National Defence Committee on Feb. 7th, 2024

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I'm still on for the main motion, though. Is that right?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Well, we seem to have merged the debate about the two things.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Can you put me back on the list if you're merging both lists?

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Okay.

Mr. Ellis, go ahead.

[Stephen Ellis, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I think Mr. Bezan made some absolutely incredible points here that are really quite germane.

I had the opportunity to serve in the Canadian military for nine years and to serve on bases on each coast, from Shearwater to Comox. Being a physician, I had the opportunity to fill in for my colleagues across the great nation and to really have an incredible view of what military housing looks like.

I think there's another thing that perhaps begins to get lost in committees. What we need to remember is that when people decide to join the military, they sign on the dotted line to serve the country with their life, if necessary. Certainly, we all know people who died in the Afghanistan conflict, and in conflicts before that. I think we owe those soldiers, sailors and people who have served in the air force a duty of respect to give them an incredible place they will call home, whether it's temporary or permanent. We also owe them a measure of respect in terms of how we pay them fairly. Of course, increasing the rent at a time when military housing.... We've heard there are significant struggles with respect to perhaps the physical shape of military housing.

We also know that folks are not wanting to join the military. We have a significant history where I come from in Atlantic Canada of recruiting vast numbers of people to serve in all branches of the military. As I said, I was one of them. I grew up just outside CFB Gagetown. Maybe that's why I joined; maybe it rubbed off on me.

That being said, to serve our country, we need to give those folks a modicum of respect. I do believe that Canadians across our great nation understand this, in terms of veterans who have served in the world wars, of whom we all know there are few left, and those who have served elsewhere, including Afghanistan. With many families I know, their children gave the ultimate sacrifice in Afghanistan.

When we begin to look at that, and we understand the respect that Canadians do give to veterans and their families, why should we not extend that same respect to those who are serving at the current time? We know that at any moment, at any time, in a world that has become infinitely more unstable and, I might say, dangerous over the last couple of years, they could be called to serve our great nation and, sadly, provide their own ultimate sacrifice on behalf of all of us and, of course, on behalf of their families.

We have heard the incredible testimony, and certainly earlier this week from the ombudsman, knowing that this is an affront to all who serve and have served, and knowing also the difficulty.... Mr. Bezan points out here the struggle “to recruit and retain personnel”. Certainly we know that this is a very significant part of the problem that those in the forces.... I would say that, perhaps as my colleague Mr. Bezan wanted to say out loud, the reason we voted down.... The difficulty was that it's a measly pay increase. We also know that you're giving it with one hand and taking it with the other. That's what we're seeing here. You're saying, “Hey, we'll increase your rent, and we will give you more money.” Well, how much further ahead are military personnel, when we know they have to go to the food banks in order to survive?

I think back to when I was deployed to the Middle East, and to the struggle that that created for my own family, when my two small children and my wife were in Comox, and I was in the Middle East. Of course, you're there; you're in a new place. My wife had never lived outside Halifax, Nova Scotia, or Shearwater, where we were posted before, at that time. There's the struggle that exists not simply to integrate into a new community, to look after your children and to try to find supports, but added to that is the struggle you have to feed your family. It's an incredible insult to know that your significant other, at that point in time, literally halfway around the world, is struggling to feed your family.

I'm not saying that it happened in my family. That's not what I'm trying to portray here. The picture I'm trying to paint is the difficulty that exists for military families when one of the adults in the family is deployed and somebody is left behind to look after the children. That is an absolutely incredible strain on families. We know the mental health issues, the difficulty accessing mental health and physical health, and the problems that can ensue from that. Of course, marriage breakups can ensue from that as well.

I think that is incredibly germane. We need to call upon ourselves inside to understand the difficulties that happen with deployments. Then add to it the significant financial distress. I think that is an incredible remembrance that we need to have to honour those who have decided to sign up for the military with that potential to make the ultimate sacrifice.

I think we need to bear that in mind. I would go with my colleague, Pat Kelly, who also would say that it really doesn't matter which minister is increasing this. People in the military don't care which minister. I would go so far as to suggest that if it's not the Minister of National Defence—because that's who they perceive as their ultimate boss—they would say that the Minister of National Defence, if not responsible, is allowing this to happen.

Thank you very much, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Next is Mr. Bezan, Madame Lalonde, Madame Normandin and Mr. Fisher.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to thank Dr. Ellis for that insight. He's someone who has served and who understands what military housing was and what it's become. I think it's great to have that on the record.

I'd just add to this. I know that those who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces expect that when they're deployed, particularly for those in the army, when they go to places, even like Latvia, sometimes they have to be put up in tents for a few months. When they're at home at the base, you would think they would be able to live in a nice home.

We heard from the Canadian Forces housing authority, when they were here, that they're building fewer than 20 new homes a year, yet we have a wait-list of over 4,500 members who currently want to have residential housing units provided by National Defence. That is by no means ever going to keep up. We know that the budget the Canadian Forces housing authority has to upgrade the current homes isn't keeping up with the challenge that we have with the housing stock that continues to age.

To the amendment, on taking out the name of the Minister of National Defence from the motion, we heard from the defence ombudsman, Mr. Lick, in response to a question from Mr. Fillmore on Monday that it is a Treasury Board Secretariat guideline that ultimately comes into play, but it's done at the discretion of the Minister of National Defence. The minister has the cabinet authority to say no and to actually cancel that rent increase and allow rents to be frozen at their current rate, which was set in 2023.

I would again suggest that taking out the Minister of National Defence is not accurate because, ultimately, under our parliamentary processes we have ministerial authority and responsibility. The minister is responsible for this department, including the Canadian Forces housing authority and including the rent hikes that are going to come into effect on April 1, so I do argue against the amendment to remove his name.

I would also argue that by adding “pursuant to Standing Order 109” to the motion.... For those who aren't familiar with parliamentary processes, what the Liberal parliamentary secretary is trying to do is shut down debate from ever happening on this motion in the House, because it does kill concurrence. The ability to have these motions go to the House and have a concurrence motion allows other members beyond this committee to actually come to the House and participate in a three-hour debate—essentially a take-note debate—on this crisis.

I think this is a crisis that we should address, especially for those who are right now without proper housing in Halifax, where they just recently had another three-plus feet of snow dumped on them. My heart breaks knowing that they are sitting out there literally in the cold, dealing with wet, heavy snow. We know that tents collapse under that. For those living in their cars, they could realistically be trapped in those vehicles because of the heavy snow that's fallen on them. We've seen places with up to five feet of snow.

I think it's unfortunate that there is a push from the parliamentary secretary to undermine what the motion has set out to do, which is to cancel the rent increase—to direct the Minister of National Defence, who is responsible for this department and for these rent increases, to cancel them—and to give the opportunity for other members who aren't part of this committee to have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Madame Lalonde.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I certainly appreciate the member making reference to the standing order.

I have a few clarifications. I think everyone who's listening will understand, I hope.

The reality is that the Treasury Board creates a policy regarding this. The Department of National Defence goes on the regulation. We agree. To say that we're trying to—and I quote the member—“kill concurrence”.... Actually, the standing order only delays it.

I think it's important to say that, when you think about what our military is doing every day, they need our full support. I completely agree. That's why we voted in favour of the pay increase. This is also why we voted in favour of our commitment to Ukraine, unlike the member opposite. When it comes to facts, I really don't want to have any lessons. We do have officials and a study to go by. I would like to think that at this point....

I know that maybe other members would like to speak, so I'll reserve the rest of my considerations. However, when it comes to facts, I'm sorry. It is very clear that, when it comes to facts, we have our military's back, and we vote in accordance with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Next we have Madame Normandin, and then Mr. Fisher and Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Thank you very much.

Many of the comments I wanted to make have already been made. I won't repeat them.

As far as the use of Standing Order 109 is concerned, one thing was not mentioned. This standing order calls for a government response within 120 days, which would take us to early June, when the rent will have already been increased.

So the use of the standing order would not simply postpone the debate in the House of Commons on the motion; it would make the motion completely meaningless. The government's response would only come once it has likely decided not to cancel the rent increase. In that case, the response will be about the fact that it did not cancel the rent increase rather than about a request not to increase rents in the future.

In that sense, I even wonder if the amendment is in order. Wouldn't the meaning of the proposed motion be completely distorted if it was added that a government response must be given within 120 days?

I'm not making a request to the chair per se. Ultimately, I'm making an argument to vote against the amendment that adds a government response.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Mr. Fisher.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Thank you very much.

I support the idea of freezing rents. I disagree, however, with the Conservatives' decision to freeze the pay of our armed forces members. It's laughable that they would suggest that it's because it wasn't enough. They voted against a raise in pay for every Canadian military member. Mr. Ellis said that it was important to pay our military, and then voted against our raise. He said that it's important to show a modicum of respect; he showed zero respect. The Conservatives showed zero respect when they voted against a raise for our CAF members.

I support a freeze on this. I also support the amendment. I was going to speak to the main motion. I didn't want to speak to the amendment, but then you combined all of the names.

I do not see an issue with removing the reference to the Minister of National Defence. The question was asked of Mr. Lick, and Mr. Bezan quoted Mr. Lick a couple of times in his opening comments. It's not the Minister of Defence who makes the decision, so taking that out makes perfect sense.

It's semantics, at this point, if around this table we agree that we want to freeze rents. I don't quite understand why we're getting into the weeds on something that I feel there's support for around the table.

Adding Standing Order 109 is something I also support, because I've seen what the Conservatives do with concurrence motions. They just do it to get more clips that they can show on social media.

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

Do you mean you don't do that?

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

I don't do that, actually. You can go check. I do not do that. I could have done it when you stood up and voted against the raise in pay for our military members, but I didn't do it.

I support the idea of freezing rents for our Canadian Armed Forces, just like I support an increase in pay for our Canadian Armed Forces members.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Ms. Mathyssen.

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

Well, I am certainly disappointed to see the toxic tactics again being used, using this committee for something that is very serious and delaying what I thought was going to be a very insightful study, so I hope the day for those meetings won't be taken away. I certainly do apologize to the witnesses. Your time is valuable, and I want you to know that. I hope the other members of the committee certainly convey that to you—at least in words, maybe not in actions.

Whether we vote for concurrence or not, there's a housing crisis in this country. Ultimately, it has been created over the last 30 years by governments unwilling to invest in housing. The Canadian Armed Forces is experiencing part of that. They are often a microcosm of what we see in the greater Canadian society and, because of other specific issues they must deal with—because of relocation, how they work, where they work and so on—they are impacted greatly.

Let's not kid ourselves: There have been significant clear decisions by government after government—Conservative or Liberal, it doesn't really seem to matter which—that has made choices on housing, whether we're talking about what exists now or under the Conservatives before, when there was a loss of 800,000 affordable housing units. Maybe the Conservatives would like to talk to their provincial counterparts like Doug Ford or Marlaina Smith, who have frozen rent controls. They're making it harder for Canadians to pay those housing bills. Whether we vote on concurrence or not, it doesn't really seem to matter.

After all of that, I support the motion. I would really love to get to it, so that maybe we can get to our witnesses.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

We'll have to vote on the amendment before we vote on the motion, as long as that's clear.

Mr. Kelly.

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

Thank you.

Given that we've had the remarks from the parliamentary secretary for defence and Mr. Fisher, and earlier.... I don't remember if Mr. Fillmore was in on it, but what I do know from testimony last week is that there seems to be a real sensitivity on their part around singling out the Minister of Defence.

I'd like to solve this. If there is agreement—and I've heard everybody around the table say they agree with the main purpose of this motion, which is to call for the freeze—I will offer as a compromise a subamendment. We have an amendment that has removed “the Minister of National Defence”. I understand that they don't want that part in the motion. I will offer a subamendment that would read, “Given that Justin Trudeau's government is increasing rent”, and we'll go from there.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

If you don't want the Minister of Defence, if you're trying to protect the Minister of Defence, the Minister of Defence is appointed and serves at the pleasure of the Prime Minister. We could make that substitution and, furthermore, strike the portion of the amendment that prevents the moving of concurrence, because if there is going to be a debate in the House of Commons, and if MPs are going to be given the chance to vote on this motion in the House of Commons, it can't wait for the 120-day period, as Madame Normandin pointed out a moment ago.

That is my subamendment. If that compromise is acceptable, then we can move forward.

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

How is that a compromise?

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

Well, you're trying to protect the Minister of Defence from responsibility for the rent increase.

[The Chair, Liberal, John McKay]

Are you moving a subamendment to the amendment?

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

I just did. Yes.