Debates of Feb. 3rd, 2026

Opposition Motion—Food Affordability

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am not a farmer myself, but over the years, I have lived in Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta. I have visited many farms. I have talked to cattle producers, hog producers and chicken farmers. I have visited, driven on tractors and so forth. I understand the important role that our farmers play today, as does the Prime Minister. It is one of the reasons we were able to bridge the gap and get the canola issue resolved, and hopefully the impact of that on the Prairies will be very positive.

At the end of the day, they are, for all intents and purposes, imaginary taxes because if someone goes to a grocery store and they buy a dozen eggs, they buy some hamburger and they buy some milk, there is no tax. The impression the Conservatives are trying to give is that there is a direct tax on those bills. Would the member not agree?

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I most definitely do not agree with that statement. For example, if the member opposite was to go on a trip and calculated all the costs of his trip, if part of the cost was fuel, he would know that there is tax on that fuel. Does that not increase the price of his trip? It is very simple math. I do not know how the Liberals can square the circle of thinking that by making food more costly to produce, it is actually going to bring down the price.

[Warren Steinley, Conservative, Regina—Lewvan, SK]

Madam Speaker, we just saw exactly the lack of common sense from the Liberal side when it comes to this discussion. My colleague gave a wonderful speech as a producer. The Liberals were very quiet, because there is not as much farming knowledge on that side. He laid it out perfectly. The price of beef has gone up 33% in this country, the price of coffee is up 30%, and the price of lettuce is up 40%. That is the direct effect of it costing more money to grow and raise that food. I do not know why the Liberals do not understand that point.

There is one more thing. Can my colleague please touch on the fact that there are no tariffs on food? The Liberals are trying to scare everyone into saying this is an American problem, when it is a made-in-Canada problem.

[Steven Bonk, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is just common sense. When you have more tax and more regulation, the price of everything goes up. The primary producers in Canada are some of the best in the world. We find it so offensive when the Liberals, who have no connection to agriculture whatsoever, in any way, shape or form, tell us how we should manage our farms. They tell us we should be thinking about the environment, when we can find no one more concerned about the environment than the people who make their living from it. In fact, in the Prairies we call ourselves green Conservatives, not blue Conservatives, because we are so concerned with the health of our land, the health of our soil and the health of our grasslands.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

It being 5:15 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[John Barlow, Conservative, Foothills, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, February 4, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 5:30 p.m. at this time, so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Use of Federal Lands for Veterans

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

moved:

That:

(a) the House recognize,

(i) that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed,

(ii) the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades; and

(b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings, in ways that help reinvigorate communities by serving as centers that provide services for veterans, provided that,

(i) there be no more than six and no less than four meetings held on the study,

(ii) the committee report its findings to the House of Commons within six months following the adoption of this motion.

Madam Speaker, right now in my riding of Cumberland—Colchester, there is a building that tells two stories at once. The Colonel James Layton Ralston Armoury in Amherst, Nova Scotia, named for a decorated war hero and former minister of national defence, sits empty today. At the same time, veterans in our community struggle to find affordable housing and access the physical and mental health services they have earned through service to this country. That gap is a problem, but it is a problem we have the power to solve if the folks in this room are willing to work together. Motion No. 16 is about connecting those two realities, taking federal properties that are not meeting their full potential and transforming them into vibrant community hubs that would deliver real support to the women and men who served us in uniform.

Here is why I believe we need to have this conversation now. We are making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. We are meeting our NATO commitments ahead of schedule. That means that, over the next decade, we need to prepare for thousands of new service members to one day become veterans. This is not just about addressing today's challenges. It is about getting ahead of tomorrow's needs with smart planning that works for veterans, communities and taxpayers.

Let me paint a picture of what is possible. The Ralston armoury is a historic building with deep roots in Nova Scotia's military heritage. The North Nova Scotia Highlanders called it home. This is the regiment that landed on Juno Beach on D-Day, facing down the 12th SS Panzer Division in the wheat fields of Normandy, where it paid a devastating price: 80 dead and 200 wounded or captured in those first brutal days of the campaign, with 13 of the captured soldiers executed by the SS. These were not abstract statistics in our communities. These were sons, brothers and fathers, and their sacrifice helped liberate Europe.

That building, their building, now sits in administrative limbo, declared surplus in 2016, then closed unexpectedly in 2020 due to structural concerns and closed again in 2025 due to environmental concerns. The community has fought to save it, but without long-term commitments toward a clear path forward, it will remain unused while its potential goes unrealized.

I ask members to imagine the armoury becoming a veterans' resource centre, including affordable housing units designed for veterans transitioning to civilian life, mental health services, peer support groups, career counselling offices, meeting rooms where local veterans groups could gather and a revamped museum honouring the Highlanders' legacy, reminding everyone who walks through those doors what service and sacrifice really look like. It is not a fantasy. This motion is designed to explore how we could take buildings, such as the Ralston armoury, and turn them into solutions that honour the past while serving the present.

Cumberland—Colchester is not alone in having this potential. In the riding of Brandon—Souris, my colleague across the aisle represents a community where the Canada Lands Company has already identified federal property available for housing development. What if that were to become another veterans' service hub, delivering wraparound support in Manitoba? In the riding of Kamloops—Shuswap—Central Rockies, my colleague in this chamber has similar federal properties sitting underused. British Columbia veterans deserve the same level of coordinated support we are talking about building in Nova Scotia.

The list goes on and on. Coast to coast to coast, I could point members toward federal real estate that could be doing more, not someday, but right now.

This motion would direct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to examine the best ways to make this happen. We would hear from veterans. We would consult with real estate and housing experts. We would look at successful models from other jurisdictions. By the end of this session, we would have concrete recommendations ready to implement.

Some might ask, “Why focus on this? Why now?” The answer is that it is because housing affordability is a crisis that touches every Canadian community, and veterans are certainly not immune to the challenges; because mental health support should not require navigating a dozen different offices, criss-crossing the province; and because, when we ask Canadians to step up to serve their country, we make some pretty big promises, and those promises do not expire when they take off the uniform. This is about an obligation and an opportunity.

Let us be clear about something else: This makes fiscal sense.

Public Services and Procurement Canada is already working to offload underused federal office space through 2034, projecting $2.45 billion in operational savings over the next decade. We are going to be disposing of these properties anyway. The question is whether we do it strategically and intentionally, in ways that solve real problems for real people, or whether we just liquidate the assets without thinking about the bigger picture.

Motion No. 16 says, let us be strategic. Let us be intentional. Let us make sure that, as we move these federal properties off our books, we are creating something of ongoing value in the process.

Here is what I love about the motion. It is a win for everyone. For veterans, it means coordinated services in community-centred locations, places where they can access housing, health care, career support and peer networks without driving for hours or navigating bureaucratic mazes. For communities, it means taking buildings that are sitting empty or underused and turning them into anchors of local revitalization, places that create jobs, support vulnerable populations and strengthen our collective civic infrastructure. For taxpayers, it means using assets we already own more efficiently, generating savings while delivering better outcomes. For members of the House, regardless of party, it means delivering solutions that our constituents can really see and feel.

When we walk past the Ralston armoury in Amherst or, more generally, an empty or underused federal building in any of our ridings and we see renovations under way, when we see veterans moving into affordable units, when we see families accessing services that help them thrive, that is a story we can all tell with pride. This is not about pointing fingers at past decisions. This is about building something better going forward.

I want to be clear about what the motion does and does not do. It does not mandate specific outcomes. It does not override local decision-making. It does not tie anyone's hands. What it does is create space for local solutions, for good ideas to come to the surface. It directs a committee to do what committees, when they are at their best, do best: gather evidence, consult experts, listen to stakeholders and develop recommendations grounded in reality.

This work will provide us with a road map that communities can adapt to their specific local circumstances. This is a chance for us to show the Canadian people what it looks like to work together. These are problems that every voter can understand. We have the potential to deliver easy-to-understand wins in ridings that span the entire country. The Ralston armoury in Amherst might become a veteran resource centre. The federal property in Brandon—Souris could focus primarily on affordable housing with integrated social services. The site in Kamloops might emphasize mental health programming with on-site peer support networks.

Even if a member does not know these specific locations, we all know about the type of properties I am talking about. One size does not have to fit all, but the principle is universal: We have assets, we have needs, and we have an opportunity.

Here is what I am proposing that every member of the House consider. I would ask all of us to take a minute right now, to put down our phones and maybe even close our eyes for a short, still moment of consideration. Consider if we have federal property in our riding that could better serve the community. I am willing to bet the answer is yes. Consider if we have veterans who would benefit from more coordinated, accessible services. I am willing to bet the answer is yes. Consider if we owe something to the Canadians who step up, put on the uniform and serve. I am quite certain that the answer is yes for all of us.

With those questions in mind, I now ask for support of the motion being put forward today. I invite the full membership of the chamber to participate fully in this process. Come to the committee meetings. Share important insights. Tell us about the distinctive realities on the ground in ridings across the country. This kind of participation will help us build the best possible recommendations.

Here is the truth. We are going to have more veterans in the coming years. Our NATO commitments mean a larger Canadian Armed Forces, which means more people who will eventually transition to civilian life and who deserve our support when they do. We can wait until the need becomes a crisis, or we can plan ahead. We can let underused properties continue gathering dust, or we can transform them into community assets. We can talk about supporting veterans in the abstract, or we can take tangible action.

This is not abstract for me. I grew up with a visceral understanding of the price so many veterans pay as they sacrifice their bodies in service to their country. My grandfather, Private Ralph Hirtle, served as a dispatch rider in World War II, carrying critical information between the front lines in France and central command. He returned home with shrapnel in his chest, a price paid that was made front and centre for us kids before every Christmas, Thanksgiving and birthday celebration as we were reminded to not jump up on Grampy's lap: “He still hurts from the war.” He carried that physical pain with him every day.

Later in life, I became intimately familiar with the mental pain that too many veterans have had to carry. Six years ago, in the autumn of 2019, my partner Joe died. He was a man of incredible light and unpredictable darkness. As a young man, he drove south, across the border, to enlist in the U.S. Army. He signed his papers and was off to the fight in Vietnam. As was true for tens of thousands of the men he served with in the mud and the muck, he brought parts of that fight in Vietnam back with him. Through PTSD, Joe would relive parts of that fight for decades. Long after returning to the safety of Canada, he carried that mental shrapnel the rest of his life.

I could not help Joe. I could not offer him much more than the equivalent of mental band-aids, but this motion is a step we can take together to help us move beyond mental band-aid solutions. This is a step that might allow us to unlock creative solutions to better serve veterans across Canada.

The North Nova Scotia Highlanders landed on Juno Beach 82 years ago this June. They fought their way across northwest Europe. They liberated villages. They paid an unbearable price, and they came home to build families and communities across Nova Scotia.

The building that bears Colonel Ralston's name, the building where those Highlanders gathered, trained and kept their legacy alive, deserves better than the red tape of administrative limbo. I believe we can do better, and this motion is how we start. Let us embrace the opportunity. Let us study this thoroughly. Let us learn from best practices. Let us develop recommendations that communities from coast to coast to coast can implement. Let us prove that when we make commitments to the women and men who serve, we keep them, not just with words but with action.

I ask every member with us today to see and embrace this opportunity. Motion No. 16 says that we have assets, we have needs and we have an opportunity. It asks, how can we be more strategic? How can we be more intentional?

I ask now for the support of the House on Motion No. 16. Let us show the Canadian people that when we work together, we can get good things done.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, what I often find happens when I hear a politician talk about wanting to do a study is that it is often a way to avoid taking action.

With these underused properties, and there is one in my riding, I listen to my community. I know what it needs. I do not need to have a study of Parliament to decide what needs to be done with those properties. I would suggest that any member who has one of these properties in their riding should know what their community needs. We do not need a study of Parliament to be able to decide what needs to be done.

The same thing goes for when we talk about serving our veterans. If this member of the government wants to see more services for veterans, she should walk over to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and say, “Let's get more services for veterans,” rather than trying to gum up Parliament with a study when we could be just taking action. She is part of the government. Why does she not just take action?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member across the way for his question, but I am not sure that I want to.

His point is taken. There certainly have been studies done. The need for veterans' housing is obvious, and the government understood that. This year, it launched Build Canada Homes, which will help provide housing for individuals, including veterans. By identifying the federal surplus buildings in each of our ridings, we are going to be better able to service those individuals and get it moving faster.

[Will Greaves, Liberal, Victoria, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for Cumberland—Colchester for the touching and personal remarks she shared with all of us in the chamber today.

I also represent a riding that has a significant number of Canadian Armed Forces and Department of National Defence properties. While the hon. member opposite's point is taken that many members, I am sure, do have an idea of what we might do in our ridings with some of those properties, I would suggest that the merit of my colleague's motion is to have a systematic review of all of those properties across Canada so that, instead of an ad hoc process where individual MPs are putting forward their own favourite projects, we might actually have a more broad, wide-reaching and systematic assessment of the properties that the federal government could use to better effect for Canadians, and in this case, for veterans. Would my colleague care to comment?

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague hit the nail on the head. Sending the motion to committee and allowing for the study would enable a process to be put in place so the same procedures could be used across the country to identify buildings within each riding, create a process whereby they can be reallocated for the community and then enable the community to do what is best for it.

[Scott Anderson, Conservative, Vernon—Lake Country—Monashee, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the member is aware that the Department of National Defence is expanding rapidly right now and that the unused properties are generally World War II heritage leftovers.

What would the member say about the coming expansion and how that may conflict with her bill?

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not think there would be a conflict. I believe that we have the opportunity to repurpose historic buildings that have served our communities in past decades and to move them forward. With things like heat pumps, solar power and better energy efficiency, we can transform these buildings into units that can be occupied for decades to come.

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Why are we debating Motion No. 16 here, rather than with my colleague on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would say that because OGGO is an opposition-chaired committee, it makes perfect sense for everyone to work on a non-partisan basis to review the opportunities and to see what we can do to move them forward.

[Kelly Block, Conservative, Carlton Trail—Eagle Creek, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion introduced by the member for Cumberland—Colchester, Motion No. 16.

While this motion appears to be related to the current and future use of federal office space, it calls upon the House to recognize, among other things, “that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed”. Clearly, this is nothing more than a Liberal talking point that does not add value, nor can it be substantiated in any way. It is not clear whether there has been an increase in CAF members over the past few years, let alone in the past six months since the government announced its new spending policies. I would also ask what the member means by “historic investments”.

The Liberals have been in power for over 10 years. On this issue, what do they have to show for it? Simply recommitting to make progress after 10 years of inaction is a convenient way of avoiding accountability. For example, a report tabled by the Auditor General last fall revealed there are significant shortcomings in the living standards of our military. She identified that only 5% of major repairs were completed of the more than 227 high-priority repairs needed across three bases. These were not insignificant: lack of potable water, malfunctioning sanitary waste systems and deteriorating external walls. However, on this, there was no apology for or even an acknowledgement of these deplorable conditions, while the Liberals continued with their reckless spending and avoided their commitment to defence spending for a decade.

One of the first things the government could do, if it truly plans on making generational investments, is to start investing in living quarters that meet basic standards for our military. It does not deserve a pat on the back for saying it is going to make historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces. Conservatives will hold the government to account for its failure to adequately support the brave men and women of our armed forces. We will not let the government simply claim that it is making these historic investments when we have yet to see it act.

Further, without any plan to study what impacts finally meeting our NATO commitments could have on veterans' services, the motion goes on to call for the House to recognize the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades. Seriously, this assumes that, after 10 years, the Liberals have solved their management of recruitment to the armed forces, which has been a disaster, and that we will need more service centres for veterans, to such a degree that Public Services and Procurement Canada should abandon its promise of reducing federal lands and selling underused office space for affordable housing.

Let us talk about the Liberal government's recent action on veterans' services, since the member's motion assumes they will need to be expanded, a claim that was made just months after the Liberals decided to cut $4.3 billion in funding from Veterans Affairs Canada over four years. How the Liberals claim, on one hand, they will need to expand services in the future, while cutting them at the same time, makes little sense to me.

On the issue of PSPC's failure, in 2017, a report was published that stated that 50% of government office space was not being used to full capacity. Two years later, in 2019, Public Services and Procurement Canada began to identify which buildings would be suitable for housing and implement a plan to sell these properties to developers.

In 2021, the Treasury Board Secretariat created an oversight program to assist in departmental co-operation and implementation of the federal lands initiative, though in 2024, it was dissolved due to a lack of funding. At that time, budget 2024 announced $1.1 billion over 10 years, starting in 2024-25, for PSPC to reduce its office portfolio by 50% to 2.95 million rentable square metres.

However, in June 2025, the Auditor General's report entitled “Current and Future Use of Federal Office Space” slammed Public Services and Procurement Canada for their slow implementation of the plan to reduce office space and for their failure to deliver affordable homes for the most vulnerable, despite more than $1 billion being allocated to PSPC for this one task. More specifically, from the department's original plan to reduce the footprint by 50%, since 2019 they have only managed to reduce their office footprint from six million rentable square metres to 5.9 million in 2024. This plan came with a promise to save $3.9 billion over 10 years and save taxpayers nearly $1 billion annually from operating costs.

Further, the Auditor General predicted that there are many savings to be made by selling federal buildings. Annual maintenance on unused federal buildings cost taxpayers $2.14 billion in the 2023-24 fiscal year. Selling these buildings will generate savings of approximately $1 billion per year moving forward. Like many Liberal promises of savings, after five years it has not worked out the way they planned.

Additionally, a process already exists for departments to communicate their office needs to Public Services and Procurement Canada. If Veterans Affairs Canada needed new space for veterans services, they already have an internal mechanism available without needing to invoke parliamentary motions or committee studies. That is why the third part of this motion is egregious, in that it seeks to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings when one already exists.

I am skeptical of the motivation, in that I believe there is a desire to control the agenda of the government operations and estimates committee by instructing an opposition-led committee to undertake this study, given the following. The TBS sets policies and approved funding that guide how departments can acquire and use government office space. Departments are responsible for understanding and articulating their specific needs for services and the office space required to support their programs and mandates. PSPC, as the custodian, manages the government's portfolio of office spaces and works with departments to meet their space requirements. Therefore, if Veterans Affairs Canada needed more space, they would simply need to go to PSPC and make that need known.

In closing, I would note that the Auditor General found that while PSPC has been slow in meeting its mandate, the department lacked up-to-date, standardized and reliable information from federal tenants on the daily use of office space. She has been clear: The federal government does not efficiently or adequately use its spaces. Our position is clear: Sell these surplus buildings and use them for affordable housing.

We are opposed to attempts to redirect the work of committees in order to distract from the government's failures in reducing and selling underused federal office buildings so they could be converted into affordable housing. Self-congratulatory motions such as this allow the Liberal government to avoid accountability for its years of inaction and failure to execute its reduction of federal office space, and allow the Liberals to get away with promising investments for the men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces or for our veterans without following through on those promises.

Conservatives will continue to do the work we were elected to do as the official opposition and hold the government to account for its broken promises.

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

Mr. Speaker, tonight, the fundamental question is: Why debate this motion in the House? This question seems very simple, but it is crucial to me. Since I have been a member of the House of Commons, I have rarely seen orders of reference from the House to committees, other than for questions of privilege. I have seen my share of questions of privilege. I sat on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for three years.

I was surprised to see the Liberals take the initiative to move this motion. Let us examine it together. To begin, the motion asks for the following:

That: (a) the House recognize, (i) that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) to meet our NATO funding targets earlier than committed,

First of all, that is not true. More than 10 years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberals committed to reaching 2%. It is a bit ridiculous to claim that this is earlier than expected.

The second point reads as follows:

(ii) the assumption that an increasing number of CAF service members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades;

That is an insult to the active military personnel who contact me as the Bloc Québécois veterans critic. The housing for active military personnel is outdated. There is a severe lack of investment. It is scary. The houses are like sieves. We are hearing more and more news about this every day.

The third point says this:

(b) it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings, in ways that help reinvigorate communities by serving as centers that provide services for veterans, provided that...

I will always be an ally of veterans. I will always be there to stand up for their basic needs. I keep saying that we need to see to their basic needs. What are those needs? They are food, shelter, and security. I am the first to call for dignity for veterans. I am the first to ask that their needs be met, that they be consulted—it is a small word, but it is crucial—and that we not patronize them.

However, I am very aware that they are currently being exploited. Let me be clear: I am in no way against the substance, but I am against the form. If the Liberal government wanted to launch a study on the subject, it could have done so in committee. The Liberals have four members on the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. Those four members are competent and know how the parliamentary system works. They know full well that they can move a motion to study the subject. However, the government has decided to do so here in the House. I come back to my question: why?

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, fourth edition, at page 795, states the following:

The Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates has a very broad mandate, which includes, among other matters, the review of the effectiveness, management and operation of the central departments and agencies, and the review of the effectiveness, management and operation of new and emerging information and communication technologies by the government.

That is a lot.

The committee is also mandated to review the process for considering the estimates and supply, and the format and content of estimates documents. The Standing Orders also empower the committee to amend certain votes that have been referred to other standing committees as part of the estimates, in coordination with those committees.

I will ask my question again. Why does Motion No. 16 direct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to look into this matter? If we are talking about providing housing for veterans, I am sure that my colleagues on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs would be honoured to study the issue of housing, homelessness and surplus land available. That is committee work, after all.

I fundamentally believe that committees are autonomous and that their work should not be dictated by the House. This precedent, a word we have heard so often, would give members of non-recognized parties like the NDP and the Green Party the ability to direct the work of committees based on an order of the House.

I am concerned about setting this kind of precedent because it is not being done out of compassion. Perhaps it is being done for the sole purpose of getting around the Bloc Québécois, which holds the balance of power at standing committees. We will say that again and again, because this situation is exceptional. The government knows that just three votes in the House will enable it to do an end run around Quebeckers, who wanted 22 separatists, 22 people who love Quebec, 22 champions of Quebec's distinct nature, 22 patriots to advocate for them right here in the Parliament of Canada. Many people might find this part of the process irritating. I can hear them laughing, but they cannot bulldoze us. The rules of democracy exist to prevent unilateral decisions. Parliament must not become a chamber that rubber-stamps executive decisions. It must be a chamber of debate, reflection and oversight of government.

As a member of the Bloc Québécois, I will always stand up to defend these fundamental and intrinsic principles of the Quebec sovereignist movement.

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport and Internal Trade]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to seek the support of parliamentarians from all parties to adopt a motion that I believe we can all agree with and that would benefit our country's courageous veterans. The motion calls for the House of Commons to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to study the use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings to support services for our veterans. I would like to thank the member for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing the motion forward, as it clearly demonstrates a commitment to improving access to services that our veterans need.

Most of us are aware of the important work that public servants do at Veterans Affairs Canada to support members who have left the Canadian Armed Forces and who have become veterans. The programs offered by Veterans Affairs do more than make a veteran's life a little easier; they are absolutely a lifeline. These programs provide critical support for veterans facing serious mental health and physical challenges. Just as importantly, they also benefit veterans' families, which play a vital role in the care and well-being of veterans.

There is no greater service to our nation than military service, and our veterans therefore deserve access to the support they need, no matter where they live in this country. In fact, I believe we have an obligation to look into proposals or initiatives brought forward that could help our veterans. We owe it to them to do so, and that is what the motion is about.

As many members of the House are aware, the federal government is the custodian of a large number of underused lands and buildings that have been deemed surplus to federal needs and are being considered for disposal. The intent of the motion, to be clear, is to explore how some of these properties could be repurposed to house and support programs for veterans, who have bravely served our country. For example, surplus properties could be suitable for infrastructure needed to deliver education and training, as well as health care and mental health services, for our veterans.

They could also be used to provide affordable housing, which has been mentioned here today. We know that too many veterans struggle with access to affordable housing, and some are even experiencing homelessness. According to the latest data, it is estimated that approximately 2,000 veterans across Canada experience homelessness every year. Our government has made a commitment to Canadians to address the housing crisis. We have already taken action on this front, as has been talked about today.

In September we launched Build Canada Homes, a new federal agency dedicated to building affordable housing at scale. It is doing that by leveraging public lands, offering financial incentives to builders, attracting private capital and supporting modern infrastructure and manufacturers in building the homes Canadians and veterans need now.

Build Canada Homes will also help address homelessness by building transitional and supportive housing, while working in partnership with provinces, territories, municipalities and indigenous communities. We are also continuing to fund the veteran homelessness program, which was launched in 2023.

In November 2025, the Minister of Veterans Affairs announced an additional $22.5 million in funding to support initiatives aimed at preventing and reducing veteran homelessness in communities from coast to coast to coast. With this funding, the government is partnering with 10 different organizations across Canada, enabling community organizations to deliver tailored services, including housing assistance, mental health and addiction supports, and employment services.

These are important measures, but we know we must do more for our veterans. The truth is that veterans have unique needs and require services specifically tailored to them. If we have surplus buildings, or land for that matter, that could be used to help provide these services, we should endeavour to make this a reality.

There are many factors that cause our veterans to seek support services that they need when they transition from military life to civilian life. The transition, as has been mentioned here today, can be challenging. As military personnel leave a structured environment and adjust to a life that is less predictable and less ordered, finding their footing in these new surroundings can take time and indeed support. There can also be a sense of loss of community when our servicemen and servicewomen leave the military. After years of working and living with tight-knit groups, to suddenly experience an absence of community can be a major adjustment.

Many veterans face physical and mental challenges after leaving the forces, as was brought up here today.

While most of us are familiar with post-traumatic stress disorder, PTSD, there are numerous other physiological and psychological conditions that can affect our veterans. By providing counselling and a range of support services through Veterans Affairs, we can help prevent some of these challenges from developing into more serious illnesses. Therefore, if we are able to leverage some of our surplus land and buildings to transform them into space where more services are available for our veterans, we should examine those possibilities.

When we look ahead and seek to expand our military and increase our troop complement, as we are, we can expect that in the future there will be more veterans who will require services and programs to help them adjust to life outside the military. The member for Cumberland—Colchester is quite right that the government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces to meet our ambitious and vital NATO funding targets. Increasing the number of service members will naturally lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans over the next few decades, so we must acknowledge that providing support to our military is more than the acquisition of the tools and equipment they need to do the job. It is about ensuring that the people doing the dangerous jobs and keeping us safe, the armed forces and the veterans, are at the core of this motion.

In closing, I encourage all members of the House to support this motion to initiate a study of the use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings to support our veterans. We owe it to our veterans who are struggling now and the future veterans who are currently in the military. It is the right thing to do and the Canadian thing to do, so let us do what we all know is right and support the adoption of this motion.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Airdrie—Cochrane, AB]

Mr. Speaker, we stand here today watching the Liberals once again play politics with veterans. Rather than treating our veterans as heroes who served the country, this motion is just the latest action in a string of actions taken by the Liberal government, which treats veterans as pawns for their political ambitions.

In less than a year since the election, the Liberals have made several inexplicable decisions that not only neglect their duties to veterans but also insult veterans. It started with the minister being unable to answer how many veterans had been helped through the flagship programs on homelessness and employment. Despite millions of dollars spent and years of patting themselves on the back, they had no idea if their program was actually doing anything.

The Liberals then decided that they would not provide wreaths for Remembrance Day for cenotaphs across the country. After push-back from the Conservatives, they had to walk that back, but just before Remembrance Day, the Liberals announced more than 4 billion dollars' worth of cuts to veterans' benefits. They refused to answer questions about where those cuts would take place, but we already know that their budget proposes to cut veterans' pensions.

The Liberals sent out more than 100 letters to veterans demanding massive repayment sums because of the department's own negligence and accounting errors, while they simultaneously moved legislation to retroactively change legislative decisions to avoid having to pay back the disabled veterans they have been overcharging for years. The Liberals stand here today, once again using veterans as a pretense for their political goals.

Just last week, half of the Women Veterans Council resigned in protest of the Liberal government's using them for photo ops and virtue signalling, while ignoring them the rest of the time and not allowing them to work for veterans or even have a say with the minister.

Canadians have had enough, and it is time for action. With the budget implementation act, the Liberals snuck in changes to the pension indexing of veterans, meaning that they would receive less money every year to keep up with the rampant inflation that Liberal deficits are costing us. Food inflation, the cost of living and housing are all up, and now veterans' pensions are down.

We have to ask ourselves, what are the Liberals telling veterans? On one hand, they are claiming in this motion that veterans need more service spaces, but on the other hand, they are carrying out the largest cuts to veterans that we have ever seen. On one hand, they are finally acknowledging a cost of living crisis after denying it for years, but on the other hand, they are lowering veterans' pension indexing to give them less every year. The cherry on top is that the Liberals are also using the budget implementation act to retroactively change legislation to avoid a lawsuit representing veterans who were overcharged by VAC for long-term care.

Actions speak much louder than words, and Canadians can see right through the Liberals. Instead of making more empty promises and motions, why do the Liberals not finally start to do right by veterans and reverse their decision to cut veterans' pensions and services?

Perhaps most pertinent to this debate is the fact that veterans in Amherst, Nova Scotia, have clearly expressed their desire for a building there, and they have done so for years now. We now have the Liberal member for that very community introducing a motion for debate which does not call for action to grant the veterans of Amherst what they are asking for. Instead, the motion suggests a study should take place to determine what should be done.

We already know what should be done. We already know what this property needs to be used for. There is no excuse for the games that the Liberals are playing here. It is fully within their authority and their ability as the Government of Canada to facilitate the transfer of that property. Had the motion today called for action, they would have found support on this side of the House.

I know that veterans in Nova Scotia and across Canada will be incredibly disappointed to hear that the government thinks that a motion for a study six months from now is an acceptable answer to a call for action they have been making for years now. This issue comes down solely to political will and priorities, which the government has clearly signalled its disinterest in. The government does not care what becomes of the Amherst Armoury or what becomes of homeless veterans.

For years, I have asked minister after minister in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs if they know how many homeless veterans there are, and how many homeless veterans that their so-called veterans homelessness program has helped. Every single one of them has not been able to answer. They do not even know how many there are, let alone how many they have helped.

That pattern is as disturbing as it is clear: The Liberals love to talk the talk, but they never walk the walk. Words, promises and platitudes are never acted upon or followed up on. It is easy for them to forget about the cost of their inaction when they are here in Ottawa, spending away the future of Canadians, but for everyday Canadians in proud historic towns like Amherst, the effects of their inaction weigh heavily.

Built in 1915, the Colonel James Layton Ralston Armoury, locally known as the Amherst armoury, housed some of Nova Scotia's finest. Local men signed up at the armoury to serve in World War I and to fight Nazi Germany in World War II.

There were 497 men from Amherst and its surrounding areas who never returned home. Their names are marked on a local cenotaph in the Amherst area. For almost 500 individuals who paid the ultimate price, the Amherst armoury holds dear meaning. What is just a talking point for the Liberals in Ottawa is a living part of the heritage of Amherst, Nova Scotia, and its people, and they deserve action, not empty promises, so let us today renew our calls on the Liberal government to abandon its political games and to commit to the transfer of a historic property like that to the people who deeply care for it.

The motion also asserts that there will be a need for more veteran services due to higher recruitment numbers as a result of policies of the Liberal government. To support this, the Liberals have been happy to parade around a recent report that states that applications to the Canadian Armed Forces have increased by 13% last year.

Once again, we are faced with Liberal misdirection. To begin with, the Auditor General report in November of last year clearly states that the Canadian Armed Forces continually fails to meet its own recruitment goals year over year. Among the reasons cited for this was a cumbersome, bloated and outdated recruiting system. The report rightly points out that most applicants drop out of the process because it can take upwards of a year to get enrolled in the Canadian Armed Forces.

If we follow this reasoning, how can the Liberal government be so happy about a 13% increase in applications, when just months ago the Auditor General cited the loss of applications due to a broken recruitment system, which remains unfixed?

Further, the Canadian Armed Forces has also indicated that the 13% figure does not reflect anything to do with the policies of the current government and is a projection it has been making and watching for over four years now. Right off the bat, the very premise that underlies this motion has proven to be false.

In conclusion, it should be stated very clearly that the Liberals have an abhorrent track record when it comes to our veterans. Whether it is changing the minister of veterans affairs every six months or cutting billions from veterans benefits, or whether it is ignoring the veterans who work tirelessly to help their fellow veterans or even offering veterans who are looking for help in living their lives medical assistance in dying instead, the Liberal government has made it very clear that veterans are not its priority.

To any Canadian who is listening today, let me make this as clear as I can. I have served in government before, and the power to transfer a federal property such as the one in Amherst, Nova Scotia, is something the federal government has the mechanisms and the authority to do. All it needs to do is act. Anyone who tells the people of Amherst or anywhere in Canada that this is an issue that needs to be studied in a parliamentary committee or debated over months and months in the House is someone who is not serious about the needs of their constituents or of veterans.

The time for political games with our veterans is over, and the time for action is now.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am glad that this motion has come forward to inspire the conversation around the veterans in our country.

First, I will highlight that clearly everyone in the House, and all Canadians, agree that no veteran should be living on the streets of this country. Any man or woman who served this country should be prioritized when it comes to housing. They should not be left out on the streets.

However, we do have concerns around this motion. We know that this is a real problem. Veterans are overrepresented when it comes to homelessness and homeless people on the streets of our great nation, but so are indigenous peoples. We have been flagging this. I have raised this in the House many times: Any government buildings or any government lands that are to be used for housing, something that we have supported and we do support, should be prioritized for Canada's military veterans, RCMP veterans and, of course, indigenous peoples, who, again, are overrepresented in terms of homelessness in this country, the first peoples of these lands.

We have seen the breakdown many times when veterans groups, organizations or legions try to access funds to build veterans housing. Constantly, what we find out, and we can see where it has happened in Ontario, is that when a group wants to get housing going, even when a municipality comes forward saying it has land, the provincial government says that veterans are a responsibility of the federal Government of Canada. Often the federal government does not provide the funding that is needed, so they fall between the cracks.

Even when local governments or local organizations want to spearhead a project to make sure there are no veterans in their community or anywhere in Canada without a place to live, often the gaps collide. There is an opportunity right now for the federal government to show leadership.

One thing about this motion is that it is non-binding. What we heard from my Conservative colleague, which I wholly support, is that we are talking about doing a study in six months' time on a non-binding motion. This could be in the fall economic statement. In fact, the Prime Minister could announce a policy this week that could absolutely cement that all government lands and buildings to be used for housing are to prioritize Canada's men and women who have served in the military or the RCMP and indigenous peoples, on whose lands they are.

However, the Liberals will not do this. Instead, we have a motion that is going to drag this out. Honestly, it is a motion that, as much as we are frustrated with, we will support at second reading to get the conversation going. However, it is absolutely unnecessary. In fact, this should be an urgent priority of the government. It should be looking at ways to support those groups and organizations and fast-tracking shovel-ready projects, those that are ready right now to be implemented. We have cities, provinces and territories that want to support Canada's military and RCMP veterans and indigenous peoples on federal lands, but they require the federal government to come to the table and actually be the leader when it comes to pulling it together.

Again, we recognize this is a real problem, and we need a pan-Canadian approach to this. However, we do not need to wait for a study when we know there are government lands and buildings that could be used immediately. We have non-profits with shovel-ready projects. We need data, as my colleague talked about earlier. There is no credible data to identify how many of Canada's military and RCMP veterans are homeless. We need to ensure that there are strong transition supports for those who are in an absolute crisis. We need this to be coordinated across the government. All levels of government should be working collectively to address this problem. We need housing-first supports.

It is critical that we get to a place of prevention. When a military or RCMP veteran is homeless, we cannot wait for them to be in crisis. This should be a priority of government. If someone who is serving, right through to their release, is in trouble, if they do not have housing lined up or if they do not have safe, secure supports when they are released, we need to ensure that at least they have, as a bare minimum, a place to live.

The government has had a decade to address this problem, and the Liberals bring forward a motion to talk about it and do a study in six months, which it does not require. This can be enacted now. We would expect a lot more from the leadership of the government. All parliamentarians would expect more.

I hope that the mover of this motion actually goes to the Prime Minister and the cabinet and says that the least we could do for Canada's veterans is make sure that none of them are homeless. This could be done expediently, and it has to be done expediently, because we cannot lose veterans. When a veteran is homeless and they are not getting the adequate supports they need, we know what can happen.

This is disrespectful to Canada's veterans, the people who put their lives on the line for our safety and our security and have served our country. To the mover, I hope that this is in the fall economic statement, or even better, that the government fast-tracks this process and gets moving on making sure that no veteran is left homeless in this country.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.