Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, the member will have to wait for our platform. I am in no position to launch it today, nor do I have a plan to table. This is not the place for it. There is a commitment from our party, from our leader, to finally take defence seriously. There will be a plan tabled to ensure that the men and women in our forces get the respect they need, get access to the housing they need and get the kit and equipment they need for training opportunities and to be ready to deploy if necessary.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, we have heard that in multiple studies that we have undertaken. Any time we are talking about factors that affect morale, recruitment and retention, that comes up. It has always been thus, but with the cost of living being what it is, many people are rooted in a community in a way that earlier generations were not, because of connections to employment that do not transfer very well or housing.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I think it says everything about priorities. We have had testimony at the defence committee from the chief of the defence staff and others who have clearly stated that we are perhaps in the most dangerous times since the Second World War, in the words of the chief of the defence staff.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I will say that the government does not have a monopoly on non-investment in the forces. That is not to say I agree with the premise of his question. I would go back to a previous Liberal government. We had a decade of darkness. We had the Prime Minister's father, who decimated the military and really even firmly withdrew us from the orbit of the western defence system.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, we are debating the eighth report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, which addresses the rent increase that took place in April. This is what was reported back to the House: “Given that, rent for Canadian military personnel living on bases is increasing this April, and at a time when the military is struggling to recruit and retain personnel, the committee report to the House, that the government immediately cancel all plans to increase rent on military accommodations used by the Department of National Defence.”

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the member another question because there was a lot to unpack in her speech. The condition of housing is critical as well. The member knows, from her experience representing the largest base, about the really deplorable condition of barracks and, in some cases, PMQs and residential housing units.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to that speech. It is great the way the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke does not pull punches. We all know how she feels, and I really find that refreshing in the House. As the member said in her speech, she represents the largest base in the country.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, the report we are debating called upon the government to reverse the rent increase on our forces members. While this may seem like a small thing, it just seems to be what is typical of the government's approach. The utter neglect of the forces has precipitated a crisis of recruitment and retention, yet the government has pressed ahead with the rent increase.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, the member is correct about Ombud Lick; he did say this. Another important voice to be heard on this is that of the chief of the defence staff, who has cited the crisis of retention and recruitment as perhaps the most critical crisis of the Canadian Forces, among the many crises facing the forces.

Committees of the House  Mr. Speaker, I am confused and actually troubled by part of the tone of the member's speech. I am quite aligned with the member on most of the underlying issues. The housing crisis in our armed forces is one we agree on. I do not understand why she used such bizarre terminology, calling a debate on an issue that desperately needs attention the weaponization of housing.

The Budget  Madam Speaker, we said no such thing. We are pro-energy, all kinds of energy. I did not differentiate between different forms of energy. I will say that the government is explicitly anti-fossil fuels, to the extent that it refuses to allow Canadians to develop, export and provide LNG, for example, to the world.

The Budget  Madam Speaker, the approach of the government is hollowing out the Canadian economy and the Canadian middle class. I see no reason to support it whatsoever. We need an immediate election. I am glad the hon. member and his party have finally decided to stop propping up the government.

The Budget  Madam Speaker, as I said, we all know who is going to end up having to pay for the ongoing debt, the ongoing borrowing, which is starting to choke out the rest of the budget. We can see how interest payments are now choking out other expenditures. It is going to be the young, it is going to be seniors, it is going to be workers and it is going to be small businesses that end up paying the price for the government.

The Budget  Madam Speaker, that member has nothing so he just blathers nonsense. We are debating a budget. That member is obviously not prepared to debate my speech or to offer a question or a comment on the speech or the matter at hand.

The Budget  Madam Speaker, it is another year and another broken 2015 election promise. Let no Canadian or anyone on those benches who ran in 2015 forget what the current government promised. In 2015, the Liberals promised that more spending, more taxes, more deficits and more borrowing would lead to a magical utopia where budgets would balance themselves.