National Defence Committee on Nov. 2nd, 2023

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say it's up to the wonderful people who have more experience, but my recommendation would be that after “and information management systems”, we add, “that the committee hold a minimum of three meetings on the topic.”

For the other paragraph, beginning with “That the committee invite”, I will have another amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

There's an amendment on the floor for a minimum of three meetings. Do people wish to speak to the amendment?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have an amended motion on the floor.

Do you wish to make another amendment, Ms. Lalonde?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope it will be as quickly considered by our committee members.

As we go to the second paragraph, where it says, “That the committee invite the Canadian Armed Forces Chief of Defence Staff”, I would like to strike that person and add instead, “the Deputy Minister of National Defence”, who is ultimately the person responsible for the requests in the motion.

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

You're taking the CDS out and putting the deputy minister in.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Ms. Mathyssen.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I had put in the chief of the defence staff as the most senior officer. I believe he could speak to the repercussions against survivors speaking out. He is the final voice on the grievance process, as far as I understand. We've done that research and that's why he is in there, so I wouldn't agree to that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Is there any other conversation on the amendment of taking the CDS out and putting the deputy minister in?

All those in favour?

Oh, for goodness' sake. We have a 5-5 vote.

I will cast my vote in favour of the amendment.

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

We now have a motion as amended. Is there any further debate?

Go ahead, James.

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

Just as a point of information, we got an email just last week from someone over at the Department of National Defence on ATIPs I've done in the past. They're looking for clarification on an ATIP I did in 2018. They're also looking for information on four ATIPs I did back in 2019.

I think there's a law that they're supposed to actually fill these and respond within a few months, not a few years, so this is a timely study.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I'm sure you'll have a great time bringing up that information.

We now have a motion as amended. Are we all in favour?

(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

Do you have anything else?

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

Yes. While we're dealing with committee business, I'd like to move a motion. I move:

That the committee report to the House of Commons that:

(a) The current state of morale of the Canadian Armed Forces is at an unprecedented low;

(b) Lapses in defence spending and budget cuts have left our soldiers understaffed, under equipped and without a sufficient supply of affordable housing;

(c) Military families and Canadian Armed Forces members have resorted to using food banks and asking for donations to help them deal with the high cost of living.

Therefore, the committee recognize the morale crisis is the result of a lack of political will and investment, leaving members feeling more undervalued and underappreciated than at any point in recent history, and recommend urgent action by the Canadian government.

As everybody looks at the motion, may I speak to it Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Yes.

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

We continue to hear stories about our soldiers and military families dealing with major concerns. Their morale is continuing to decline for all sorts of reasons. It's everything from feeling disrespected to often feeling they are not valued by the government or by leadership within the forces. They believe the defence spending cuts and the budget lapses that have taken place have significantly undermined their ability to have the equipment they need to do the job the government asks of them.

They are very concerned about the lack of affordable housing. We are hearing more and more that when Canadian members of the armed forces have to relocate as part of the rotation from one base to another....

I just had an email come in from a husband and wife who were stationed in Manitoba at Shilo. They are both well employed within the Canadian Armed Forces. They sold their house and transferred to Halifax. They can't afford to buy a home there, and are living in a tent. They earn a combined income of over $200,000 a year and they are trying to buy a home. They have the revenue from the house they sold in Manitoba and they're bidding on homes above the asking price, but they are still falling short every time they try to buy a home. They can't find a decent house, condo or apartment to live in, and there's a lack, of course, of supply of housing on bases. We've heard from defence officials here, including the CDS, that the Canadian Armed Forces is currently short over 6,000 homes.

We know that the issues of affordability and inflation have impacted our members in the forces more than anyone else. When they're forced to live in high-cost areas, they are at a greater disadvantage than many others. They have resorted to going to food banks and asking for donations to help offset the high costs of living and the cost of the GST on home heating—except, of course, if they're now over in Gagetown. There, they're taken care of by the government, but if they're anywhere else in Canada, they're not. That type of divisive policy coming from the Liberal government and Prime Minister Trudeau is not helping.

It's important that we report this to the House. It's important that we show our Canadian Armed Forces that we are listening to them and that we're aware of all the problems they're having.

We know that we're short 16,000 troops. Just yesterday, Minister Blair, during question period in the Senate, said we are in a retention crisis and that attrition continues to exceed 4,000 to 5,000 a year over what they can recruit. We heard from the chief of the defence staff that in addition to being short 16,000 troops, we are short 10,000 members who are currently undertrained and undeployable. Again, this puts more workload on the current Canadian Armed Forces members who are having to deploy to places like Latvia, England, Kuwait and elsewhere and are expected to do more frequent rotations, whether they're on ships, in military missions or within the air force.

This is something we have to tackle. It's time the government took this seriously. Those are the reasons we need to get this reported back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Next is Mr. Kelly, followed by Mrs. Kramp-Neuman, Ms. Lalonde, Ms. Normandin and Ms. Mathyssen.

[Pat Kelly, Conservative, Calgary Rocky Ridge, AB]

I support the motion, and I think it's important that this committee report it back to the House and report these findings.

We are in a crisis. We are in a time of global uncertainty. We know this well. We know this from the testimony we have heard at this committee on threat analysis and on the health study, which we are still wrapping up. In the testimony, we heard all of the factors that are driving our men and women out of the forces, things like members being unable to get a family doctor, things like being unable to have access to housing. All of these things deeply affect morale.

We have had damning testimony from the defence ombudsman, who spoke about this at the committee. This needs to be reported to the House. We need to show and demonstrate to Canadians that this committee understands the crisis we're in with our forces and that the need is urgent.

We have not seen any sense of urgency from the government. We have seen a cut to the budget at a time when our international allies are shaming Canada for its inability to step up and fully fulfill its obligations under the alliances to which we belong—NATO. We committed to getting our defence spending to 2% of GDP, and yet the government is cutting the department's budget.

This is urgent. It needs to be done and it needs to be reported to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mrs. Kramp-Neuman is next.

[Shelby Kramp-Neuman, Conservative, Hastings—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

I certainly support the motion as well. There's no doubt. Let's get the facts on the table.

CAF presently is 16,000 personnel short. The personnel gap is expected to grow in the coming months. CAF continues to face an existential threat in the form of a combined recruiting and retention crisis. The morale of our troops has been completely eroded.

After eight years, personnel are leaving the ranks for a lot of different reasons—everything from affordable housing to support for families, lack of equipment, culture in general, lack of funding and a general lack of political will to support our military.

In my eyes, if we need to be war-ready in an ever-growing geopolitically complex environment, this Liberal—NDP government needs to step up, show respect and fully commit to our troops.

I certainly acknowledge and thank my colleague for putting this motion forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Go ahead, Madame Lalonde.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I read this “motion”, and I find it a bit disheartening to see that some are taking a very partisan approach. I know that my colleagues will understand what I mean, since I see some snickering on the other side of the room.

I think we all recognize the importance of our military. I would also like to remind my dear Conservative colleagues that, during the years they were in power, their military spending was less than 1% of gross domestic product.

Right now, the committee wants to undertake studies. We have a busy schedule in the House where we talk about many things that are important to Canadians. For example, we've talked about child care costs, which we've reduced by 50%. We now have a national program, which can help our military members.

We're going to undertake studies here to move some things forward. We just talked about a study to improve space defence. I would love to learn more and see how we as a committee can help the government move forward.

In my opinion, there's an important perspective in what my colleague is trying to get at, but I'm a little uncertain as to the advisability of his approach. We just mentioned that our committee is going to be ahead of the game.

I see all the references my colleague is making to gaps and reductions in spending. However, I was in the Yukon recently, where we were talking about the $38.6 billion that will be invested in NORAD over the next few years. I'm also thinking of the F‑35s, a project that is moving forward. These are major projects.

Having said that, I don't deny the fact that we need to hear, listen and help our soldiers. That's what we want to do in the Standing Committee on National Defence. However, I wonder about the advisability of raising this in the House. I'm just trying to point out the value added of the motions that we would pass here.

Here at the committee, we're going to hold discussions; we're going to hear from witnesses; we're going to table reports; we're going to support the government in its initiatives. So I have a great deal of difficulty finding the merits of this motion. I'm looking at the aspects that Mr. Bezan wants to raise, and these are things that we're going to study here at the committee.

So I don't feel ready to support this motion, on principle, I believe. I think that efforts are being made on our side of the room to examine these elements in our committee.

Mr. Chair, what I was saying was that I really feel strongly and quite passionately about this because, as the member of Parliament for Orléans, I have the great pleasure of serving a lot of military and representing them. I know there are challenges that I think as a government we are committed to addressing. Here in committee, actually, there are aspects of this motion Mr. Bezan is bringing that we actually want to undertake.

I'm curious to know if that means he's not willing to do those studies here in committee and only do them in the House. I see a plus value, Mr. Chair, in having them here, actually, within this environment, where we can hear first-hand not only from our military but also from the government perspective, from senior officials and also from individuals who are impacted.

I also want to share that there have been numerous areas where I think the budget for operations has been increasing. We were just talking about the F-35. We were talking about NORAD and the $38.6 billion for modernizations.

I would also like to reiterate our commitment—and I say “our commitment” and I hope all parliamentarians will feel the same—to Ukraine and the importance of Canada's supporting Ukraine in its war against this illegal invasion by Russia.

I don't see how, at this particular point, I could see the value of saying yea, although there are merits in some aspects and we're actually going to be studying those things. I'm quite surprised that my honourable colleague wants to do this again when we just talked about space defence and about another motion we just brought to the floor. I think this committee can do extremely good work in addressing some of his concerns through this motion, and the best place to do so is here in our committee.

Mr. Chair, I would like to ask that you adjourn debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Oh, okay.

That's a dilatory motion.

(Motion negatived)

I will make a point of clarification that there will be no witnesses called on this motion. This is a straight motion that goes into the House.

Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I agree with certain aspects of the motion, but there are others that I don't. I'll try to be as clear as I can.

We've always been able to come to a pretty good consensus at this committee. We're generally able to speak with one voice, and that's one of the strengths of the committee.

I hope that will be the case with this motion. For example, we did so when we held discussions on the issue of the 2% of GDP that wasn't being met, which somewhat undermined our ability to be a relevant ally internationally. We've always been able to find consensus.

What I like a little less about this motion is that certain elements haven't been the subject of testimony before the committee. For instance, I'm thinking of the issue of food banks. Unless I'm given evidence to the contrary, I find it hard to include this in the motion when it hasn't been discussed at all in committee, whereas other topics have. For instance, we talked about the fact that Canadian Armed Forces morale is currently at a lower level than ever. This is unprecedented. We did a full study on recruitment and retention, and we heard testimony to that effect. I don't think it would be a bad idea to mention it with one voice in the House, to remind people of the urgent need to act and the committee's fears.

There's also the fact that there have been gaps in defence spending and that budget cuts have left our soldiers understaffed. It's true that soldiers are underequipped and understaffed, but cuts may not be the only reason; indeed, there are others. I think that portion could be reworked. In its conclusion, the motion reads: “Therefore, the committee recognizes that the morale crisis as the result of a lack of political will and investment …”. But there are also other causes.

I think that the motion could be worked on in such a way that it is consensual and that it is a heartfelt appeal sent by the committee to the House.

I don't think it's consensual as currently drafted, but I think there's a way for it to become so. I'm sure we could get there if we discussed it, because the basis of the motion is good. I think we can also see it as non-partisan, depending on how it's written. It needs to be seen as a call to action from this committee to the government.

There is merit to this motion, and its content could be called upon to produce results.

I don't feel comfortable voting in favour of the current motion, but I think we can make changes to it, and then I could.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen is next.

[Lindsay Mathyssen, NDP, London—Fanshawe, ON]

I agree with Ms. Normandin. There are parts I absolutely do agree with, and I don't think that we just outright ignore those. I have concerns in terms of wording such as “ undervalued and underappreciated than at any point in recent history”. I think that's a bit hyperbolic, to be perfectly honest; I'm sure there are many other crises.

I am concerned. We have had a very good working relationship. We have gone into good studies where I have learned a great deal about what's happening on the ground and about how we can be supportive of people within the military, within the Canadian Armed Forces. We did have a very thorough study of the retention and recruitment crisis. We are going to go into a good study that I support in terms of studying housing for our Canadian Armed Forces, so I want to get to that. That's certainly part of what's named here, and I would love to get into that study.

One thing that is missing here, of course, is that when we talk about morale, we're not talking at all about the sexual misconduct—

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

I apologize for interrupting this vigorous debate, but it's 5:30.

The meeting is adjourned.