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 The housing for active military personnel is outdated.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.