Government Operations Committee on Sept. 22nd, 2026

[Brad Field]

At Homes For Heroes, we tend to lean toward more of an urban setting, where we have access to public transportation. Most of the veterans whom we serve are without vehicles in a lot of cases, so access to public transportation, doctors, banking, groceries and so forth, is important. With our model, we lean into a more urban setting, but we have explored and will continue to explore a rural type of set-up. At this point, though, we lean into more of an urban setting.

[Alana Hirtle, Liberal, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you. I'd love to have further conversations about that, but I am now down to eight seconds.

Thank you so much, folks.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thanks.

Madame Gaudreau, please, go ahead.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Hello again, Mr. Field. We meet a lot of witnesses, but I remember you from the meeting on entrepreneurship. So, I'll get right to the point, not only because you are very familiar with veterans' issues, but also because you were here a few moments ago when the deputy minister explicitly said we were waiting on the report to have a discussion and make decisions.

However, we didn't get an answer, and that's really disappointing. Be that as it may, let's not waste this opportunity. You said that ideas have been expressed to perhaps regroup the facilities that help veterans into a support network. Tell me something. Let's imagine you have all the options in front of you. If you're at the negotiation table, what will you say to PSPC and VAC about the needs of veterans on the ground?

[Brad Field]

Thank you for the question.

We struggle on a daily basis—and I'm sure Debbie and her team do too—with the continuity in conversations between departments within the federal, provincial and municipal governments. I'll give you an example. I'm going to start to trail back to the $3 million. We applied for funding for our operations in Kingston, Calgary and Edmonton. We had Winnipeg under construction. We got funding for Kingston. We received funding for a village that hadn't been built yet, and then we were denied funding for our two locations that had been up and running for in excess of five years.

Again, when the $3 million.... I thought, “Why didn't you call us back, because we applied for funding?” Now we're struggling, you know, day to day, and we have to take away resources for serving our veterans and go to fundraising to keep operations going. Continuity in discussions is sometimes a challenge.

If I could, I'd like to lean into something around building our villages, and I speak only for us. Currently, we have villages under construction in Winnipeg and in London, Ontario. We seek funding through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, funding which in turn moved to Build Canada Homes. We are now a year and a half into a funding application. We've been pre-approved. They formed Build Canada Homes and said that CMHC was no longer going to handle the file; it was shifting over to Build Canada Homes. This cost us six months in funding. Also, once we get approval, if we get approval, the file will be sent back to CMHC to handle. Why did we form Build Canada Homes? It's a slower process.

That being said, our London village will be built and fully operational before we even see a dime from our federal partners, but they'll be there on ribbon-cutting day.

Those are the kinds of challenges that we face on a daily basis around funding. When it comes to federal lands, surplus lands, we would love to have access. We've applied for in excess of 52 pieces of land across Canada to build villages on, to build our model. We haven't won one of those bids. Most of the time, closer to urban centres, land use is the issue, and we're not dense enough. We look for an acre and a half of land, and of course, you can build a high-rise there that will house 1,000 people as opposed to a village for 25 veterans that creates community and an environment where they can heal and reintegrate into civilian life.

The whole process is a little skewed, I would say, but it's not about politics. It should be non-partisan. However, we need to come together from all departments to talk about how we can streamline the process so that we can get these surplus lands into the hands of organizations like ours and VETS Canada and do some good for our veterans in an immediate fashion, not years down the road.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I can just tell you that it's as easy as pie. People need to sit down and talk to each other. However, it's so easy that it doesn't happen that way. I've been fighting for seven years to ensure that you and others are at the table. The same goes for the Canada Post matters.

By the way, Mr. Chair, I would like to digress for a moment. What will happen with Canada Post? We've heard that the president and CEO is retiring. Yesterday, union members were on the Hill. Cuts and attrition have already taken place. We haven't heard anything. Honestly, 17 million households and 55,000 workers are wondering what will happen. September 25 is just around the corner. It has been a year and we haven't heard anything. I'm bringing this to your attention because it makes no sense.

My question is for you, Ms. Lowther. Here's what I understand. If we want a positive outcome, we definitely need to consult with you. Unfortunately, the government officials don't just wake up one fine morning and decide to consult with people.

Do you agree or disagree that we absolutely must consult with you in order to provide appropriate housing for veterans, in keeping with the areas of jurisdiction? Please give me your answer in 10 seconds.

[Debbie Lowther]

Yes.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

There you have it. Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

That was simple.

Mr. Bragdon, you have five minutes, please.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses.

First and foremost, thank you for your service and for the tremendous care that you provide for each of those veterans you serve and their families. Oftentimes, the folks who work closest to and are nearest to those who are walking through the shadows, as it were, of life and circumstances never get the recognition they certainly deserve. Thank you for what you do. We appreciate it.

Veterans Affairs Canada, VAC, mentioned that there are, in its estimation, between 1,700 and 1,800 homeless veterans in Canada. Do you believe this number is accurate? Why or why not?

I'll ask both of you that question.

[Debbie Lowther]

The number is probably higher. If they're relying on the point-in-time counts that were referred to, those counts are done within shelters and of folks entrenched in the streets. Veterans don't tend to access shelters. They are more likely to live in their car, stay with a buddy or live rough in the woods. There's a component of the hidden homeless, which is not factored into that number.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Obviously, it is an urgent situation across the country. I think that Canadians from coast to coast would want to make sure that our veterans get the best care possible and get all the support they need in trying times or in their time of difficulty. Do you feel that the urgency of the response has met the urgency of—for lack of a better expression—the situation? Do you feel as though the response so far and the resources made available by the government are adequate to the urgent need that there is?

[Brad Field]

I would say no. This has been going on for years, so it's not necessarily this government but past governments as well. We've struggled with not only funding issues, but.... As for the boots on the ground at VAC, the caseworkers and so forth, I have to say that more often than not they do a fantastic job. Where we get stuck is in the bureaucracy above the boots on the ground.

Resources aren't there. We're struggling every day. At Homes For Heroes, our mandate every day is to ask, for whatever decision we're going to make, “Is it in the best interest of the veterans we serve today?” Every time I have to leave to do fundraising or one of my caseworkers has to go down to the local food bank to get food for veterans, that takes time away from serving our veterans' needs. I agree that the sense of urgency just isn't there.

It's growing. Again, as in our statements, our CAF enrolment is increasing, which, in turn, means we will have more veterans. We believe 1,700 is a low number. A recent study in 2023, I think from McGill University, pegged it at 10,000. I would say that may be high. I don't know, but it's certainly not 1,700, I can tell you that much, just from the numbers we deal with on a regular basis.

We're currently under construction in Winnipeg. They're talking, in the local shelters, in the interaction with public agencies, social agencies...in excess of 500 homeless veterans just in the city of Winnipeg. Do the extrapolated math: 1,700 is not the number, and I think we should stop using that number as a point of reference.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Thank you.

Would you like to add anything to that, Debbie? This could be to both of you, as you talked about that bureaucratic maze above the frontline workers at VAC. What would you both identify as the biggest impediments to getting the resources that you need to where they're needed? Can you speak to that? What have you encountered and experienced to be the greatest impediments?

[Debbie Lowther]

There's a lot of unnecessary bureaucracy. Just in dealing with the veteran homelessness program, we're dealing with Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. The reporting alone on that funding is quite an impediment itself. It takes time away from our being able to raise funds. The bureaucracy is definitely a barrier.

There needs to be a greater sense of urgency. We need to stop and consider that these are people who wore the uniform and put their lives on the line for our country. If we're going to send them into harm's way, then the least we could do is look after them when they come back.

[Brad Field]

Could I add to that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

We're out of time, but if it's brief, yes, please.

[Brad Field]

I'll make it very brief. Thank you.

Stop with the new shiny programs. Stop with the research programs. We spend millions of dollars. I see the money distributed to research on veteran homelessness, “Let's do a new shiny-penny research program.” We need basic needs funded. We need homeless programs put in place, the basics. Stop with the new shiny programs and research projects. Let's dole out some funding to organizations that have a proven track record of getting work done on behalf of our veterans.

[The Chair, Conservative, Kelly McCauley]

Thank you.

Ms. Rochefort, go ahead.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question for Ms. Lowther.

To come back to the Amherst proposal, you spoke about what could be developed in Amherst. From your point of view, what would it take to deliver and to move forward with the Amherst proposal at this point?

[Debbie Lowther]

First things first, there is the building itself. We would need to have the building—

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Could you expand on what this would involve?

[Debbie Lowther]

We would hope that DND would ensure the building is structurally sound. We would hope that building could then be transferred to us. We would then start fundraising for renovations to make it suitable for our needs.

[Pauline Rochefort, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Have you personally had discussions with DND?

[Debbie Lowther]

We had one meeting a few weeks ago with the Minister of National Defence. He went into some detail about the structural issues with the building, but we didn't get too deep in the weeds.