MESSAGES FROM THE HOUSE OF COMMONS — Appropriation Bill No. 4, 2025-26
Second Reading--Debate Adjourned
March 24, 2026
Honourable senators, thank you. I appreciate that.
I have just a few more questions about defence spending, because there are significant amounts in here, but I don’t feel as if we have a clear view on the precise amounts yet. You mentioned in your speech that there is $1.2 billion for the Department of National Defence, or DND, and then a separate amount of $1.2 billion for the Treasury Board, which is allocated for defence. In that $1.2 billion for DND, you were speaking about nine transport aircraft, and then you were speaking about the Treasury Board amount to deal with “unexpected expenses.”
Could you give us more precision about that amount, and is that the total of the defence amount within the $5.4 billion for this? I don’t want to have amounts that aren’t defence-related in this.
Then, after you answer that, I have a follow-up question.
Thank you.
The additional $5.4 billion that we’re looking for in Supplementary Estimates (C) includes all of that amount, including the $1 billion that is destined for the Treasury Board. That is almost like a placeholder for defence at the Treasury Board so that, should defence need that, it has fewer paces to go through in order to access that funding.
Given the level of spending that is happening at the moment with the variety of programs that are at various stages of needing supplementary funding, they decided to place $1 billion there. When that actual spending happens, it will then be represented and assigned to the appropriate ministry. So, it’s sitting at Treasury as a placeholder, knowing there is likely going to be more, and they need to be able to move quickly.
So, it was reasonable that they would ask for that placeholder to be put over at Treasury.
Thank you for explaining that.
Given those amounts — and $1 billion is quite a substantial amount as a placeholder — we just recently saw a story, which I believe was in Blacklock’s Reporter, in which they talked about the types of non-defence-related spending that are happening to try to reach the 2% target and, eventually, the 5% target. They included things like landscaping at military bases and pension payments for non-military employees of certain departments, as well as Coast Guard expenses, which had not previously been included. There was a $7.13-million grant for Ottawa Hydro to upgrade their infrastructure, and there was also mention of a water treatment plant in Saguenay.
Those things are not defence-related items, yet they are all being included as part of the amount to reach the 2% NATO target.
Do they intend to do more of that? I ask because that’s not really what we’re trying to get at when we have these NATO targets of 2% and then 5%. We are trying to improve our military, not simply arrive at a number.
Thank you.
You mentioned the Coast Guard, for example. You’ll see that they are moving the Coast Guard into additional operations that are defence related, so it’s appropriate that that funding for the Coast Guard then be attributed to defence because their role is not just emergency evacuation on waters, for example; it goes well beyond that. That is happening now, so it’s appropriate for that funding to be included.
Other items, like upgrades to electrical grids, are clearly going to be for upgrading activity around military bases. All of those things, if they are identified as defence, then they are properly attributed to defence spending.
I understand the point that you’re making in terms of spending in order for us to get to it. It could well be that there will be many areas that are attending to defence support that heretofore had not been included. However, I’m happy to ask them very specifically if there are elements that actually are not defence that we’re counting as defence, and I would be happy to report back to you.
