I am speaking specifically to members of the forces to let them know that as a government, our attention is focused on ensuring that we are going to be there not only for today but also well into the future. That is why we put the target somewhere in the neighbourhood of 1.7% to 1.8% of Canada's GDP, which would be really quite amazing to see when compared to what the former government budgeted, which was closer to 1% at one time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we come in here and listen to the member for Winnipeg North drone on and on, and he is loud. I live next door to him, and I know that his political epitaph is going to say that no member has ever spoken so much and said so little. That is a reality we are dealing with.

There is lots to chew on with all of the misinformation that was in the member's comments just now. First of all, he wanted to reflect on F-35s. The Liberals do not get to take credit for the F-35s, when they sidelined it in 2010. It was the Prime Minister, in his campaign of 2015, who said he would never buy the F-35. Guess what? The F-35 was the correct plane to buy. We applaud the government for finally coming to its senses and getting the right plane, 10 years too late. It wasted billions of dollars on buying used, rusted-out jets from Australia that are still not flying today, and we do not have pilots, because of the retention and recruitment crisis right now caused by the Liberals.

The member wants to talk about votes. In 2014 and 2015, when he was a member of the third party, he voted against Operation Unifier. Let us also remember that with respect to salaries, we voted against them because we lost confidence in the government and there was not enough money for our troops, because now they are lined up at food banks.

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

I try not to cut off members because I do want to get their questions and comments out there, but let us be reasonable in the amount of time we are taking to ask and answer questions, because we do get long answers as well.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about the F-35. “We wanted the F-35 when Stephen Harper was the prime minister”, is what he was saying, “but it is not our fault; it is the Liberal Party's fault. It did not allow us to buy the F-35s.”

Now the Liberals are in government. We voted to put in a proper tendering process, and the F-35 is now going to be on its way because there is a competent government that truly cares about the Canadian Forces today, compared to a Conservative government that liked to talk about it. However, the Conservatives' actions speak louder than words, and all one needs to do is reflect back to the days in which the member was the parliamentary secretary to the minister of defence when its budget was borderline 1% of Canada's GDP. I would suggest that the member needs to reflect on that government's poor performance. I would contrast it with ours any day, with regard to the Canadian Forces.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, even though I only had the pleasure of hearing the second part of it, since we were called back to the House at the last minute.

The minister just tabled an update of Canada's defence policy, which will invest $8 billion over the next five years. Most of that money will be invested in the final part of those five years, however. In the first part, the investment will be much lower. We are also being told that the $900 million in cuts announced in September will not be reversed. This works out to roughly the same thing, considering what will happen in the first few years.

We heard military personnel complain a lot about these cuts and say that they were the first victims of penny-pinching. That is more or less what this motion touches on when it talks about military personnel, who are the first victims of the federal government's penny-pinching at their expense.

I would like to know whether the member thinks the government is sending the wrong message by saying that it is going to increase the defence budget but not reverse the cuts, which were made primarily at the expense of military personnel, even though it hopes to improve personnel retention and recruitment in the future, given that our national security depends on it.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is important, when we think of our Canadian Forces, that a long-term, multi-year budget come forward to ultimately deal with a great deal of the concerns members of the forces have and to provide reassurances. That is why I would refer the member to the release we put out last week, which literally, on a number of points, makes substantial commitments to build upon our Canadian Forces, so that it is good for us not only here in Canada but also abroad by meeting our international commitments. It also adds a great deal of value with respect to our Canadian manufacturing capabilities.

That is not something that is going to take place overnight, but it would take place over the next number of years. At least, it is a commitment that I believe will go a long way to providing stability and allowing members of the Canadian Forces to continue the fine work they are doing today.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this report, the eighth report, is the report the NDP commissioned. It calls on the government to cancel all plans to increase rents for military accommodations.

I just tried to get unanimous consent to get this report adopted. It was not the Liberals, the members of the Bloc Québécois or the independents saying no. It was the Conservatives who said no to the very report they are presenting. Therefore, if they refused to have the report adopted, this is obviously a procedural technique to block the important debate on pharmacare that the NDP initiated, which was on the Order Paper today.

Does my colleague find it reprehensible that Conservatives are blocking the adoption of the report, which would lead to cancelling those rent increases? Why are they blocking this important debate on pharmacare that will help millions of Canadians?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I can tell the member that the Minister of Health was prepared today to deliver a very important speech on Bill C-64, on pharmacare, and members of the Conservative Party knew that.

I have introduced petition after petition on the importance of pharmacare for a number of years now. I have been advocating very strongly for it. As the House leader of the New Democratic Party has articulated, literally millions of Canadians are going to benefit from a national pharmacare program, and this is just another piece of legislation the Conservatives want to play games with. They have no intention of making life easier for Canadians. Their sole focus is on developing bumper stickers for the next election, which is very sad to see.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, since 2014, Canada has had the third-largest increase in defence spending and ranks sixth among the 32 NATO countries. Recently, we announced that we are going to invest $8.1 billion over the next five years and increase it to about $73 billion over the next 20 years.

I would like to ask the member if he can touch upon the recent announcement we made, where we said we are going to invest $295 million into the Canadian Armed Forces housing strategy to build new housing as well as to rehabilitate the existing housing stock. We also announced about $497 million for the electronic health records of the Canadian Armed Forces. Can he touch upon the recent announcement we made that refers to these increases to improve the strength of the Canadian Armed Forces?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me take one component of what the member referenced. When we think of defending Canada over the next 20 years, think in terms of specialized maritime sensors, $1.4 billion; satellite ground station, $222 million; and tactical helicopters, $8.4 billion. There is a great deal of money being invested in the Canadian Forces for domestic and international roles, very critical roles that we play. There is a genuine commitment to get us up to 1.7% or 1.8% of Canada's GDP. I think we are doing, overall, reasonably well.

At the end of the day, members should give the proposed 20-year plan within the budget a serious look and get behind it. If they support the Canadian Forces, as they like to say they do, then they should be supporting some of the initiatives, getting behind them and voting. That includes family members or, more specifically, members of the forces. Members should not do what the Conservatives did last fall, when they literally voted against increases in the salaries of members of our Canadian Forces. They intentionally chose to do that.

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

Mr. Speaker, all I would ask the member is this: Is it true that in the budget, there will be $2.7 billion less spending on defence over the next three years, yes or no?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the good news is that next week we are going to get the budget. The member will have ample opportunity to peruse it. There are a lot of good things in there for Canadians. We understand the many benefits and issues around affordability that are so important to all Canadians.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion, that notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practices of the House, that the motion to concur in the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, presented on Monday, February 26, be deemed adopted and—