Debates of May 2nd, 2024

National Defence

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

On our list, which was in consultation with the whips' offices, it is the NDP that is starting. Let me just confirm.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe that you will find that you have already recognized the member for London—Fanshawe; she has begun her speech and is 40 seconds in. I would urge you to allow her to continue the speech and ensure that the next speaking order is addressed to the other parties.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

I have conferred with the Table. The Table tells me that the email was sent at 6:30 p.m. By that time we had started, before we got it. It was a little late arriving.

I have already acknowledged the hon. member for London—Fanshawe, so the sequence is to still continue with her. Then maybe there can be some further consultations regarding who is next on the list, but normally there are two speakers from one party before we go to the next party. Therefore there could be some negotiations among the parties that will come after the New Democrats speak. I am going to have to recognize the hon. member once again, and hopefully the Table can come up with a solution for us.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this does not have any say in how excited the members in the House will be to actually hear what I have to say. I will continue.

As the NDP's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been trying to fight every day to support the women and the men—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot is rising on a point of order once again.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if you confer with the Table, I think you will learn that in discussions this morning with the Table, it was agreed that the first Bloc spot would be given to the Conservative Party, where the time would then be split. I hate to keep coming back to this, but certainly it is the understanding that was reached and agreed to this morning.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Let me just confer once again.

This is what we run into when we work on lists provided by whips' offices. The whips' offices sent us the note only at the last possible minute. This is something that was talked about during the day, but of course was not completed, from what I understand.

I am going to continue with the hon. member for London—Fanshawe.

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the last interruption.

I am working hard to support and fight for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and their families as they face the rising cost of living and the Department of National Defence, which is not meeting the urgency that this moment requires.

I look forward to discussing our ideas on how we could support CAF members and their families, but first I want to put today's debate into context. Since I first took on the role in 2021, I have greatly appreciated the maturity and seriousness that all my colleagues bring to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Members from all parties do understand that we are there not just to criticize the government of the day. As parliamentarians in general and as members of the defence committee, we have a sacred obligation to the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces, and we must prioritize supporting them over our partisan interests. At the committee, we look at a lot of big generational questions, questions that are not siloed to the government of the day and questions that do not always make the evening news.

Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have failed to grapple with defence procurement reform, with Arctic security and sovereignty, with recruitment and retention, with meeting our international commitments on peacekeeping, with combatting sexual misconduct in the military and with the supply of military housing. These are big questions that cannot be tackled in a day, and that is why the defence committee's work is so important.

We can work together across party lines to study these big, generational questions and to propose solutions for government, which is why I find it so disappointing that I have to tell the House today that the committee is not immune to the tricks that have come to dominate Parliament as of late. Particularly since the change in the leadership of the official opposition, I have seen the committee stray from our sacred obligation in favour of obstructive tactics and rage-farming clips.

That brings me to the debate today. At a time when Canadians are being forced to decide between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries, the NDP was able to fight for a national pharmacare program. Parliament was due to debate the bill, but the Conservatives used procedural tricks and tactics to delay the important legislation from coming forward by moving the concurrence motion before us.

Let me be clear: I want Parliament to study military housing and to find the solutions that CAF members and their families need. That is why I worked with all parties to ensure that the Standing Committee on National Defence undertook a study on the lack of housing availability on or near bases, and the challenges facing military families when they are required to relocate. The motion was moved for debate while the committee was meeting to hear from officials on the very subject. We should have all been at committee to work on finding real solutions for this really big question, but there was a deliberate choice to weaponize the military housing crisis as a procedural tool against pharmacare and, I would say, against Parliament.

When it comes to supporting military members and their families, we need to put the partisan games aside. I want to share an example of how this could be done. In December, the Nova Scotia Legislature heard testimony that military personnel in that province were living precariously and some may be homeless. Canadians were shocked by this, and as parliamentarians, we knew we had a responsibility to investigate the matter further.

I tried to coordinate a joint letter from all opposition parties to the Minister of Housing, asking him to engage in a whole-of-government approach to tackle the housing crisis. I wanted to take the partisanship and games out of this tragic situation, and instead focus on finding answers to this really big question. I am deeply grateful to my Bloc colleague, the member for Saint-Jean, for sending the joint letter to the minister with me. The Bloc and I were able to set aside partisan differences that we may have on other things and collaborate on this important issue. I am disappointed to say that the Conservative Party could not do the same.

Regardless, I am happy to share some of our ideas on military housing. I have heard about the horrific state of Canadian Forces real property portfolio. The buildings on bases, whether it is military housing, child care buildings or mess halls, are falling apart. According to the government's response to an Order Paper question that I put forward, there are 51,586 open work orders for repairs across the country. There are bases where buildings are being demolished without any plans to replace them, and there are countless incidents of military members being exposed to hazards from old buildings.

A major part of the problem is the mess of maintenance and service contract procurement by the Canadian Armed Forces. According to a 2018 report by the assistant deputy minister of review services, the real property operations group is completely unequipped to make a value-for-money analysis on maintenance and service contracts. It is not equipped to measure the success of individual contracts in order to inform future business with contractors.

I have heard of constant examples of base contracts being handed out to contractors with no oversight, only to have more damage be done by poor craftsmanship, which is then fixed by department public servants. In effect, we are paying for many repairs twice, once to the contractor and then again through the salaries of the department staff brought in to fix the mess and do the work properly. When I hear from CAF members, one of the largest concerns we hear is the mess of properties on base.

Building housing and base properties was a large part of the defence policy update published last month. Billions of dollars were earmarked to be spent on military housing and property maintenance, but I have two concerns that I want to raise about that plan. First, of the $295 million promised for building military housing, we will see only $7 million earmarked for the next five years. When I asked the minister about this, he stated that the previously existing funding for housing is enough to carry them for those five years. However, we know that the current status quo approach is not enough. There is a shortfall of 7,000 housing units, but in the last two years, fewer than 40 new units have been built.

Second, I am concerned that we will not be able to tackle the military housing crisis without fixing the overreliance on contractors on bases. The department knew its approach to contracts was a problem, so it ended up hiring Deloitte on a major contract to audit its real property portfolio. However, as a New Democrat, and after all the discussions we had in the chamber last year on the growing reliance on big consultants, I am incredibly skeptical that this major contract was made with the best intentions. The government should be seeking recommendations for solutions from public servants, not from for-profit consultants.

The audit by Deloitte proposed solutions to work more closely with the private sector, and I fear that the government listened based on its new vision for military housing. It has proposed leasing DND properties to develop P3 housing near bases. Instead of cutting down on the problematic contractors in military housing, we will be fronting the cash for private, for-profit developers to become the landlords for CAF members. The Department had the option to partner with not-for-profits to deliver housing or for that build to be public, to be federally run, and I hope that at committee we can continue to push that forward in terms of that solution.

In closing, there are so many more aspects of military housing that we have not been able to discuss in this concurrence debate, which is exactly why I worked to get the issue studied at committee, where we can work collectively and productively towards the production of a report to present to the House. I am proud of a lot of the work that we have been able to accomplish at committee to date, and I invite all committee members to stay committed to our obligation to CAF members and not be distracted by the political gamesmanship.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if the member who just spoke has a scintilla of conviction in what she just said about the lack of funding for the military, why is she going to be voting in favour of the budget and propping up the government that has nothing but disdain for our troops?

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

Mr. Speaker, “scintilla” is not a word I hear a lot. I appreciate the vocabulary from the member, although the tone is certainly not appropriate. I want to do everything I possibly can to work together, as I said in my speech, to ensure that things are better.

Was the budget an NDP budget? If the member had maybe caught my speech a couple of days ago about the budget, I was very clear that it was not. However, the division that we consistently see, the trying to tear down this institution, is unhelpful. I will do everything I possibly can to honour the institution and to work as hard as I possibly can to ensure that people in the armed forces get what they need. It may not be perfect, but we need to move forward, and we need to do that together.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the King’s Privy Council for Canada and Minister of Emergency Preparedness]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member opposite for her advocacy of Canadian Armed Forces members and for her work on the national defence committee.

As the mother of two serving members, one of whom is living in a PMQ, this is something that I take very seriously.

I would like to get some insight from the member. We are allocating additional monies in the budget for military housing. During her research at the national defence committee, has the member been able to identify which bases and wings would be of top priority?

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question because there are so many, but I do appreciate the member's question. Again, it is with that desire to work together, so I want to highlight that as well.

It is really problematic, however, that we are going to be waiting so long to see the increase in spending that we need in devotion to housing. I have spoken to officials who have raised this for the bases in Halifax and in Wainwright, but it is across the board. Further to the study we have done at committee, we need to really focus much more on this.

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

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. She said that she is concerned about an attack on our institutions when using the tools available to us to have the debate. How on earth is this anything other than an exercise in Parliament, doing what it is supposed to do, which is to improve upon legislation and the lives of Canadians through debate, getting ideas and points of view across, and to hold the government to account?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member, as he was at committee when a lot of this took place, what I was referring to. Continuously, while we had witnesses in front of us at committee, giving us their time and offering us their expertise, which is so valuable, we ended up debating motions on issues, which is important. I said, very clearly, that this is important, and that is why I supported this motion. However, it takes time away from the studies that we need to continue.

In fact, this study was proposed and was used in concurrence to deliberately halt conversations that we, as the NDP, believe are very important to the provision of pharmacare. That is why it was proposed, and that is why it is being used. It was not to talk about the importance of housing, but to be used in a weaponizing style. That is what I am referring to.

I am glad the member needed the clarification.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am so incredibly proud to stand here as the representative of 19 Wing and speak to this issue that profoundly matters, which is housing for the folks who serve us in the military, for those who serve us so bravely, not only in Canada, but also across the whole world.

Today, this is a concurrence motion. We could talk about the political reasons that it was used, but this one was based on a study, a motion, that just said, “Given that, rent for Canadian military personnel living on bases is increasing this April, 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.” That is the report, that one part there.

Therefore, I am here to talk about it. This is a concern for my riding. I have had a lot of time to talk to the wing commander about this issue, and I really want to thank him for his incredible work. He will only be with us until July, and I have really enjoyed working with Colonel Gagnon.

My concern is very clear. I am going to talk about 19 Wing Comox, which is on the territory of the K'ómoks First Nation, and I really appreciate the work that is happening there to build a relationship between those two organizations.

We know that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation recently let us know that the rental vacancy rate for Comox is at a low of 1.4%. Of course, when one has that kind of low rental rate, one also recognizes that we have some of the highest costs of housing in our region as well. The people who are coming to our area, who are recruited into our area and who are serving in our military, are often in a very vulnerable position. That is very concerning to me.

I think it is really important for all of us, as Canadians, to understand that they need to be close to the base, because when they are called, they cannot drive two hours from their homes to get there for what they are required to do. Especially for somebody at a more entry level, the cost of rent and of housing is becoming so burdensome. We know that a healthy rental market requires vacancy rates that are between 3% to 5%, and we know that the housing on the base is simply not enough.

We are very proud in our riding, at the base there, that we have the search and rescue training facility. It has been a huge benefit to our community. We see folks from all over the country coming to get training at that facility. They are trained by some of the most amazing people I have ever met in my life, who are able to go out in dire circumstances and to save people, rescuing them from things that most of us would run away from as quickly as we possibly could. I am really happy that it is there.

They also built accommodations for the people coming to get the training, and that was very frustrating for me because I was hearing stories from so many of our serving members who could not find anywhere to live. They saw this facility built, and only people who were training were able to stay there.

Nobody begrudges that. We want to make sure that when people come and get trained, they have appropriate housing. That makes sense. However, If they do not have somewhere for the people who live there to stay, it becomes this issue of challenge that I do not think any of us want to see because everybody involved is there to train and to serve our country.

I do know, based on some conversations I have had, that some of those units have now gone permanently to people who are serving at the base, just because there is just not enough.

Again, when we ask people to serve, when they have to move from one part of the country to another part of the country, and when it costs a lot and there is nothing affordable for them to live in, we are really deterring people from providing the service that we need.

It reminds me of something I heard from the CAF ombud, Gregory Lick, at one of the national defence committees. He said to those of us who were there that how we are treating our military families is becoming an “issue of national security”. This is very concerning. This is not a direct quote, but it was similar, a paraphrase. When he said that, I thought that was great and that the whole world was going to hear it. Canada would hear that and think about what we could do differently. I just did not see the response. I have not seen it from the Liberal government, and I did not seen it, quite frankly, from the Conservative government before.

We are really underfunding the men and women who serve us. We have to make sure they have the equipment they need to do their jobs. We need to make sure they have the housing they need, and we need to support the family. When we hear things like this, it really does tell us that we need to start looking at this.

The housing needs report issued in May 2020 by the Town of Comox indicated that it was going to need 7,665 unit by 2025 to meet its needs. That is next year, and we are nowhere near that. A lot of our serving members are the people who rely on that housing.

I have written letters. I have talked to the minister about this issue. I hope he will come out and meet with me in my riding to hear the stories of our serving men and women. They need the housing and that stability. When we look at the number of people recruited into our military, we are seeing the numbers start to go down. I think part of the reason is there is not any safety of housing for people. At the beginning, military members are not making as much money, so if they are spending 60% of their income on housing, how do they fulfill their dreams in the military?

One thing I appreciate so much about representing Comox and 19 Wing is their incredible work. The folks who serve in our military, they not only do great at their work, but also do volunteer work and do great things in our community. I also want to recognize that it is the 100-year anniversary of the Royal Canadian Air Force. That is something we should all recognize in our communities and be grateful for the amazing people who do this tremendous work.

The Comox Valley Air Force Museum has been working so hard. It has a beautiful spot right by the base, where tourists come to look at planes from different wars and different times throughout the air force's history. It is a beautiful place. A lot of people go to see it, and during the Christmas season, it is decorated with lights and is quite dynamic.

In 2001, I believe, 19 Wing received a Vampire. It is a beautiful plane that is an artifact, and it is made out of wood. It has a great history, and it is so important for the Royal Canadian Air Force. We want to make sure it is displayed with the other planes. I want to thank David Mellin, who has been such an asset for me; he has kept me updated. I thank the amazing volunteers at the Comox Valley Air Force Museum who are working so hard.

The museum is raising $1 million to build a pavilion, which is basically a display case, that would surround this wooden airplane and would allow it to be accessible and to be seen outside with the other planes that can weather the beautiful Vancouver Island rainy weather. I certainly hope the government finds it in its heart to find a bit of money to support this, to recognize the 100 years of service and to recognize 19 Wing and all the tremendous work it does.

I thank my constituents, especially those who serve our country, for the great work they do and for continuing to educate me. However, what we really need to see is money for housing. We need money for housing on bases so that people can have a safe, affordable place to call home, so when they serve our country, they have that stability. If we do not do that, we are going to see fewer people offering to do this tremendously important work.

I look forward to answering some questions.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

It is great being here tonight and talking about the sister base of 14 Wing in Greenwood. It is nice to be a part of the discussion here this evening.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot say enough about how hard working my colleague from North Island—Powell River is, and I will mention the advocating she has done for veterans and for the people at 19 Wing in Comox. I also represent Courtenay in the Comox Valley, where many military veterans and military personnel live. I also represent the CFMETR navy base at Nanoose. From all of us, I want to thank all those who serve, and their families. I think we can all agree that we appreciate the work they do.

Ombud Lick highlighted, in his report, the serious situation that the military is facing. He cited that how we treat military families and military personnel is “an issue of national security”. We know, during the decade under the Conservatives, that there were cuts and that the treatment of our military and of veterans was appalling.

I hope my colleague can speak about how the government has also failed and how we need to urgently repair the damage done to those military personnel and their families, and speak about how we owe it to them to ensure they have a safe place to live.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really enjoy sharing a border with the member, and we work together collaboratively on all the issues that face the military folks in our region, because it is really important.

It is important for us, as Canadians, to understand what our military does, the great work it does both nationally and internationally, and to understand that, if we do not start looking at military as a whole family, like Ombud Lick said, we could get to a point where we do not have enough people to serve our country. It could very quickly become an issue of national security.

It includes housing and includes working with families. We know a lot of spouses really have a challenging time moving from place to place and keeping their seniority in the work they do. We have to look at what military families need and do much better by them.

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

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. We know family issues are one of the key drivers of people out of the forces, with housing being probably number one on that list.

I know the member serves and represents a military area, so if she would like, I will ask her to talk about how these family issues, especially when postings change, create a trigger point for many members to leave the CAF.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am the spokesperson on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, and one of the things we just finished studying and we are now working on the report for is around women veterans. It was so interesting to hear from them about when they had that moment of making the decision to stay or to leave and what the impacts were.

One of the things I have had frank conversations about is the fact that we are not back in the fifties or the forties anymore. It is a totally different world. We need both people in the family working to sustain ourselves, so how do we make sure both people have an opportunity? Child care comes up and housing comes up. Things that matter to everyday Canadians matter to military people. Their work is very unique and we have to honour that and find ways to support them, and government needs to be a key part of that. If it is not, it is obviously never going to get done.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

On page 17 of the defence policy update that was tabled a few weeks ago, it states, and I quote:

A career with the Canadian Armed Forces is a source of unique pride and confidence among those who have the privilege to serve. Defence will seek to inspire a wider audience of prospective members to consider the opportunity of a life in service to Canada.

Let us look at that excerpt in today's context. Unfortunately, it is fair to say that that is a farce. The people who read that are likely thinking, “Give me a break”.

Why am I saying that? I served in the Canadian Armed Forces for 22 years during a different time, and I can say that military service is a personal and family commitment. It is a commitment to wear a uniform, to wear the Canadian flag on one's shoulder and to serve one's government. Regardless of the party in power, when a person serves in the Canadian Armed Forces, they must be loyal to their government and they must respond to the orders they receive. It is a commitment unlike any other in a civilian job.

For that reason, the government has a major responsibility to its personnel. That is where we have a big problem right now. The purpose of today's debate is to talk about a report on a situation concerning the cost of housing on Canadian military bases. It is important to understand that large military bases across the country provide housing, known as Permanent Married Quarters, for military personnel. This could be apartments, semi-detached homes or single-family homes that military personnel can rent and live in, either on their own or with their families.

As I was saying, when someone signs up to serve their country, they come prepared to do what is asked of them. They are asked to deploy. They are posted somewhere in the country on a military base and they have go. They go wherever they are told to go, with their family.

This country now has a big problem. First, the cost of military housing on base has increased. Apart from that, however, at least 4,500 military personnel and their families are without housing because of shortages. Not only are the bases short on housing, but 20% of the existing stock is in disrepair. There are mould problems. No one can live there. No one wants to bring a wife and children into these buildings. They could get sick. That is outrageous.

The housing shortage is also exacerbating the situation. We are asking our military personnel to find housing in the civilian community. As everyone knows, costs have gone up. Royal Canadian Navy personnel are being told they will be stationed in Halifax or in Esquimalt, on the west coast. They do not have much choice. When they get to Esquimalt, there is no housing on the base. Where do they go? They look for something in or around Victoria. That is not affordable on a military salary.

Yes, there are cost-of-living allowances, but those allowances do not come close to covering today's housing costs. That is why some of our personnel are sleeping in tents or in their car. I am not making this up; these are facts reported by the Canadian Armed Forces ombudsman. There are even some in Halifax who are forced to deal with unscrupulous people as they search for housing or do things that are not necessarily legal, because they do not know what else to do. They have to somehow find a way to keep a roof over their heads.

This has been going on for the nine years this government has been in office. We always seem to hear the same fine words about how the military is important and they are proud of our military personnel. However, when we look at the reality, in some cases, the government cannot even do the minimum. As I was saying, the minimum is to provide a living environment that is part of military life, which is very different from civilian life, especially given the way military personnel have to be deployed or posted. That environment has to be there. Without that kind of environment, we end up with a situation like the one we are in today, where the Canadian Armed Forces are 16,000 members short. People are leaving in droves. Everyone is leaving, and no one wants in.

Young people today do not want to join the Canadian Armed Forces because they have heard the horror stories about the lack of housing and the lack of equipment. Fifty percent of the Canadian Armed Forces' equipment is broken and non-operational. They do not get the sense that the current government really cares about the military.

Lip service is one thing. How we deal with this issue is another. Right now, people are turning their backs on the Canadian Armed Forces. At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned the fabled phrase in the government's update. It talks about pride and happiness. That is baloney, because I have never seen military personnel less well taken care of.

It has been over 30 years since I enlisted. Morale is at a 30- or 40-year low. Members of the military I know who are still in the system, as well as those who have just left or who have left in the past few years, are all saying the same thing. There are a number of reasons for this. Housing is one reason, but it is not the only reason. The work environment is no longer appealing, and the pride we talked about at the beginning is gone. It is not because people do not want to be proud. When people enlist, that is what they are looking for. They want to be part of this big family, this big defence team that is there to protect Canada's interests at home and abroad. That is the job in a nutshell. We cannot ask a soldier or a young officer to come into the system and end up in situations like this.

I do not want to get too personal, but I just wanted to say that my son is in the armed forces and he is going through truly outrageous experiences. I see what is happening and we are just in a different place. Unfortunately, if we do not help out, young people are going to quit and move on. People in the army call it “being in the system”. I have to say that the system is no longer there. The system has lost its purpose, and that is why we are short 16,000 military members and why Canada is unable to carry out its missions. Canada looks like a bit player on the world stage.

Yesterday, during a meeting about NORAD, the Minister of National Defence was very honest; I will give him that. NORAD is the organization responsible for the aerospace and maritime defence of Canada and the United States. Canada needs to strengthen its defence capabilities because we know that the Chinese and the Russians are trying to enter Canadian waters by air and by sea. We must watch and protect those areas. During this public meeting, the minister said that he was unable to convince his cabinet colleagues to do more for defence. In saying that, the minister admitted that this was not just a matter of money but, rather, a lack of real political will to help our military. Fine words mean nothing. The facts are there. We heard the real story from the mouth of the Minister of National Defence himself. He said that his own people did not want to. They do not care. Nothing is going to improve for the Canadian Armed Forces with a Prime Minister who does not send a clear, strong message.

Money is one thing, political will is another. When it comes to pride, it is clear that our military is always able to hold its own. They are proud people at heart. They want to serve proudly. When a government can show that there is political will, when a government says it is really proud of its forces and is making efforts to effect change, soldiers adapt and co-operate. Conversely, when they feel there is no political will, they lose morale and get discouraged. I experienced that in the 1990s under the Chrétien government. The Canadian Forces were a laughing stock. Vehicles could not climb hills. Everything was in shambles. In times like that, military personnel need to be self-motivated. They need a government that does not just talk the talk with defence updates but actually shows up to take care of its people. We need to stop paying lip service and start taking concrete action.

Budget cuts are happening throughout the Canadian Armed Forces, and we found out today that Canadian soldiers are going to be deployed to eastern Europe without going through training first. That is how bad things are. Our soldiers cannot even be trained before they leave for a mission because the government is no longer capable of doing it and is not managing things properly. What we want is personnel who are ready for combat, who are ready to safeguard national security. However, we need to begin by figuring out how to put a roof over our soldiers' heads. Canada, as a country, is currently unable to do so. That is embarrassing. I hope this government will use the time it has left to come up with solutions quickly.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what does the member think needs to happen before the Liberal government finally takes the security of our nation seriously?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question from my colleague. I thank her for her question and for her years of commitment to the Standing Committee on National Defence. She is also extremely committed to NATO. Her riding is home to a Canadian Forces base, including a special forces unit, so she knows what she is talking about.

As I said in my speech, what is needed is for the government to stop spouting empty rhetoric and to start taking real action. Considering what we heard yesterday from the Minister of National Defence and the entire cabinet's lack of interest in the Canadian Forces, I would say it is a lost cause.

The next Conservative government will fix this.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I like the member, but quite frankly, I am concerned when he talks about what a future Conservative government will do.

We saw what the Conservatives did for veterans. They closed about 20 offices that provided services to veterans. People had to drive hundreds of kilometres to get any kind of service. The Conservatives cut services for veterans. They treated veterans with a total lack of respect. I have a lot of respect for the member, but quite frankly, we saw the contempt with which the Conservatives treated veterans under the Harper regime.

The Conservatives treated veterans terribly under the Harper regime. Can the member explain how the Conservatives will in any way treat veterans better if ever they take office?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but today I am talking about those who are in it to fight.

Let us think about the Afghanistan era. When we were in government, our soldiers urgently needed proper equipment. The Conservative government was able to provide that equipment, purchase the planes to deploy the troops, and supply everything needed for ground combat in Afghanistan.

I was serving at the time, and we were proud to have a government that took military operations seriously and understood that soldiers were dying on the ground. In an emergency, the Conservative government acted quickly to help soldiers, and soldiers were proud at the time.