Debates of April 21st, 2026

Motions in Amendment

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think a majority of the indigenous communities in the country join me in lamenting the fact that the government does not keep its word.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague her thoughts on spending $10.6 million over the next four years when, as we have heard many colleagues on our side outline, this is probably what the parliamentary secretary and the minister of this portfolio should be doing anyway.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I talked about the importance of building bridges. There is no question that there are things we could do with this $10.6 million that would benefit first nations and that would benefit Canada. The truth is that the reason to avoid spending this money is to keep the commitments and to implement the treaties. If we do that, what we would get in return is priceless. What we would get is reconciliation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that seeks to ensure that the federal government honours the treaties it has signed. I wonder if we should apply this concept to more federal government matters.

The first thing that springs to mind is the famous notwithstanding clause in the Constitution that was adopted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, because the current government seems intent on challenging it.

It seems to me that having a commissioner to ensure that the federal government honours its commitments under both the Constitution and international treaties could be a good idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not entirely sure that I see the connection between the notwithstanding clause and the bill that we are speaking about today. What I would say is that the Government of Canada needs to do a better job of connecting and communicating with Canadians so that they understand why it is making the decisions it is making and we can avoid disputes in the first place.

[Lori Idlout, Liberal, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I wonder what the hon. member has to say to the many first nations and modern treaty organizations that have negotiated for over 20 years to get this bill tabled. This is their hard work, which was co-developed with the federal government.

What does she have to say to them about what their efforts have meant in making sure that the bill could be tabled so that we could have the role of the commissioner created?

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member's question is a wonderful opportunity to reflect on how important it is that, as members, we keep our word with our constituents and that we do not break our trust with them.

The reason it has taken 20 years to get here is that the government has not kept its promise. These treaties need to be implemented, and all people in the House should be honouring their constituents.

[Ned Kuruc, Conservative, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before I start, I would like to recognize all the volunteers across Canada for National Volunteer Week. In my home riding of Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, there are many members of my community who give hours and hours every week to make our city flow. They are the oil between the gears. Without them, kids would not play soccer. Honestly, without volunteers, I would not be here representing Hamilton East—Stoney Creek.

For decades, governments have talked about reconciliation, but without accountability, those are just words. Frankly, words are not good enough. Canadians expect action. Indigenous communities deserve results, yet time and time again, what we see from the Liberal government is delay, deflection and more bureaucracy.

The Liberal government's Bill C-10, which would create a commissioner for modern treaty implementation, looks less like a meaningful solution and more like an attempt to paper over a decade of broken promises to indigenous peoples. We do not need another layer of bureaucracy to tell us what we already know. The Office of the Auditor General has said it. Indigenous leaders across the country have said it. All Canadians can see it for themselves. The government is failing to meet its obligation, and Canadians expect better.

Now, let us take a step back and talk about what modern treaties actually are. A modern-day treaty is a comprehensive land claim agreement that is negotiated between first nations, Inuit or Métis groups and the federal government. The purpose is straightforward. It is to resolve long-standing issues around land ownership, resource rights and governance in a defined territory. These agreements can cover a wide range of areas, including land access to resources, financial compensation and governance rights. Once in place, these treaties carry the force of federal law. They can clarify or, in some cases, replace rights set out under historical treaties.

Let me be clear that Conservatives support modern treaties. We support indigenous communities who want to move beyond the outdated and restrictive Indian Act, but what we do not support is the Liberal approach of throwing more taxpayer dollars at the problem while failing to deliver real results. Creating another office in Ottawa would not fix what the government has failed at.

If we want to understand the real issue here, we need to look at the government's actual track record. Let us take a look at the facts. In October 2025, the Auditor General tabled a report titled “Follow-up on Programs for First Nations”. The findings were clear and, frankly, they were deeply concerning. The auditor found that Indigenous Services Canada “had made unsatisfactory progress in implementing the actions [on] 53%...of the recommendations” made since 2015. That is 18 out of 34 recommendations, which is more than half. At the same time, the department's spending on programs increased 84% since the 2019-20 fiscal year.

Let us think about that. Spending has gone up dramatically, but outcomes have not improved in a meaningful way. That should concern every single member of the House.

The Auditor General has also identified several key barriers preventing progress. The first was a lack of continued attention from management, and that raises a simple question. If there is no constant leadership and focus, how can these programs succeed?

The second barrier was a lack of clarity around service levels. Systems become overly complicated when they are layered with bureaucracy. It becomes harder, not easier, for communities to access the services they need.

The third barrier was a lack of support to build capacity in the first nations communities, and this point is critical. If we are serious about reconciliation, we need to empower communities, not trap them in systems they cannot effectively navigate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for the interruption.

There have been discussions among the parties, and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That motion no. 1 in relation to the report stage of Bill C-10, an Act respecting the commissioner for Modern Treaty Implementation, be deemed negatived on division, and that the motion for the concurrence at report stage of Bill C-10 be deemed moved and deemed adopted, on division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

All those opposed to the hon. member's moving the motion will please say nay. It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

Accordingly, Motion No. 1 is defeated on division, and the bill is concurred in at report stage on division.

(Motion No. 1 negatived and bill concurred in at report stage)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe there is unanimous consent to call it 5:43 p.m., so we can begin Private Members' Business.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

The House resumed from February 3 consideration of the motion.

Use of Federal Lands for Veterans

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for Cumberland—Colchester for bringing this motion forward and for raising this important issue about how we support veterans.

This motion proposes a study on how unused federal lands and buildings could support veterans, including with housing and community services. We support studying these ideas, but let us be clear: This is a non-binding motion. It asks only for a study. Veterans do not live in studies. Already many of them are facing insecurity now, and we already know enough to act.

If this motion passes and the government operations committee undertakes this study, it must hear directly from veterans about their lived experiences, including the veterans ombud, retired colonel Nishika Jardine, who has been working tirelessly to advance the concerns and urgent needs of veterans. This includes mental health supports for veterans and their families, suicide prevention, rehabilitation and other critical services in addition to housing.

I also want to thank the Legions in my riding, across Vancouver Island and across this country and the local non-profit housing organizations that support people experiencing homelessness, including many that support military and RCMP veterans and their families. In the Comox Valley alone, 16 veterans have been identified as homeless, representing about 12% of the total homeless population. This should never happen in a country like Canada. The Government of Canada pledged a sacred obligation to support veterans and their families. This is to ensure care, compassion and respect. This is often, as members know, referred to as the “social covenant”. However, the motion before us would not deliver that.

We can see what works. In Esquimalt, the Veterans House, formerly known as Cockrell House, has been helping veterans transition out of homelessness with safe, stable and on-site supports. I also want to acknowledge Angus Stanfield from the Royal Canadian Legion for getting that off the ground. The model works. It provides dignity, stability and community. However, it totally relies on donations and volunteers, which is why it is not scaled up.

Certainly, we need to implement and use government lands to ensure that all veterans have a safe place to live. We cannot be relying on non-profits to do what the government clearly has a responsibility to do. At a time of a housing crisis, these lands should be used to house people, especially those most affected, including veterans and their families, and of course, indigenous peoples. No veteran and no veteran's family should ever be without a home in this country.

We have heard directly from veterans about what this failure looks like in practice. From Comox Valley, retired sergeant William Webb, who served in the 1st Regiment of the Royal Canadian Horse Artillery, told a parliamentary committee in 2019 that after nearly 20 years of service, he cycled through nine case managers and ultimately became homeless. He said, “Case managers are not aware of what to do when a veteran, like me, is soon to be homeless and then becomes homeless.” If the system does not know what to do when a veteran becomes homeless, then the system is not working.

We need to be honest about how we got here. In 1992, the government pulled out of housing. We know this can be fixed. There are plenty of opportunities, but let us face it: The opportunity is now. Keep public land public, build housing, fund it properly and prioritize veterans and their families.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will avoid moving the motion again. In any case, I am not the sponsor. The explanation and description of the motion have already been provided, so I will get straight to the point. The Bloc Québécois will not support this motion, and I will explain why.

The motion instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of surplus federal lands and buildings “by serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. However, the outcome is already stated: “serving as centers that provide services for veterans”. If the outcome is already known, it will not be a lengthy study. It is as though we already know the end.

The motion also says that the government is meeting the NATO target of spending 2% of GDP on military spending earlier than committed. That is not true, because the government committed to reaching the 2% target over 10 years ago. The motion also states that an increasing number of Canadian Armed Forces members will lead to a growth in the ranks of Canadian veterans in the coming decades. That makes sense, but it distracts from the real problems, which are unfortunately caused by the government's actions.

For example, according to a recent study by the Auditor General, serving military personnel are facing serious hardship in accessing housing. The difficulty in securing affordable housing is directly linked to government decisions on immigration, as confirmed by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, who said: “We estimate that rents are currently 26% higher than they would have been without increased immigration”.

The housing crisis, which is largely caused by the Century Initiative policy, has an inevitable impact on veterans' access to housing throughout Quebec and Canada. Access to health care is lacking, whether in relation to disability benefits, issues with Canada Life, or the privatization of services through contracts with private companies under the partners in Canadian veterans rehabilitation services program.

Worst of all, however, apart from the inaccuracies in the motion and therefore in the text itself, is that it instructs the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to conduct a study according to a specific timeline. Committees are usually allowed full control over their own work. Why would the House suddenly impose such a timeline? To be clear, the motion would allow voting by members of non-recognized parties who do not sit on the committee. This means that people who are not involved in the committee would come and make decisions about committee work they had no hand in.

The motion contains nothing to improve the situation. It simply forces the committee to conduct a study based on foregone conclusions, vague though they may be. It says that the buildings and lands must be used to provide services to veterans. The motion imposes a six-month deadline to conduct the study and draft a report containing the committee's findings. By forcing it to meet a strict deadline, the motion is effectively gagging the committee. The situation is all the more unacceptable considering that, as we speak, the only two recognized opposition parties are currently a majority on the committee, and we could end up being forced to follow a timeline that is not of our choosing.

Veterans' needs are indeed numerous. These include housing, health care, disability benefits, and recognition of skills acquired in the military, to name just a few. The Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs is better suited than the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates to examine veterans' needs and come up with concrete recommendations.

The other problem with this study is that most services fall under provincial jurisdiction. Ottawa does not deliver health care. The provinces do. Ottawa does not build affordable housing. It is usually the municipalities. Ottawa does not tackle homelessness and addiction. Once again, it is the municipalities and the provinces. The best solution for Ottawa, then, is to transfer its surplus buildings to the provinces instead of looking at creating new parallel structures. The motion refers to providing services using federal buildings, but a number of civilian partners can contribute to the solutions and are better equipped than the federal government to do so, especially since these services often fall under provincial jurisdiction.

For example, the government could transfer its buildings and land to the provinces. That is the solution I mentioned earlier. The provinces could then put them to good use by building affordable housing, for example, something that provinces and municipalities already do. To truly help veterans, Ottawa needs to take proactive steps. The Liberals, like the Conservatives before them, turned a blind eye to cases of sexual misconduct in the armed forces for years, leaving many veterans with psychological issues after their service.

The same is true when it comes to the transition from military to civilian life. Ottawa is not doing enough to support service members as they leave the military. They are accustomed to a life that is completely structured and controlled by the military, and they sometimes find themselves ill-equipped to cope with their new reality afterward. One of the most pressing issues right now is housing. This is a situation that has major repercussions for the entire population, but particularly for veterans, and yet the motion makes no mention of it. I am not suggesting that there are bad intentions behind the motion, but its many negative or ill-informed aspects outweigh any good intentions.

I am going to use the time I have left to talk a bit about the housing problem that serving military members are also experiencing. The motion states that the number of veterans will only increase in the coming years. However, the Canadian Army is facing serious difficulties in providing housing for serving members, as demonstrated by the Auditor General's recent audit on the matter. As part of the audit, a total of 227 high-priority repairs were identified across 32 buildings at three military bases. In its latest estimate, National Defence revealed that it needed between 5,200 and 7,200 additional residential units for its members in 2019. Its plan to build new housing has still left a deficit of at least 3,800 homes. That is also a glaring and significant problem.

I still have a little time, so I will say a few more words about the House's interference in the business of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. In our view, granting the House the power to intervene in a committee's affairs is completely unacceptable. As I said earlier, parties like the NDP and the Green Party certainly belong in the House, but they are not recognized parties, so they have no role to play in the committees. Nonetheless, they will have the power to influence and impose their opinions on a committee's work even though they are not committee members. The House of Commons does give the committees direction, which is all well and good, but committees are masters of their own proceedings. They can call witnesses and compel the production of documents they need for their work. That power rests exclusively with committees. They can define the nature and scope of their studies without additional instructions, and they can delegate all or part of their powers to subcommittees.

In light of these three problematic issues, we believe this motion is naive and grants MPs even more power over committee proceedings. We oppose that. I hope all parliamentarians give this motion plenty of thought.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today as we come to the end of the debate on an important motion that I hope will make a real difference for veterans across the country, people who have served Canada with courage and commitment.

Motion No. 16, which was introduced by my colleague, the member for Cumberland—Colchester, 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 to provide services for veterans. At the heart of the motion is a very clear objective, which is to improve access to services for our veterans. In contrast to what my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton said, the federal government is indeed responsible for taking care of the veterans who fought for our country. This is also directly related to the essential work of Veterans Affairs Canada, which offers programs to support those living with significant physical or mental health problems, as well as their families.

The motion comes at a particularly good time. As my colleague pointed out, the Government of Canada is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces and is meeting its NATO commitments ahead of schedule, contrary to what my colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton was saying. This week, in fact, we announced that the Canadian Armed Forces have reported a record number of enrolments over the past year. There are 7,310 people who joined the ranks in the 2025‑26 fiscal year, which is the highest number of enrolments in three decades. What that really means is that over the next decade, we need to prepare to see thousands of military personnel transition to civilian life and become veterans.

The motion before us does more than just address today's significant challenges. It also aims to anticipate needs that will emerge in the future, through planning that must be thoughtful and effective, for veterans, communities and taxpayers alike. When we ask Canadians to serve their country, we commit in return to offering them support, care and guidance. These commitments do not end the day they take off their uniforms. We still have responsibilities toward them. Ultimately, the motion represents both an obligation and an opportunity: the opportunity to better care for our veterans, who have truly given so much to protect us and uphold our freedom.

The federal government is responsible for a large portfolio of underutilized lands and buildings that are deemed surplus to its needs. The motion proposes examining how these properties can be repurposed to support programs for veterans. These spaces could, for example, be used to provide training, education, health care, mental health services, or even affordable housing for veterans.

The member for Cumberland—Colchester often cites the example of the Ralston armoury. This is a historic building that is deeply linked with Nova Scotia's military heritage and was home to the Nova Scotia Highlanders Regiment, the regiment that landed at Juno Beach on D‑Day. However, this building is now in administrative limbo. In 2016, it was declared to be surplus. In 2020, it was closed because of structural issues, and it was then closed again in 2025 for environmental reasons. The local community has rallied to try to preserve it, but without a clear vision or long-term commitment, the building is at risk of staying unused despite its obvious potential and the needs we have.

As the member pointed out, the armoury could become a real resource centre for veterans. It could be a place to provide affordable housing for those transitioning to civilian life, mental health services, peer support groups, career counselling, community spaces and perhaps even a refurbished museum to showcase the Highlanders' legacy. There are other buildings like this across the country, in communities represented by many members. This motion invites us to reflect on how we can transform these public assets into concrete solutions that honour the past while meeting current needs.

As MPs, we have a responsibility towards our veterans. For that reason, we must support the motion.

Exploring the possibility of giving these properties a new lease on life also allows us to build on initiatives already in place to support veterans and improve access to housing. In September, our government launched Build Canada Homes, a federal agency dedicated to the large-scale construction of affordable housing. The initiative also makes use of public land. It offers incentives to developers. It attracts private investment and supports modern construction methods to deliver the housing Canada needs, and that includes housing for veterans. 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 homelessness among veterans across the country.

These are important measures, but we need to be honest: We have a duty to do more. This is where exploring the potential of underused federal properties comes in. It is a real opportunity to take concrete action.

Veterans have unique needs and require services adapted to their reality. If the government has surplus federal lands or buildings that can be used to provide these services, it should make every possible effort to do so. The transition from military to civilian life can be hard sometimes. Veterans may need support for any number of reasons. It takes time, support and resources to adapt after leaving a structured environment like the Canadian Armed Forces for a somewhat more unpredictable existence. Many veterans also face physical and mental health issues after their service, including PTSD and other physiological or psychological conditions. Adapted services delivered by Veterans Affairs Canada can help prevent difficulties from worsening and stop problems from becoming more severe. If the government can use surplus federal lands and buildings to provide more services to veterans, it should give the matter serious consideration and make it happen.

As my colleague pointed out, this motion could be beneficial for everyone. For veterans, it means better coordinated services in places that are accessible and rooted in the community. These services include housing, health care, employment supports and peer networks, without unnecessary barriers or excessive distances. For communities, it means turning underused buildings into hubs for local revitalization, creating jobs, supporting vulnerable populations and strengthening community infrastructure. For taxpayers, it means better use of existing public assets, potential savings and better outcomes. For members of Parliament, regardless of party, it means one simple thing, that is, working together to come up with concrete solutions for the people we represent.

There is no greater service than that provided by the men and women who have served in our armed forces. Our veterans deserve to have access to the support they need when they need it. It is in that spirit that I invite all members in the House to support the motion to study the use of underused and surplus federal lands and buildings to better support our veterans.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on Motion No. 16. I do not support this motion, and I oppose it in so many different ways I am not even sure I can get through it all in the 10 minutes allotted to me.

First of all, this is one of the worst do-nothing private members' bills or motions I have dealt with in 10 and a half years. Possibly the worst, of course, was from the former member for Châteauguay—Lacolle, who used up two PMB slots just to change the name of her riding. Members will know that after every election, the parties all agree under unanimous consent to change the names of the ridings then. This member used up two slots just to change the name of a riding.

For those wondering, not every member of Parliament gets an opportunity to table a private member's motion or bill. There is a draw out of the 343 of us, minus the 30 or 40 so in cabinet. Out of the ballpark 310 left, usually, depending on the length of the Parliament, whether it is two years like the 2019 one or a bit longer, maybe the top 40 names or 60 names drawn will actually get to be heard in the House. It is pretty rare and it is a great opportunity for an MP to bring through a private member's bill.

We saw the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Nicola bring in one to address intimate partner violence, which was an excellent PMB. I had an opportunity in the first Parliament I was here, in 2015, to bring in a private member's bill to eliminate discriminatory taxing of seniors by eliminating the mandatory RRIF withdrawals, which unfortunately the Liberals voted against.

It is shocking to see someone come to the House, with a rare opportunity to get a PMB heard, just to basically ask a committee to do a study. What is ridiculous about it is that any MP from a recognized party can show up at that meeting, and in this case it is the operations committee I have sat on for 10 years, and just table a motion for us to study it.

Currently, with the makeup of the operations committee, we all generally agree to look at different things, and we will pass them together. I think the last three studies we have done were passed unanimously among the parties, which worked collaboratively. The member could have just simply showed up at OGGO and tabled the motion, and we could have worked it out and done it instead of using up an important item like a PMB.

The general sentiment, I think, of the PMB is to convert government offices to use for veterans, but it starts off by asking that the House not actually do that but recognize the great job the Liberal government is doing with its spending for the Canadian Armed Forces. It starts off not talking about help for veterans, but asking that the House recognize “that the government is making historic investments in the Armed Forces to meet our NATO funding targets”. It does not mention, by the way, that $5 billion is actually re-profiled out of pensions and another $2.5 billion is merely re-profiling the civilian Coast Guard as defence. This is the same civilian Coast Guard that the chief of the Coast Guard says there is no plan to arm.

Again, instead of actually working to help veterans, this is “Will you please recognize the Liberal government and tell us how great we are”. It is a false thing. The motion goes on to instruct the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the mighty OGGO, “to undertake a study on alternative ways to make use of underused and surplus federal lands...in ways to help reinvigorate communities by serving as centres that provide services for veterans.”

Unfortunately, the problem is that the final line makes it outside the operations committee's mandate. We do not have a mandate to reinvigorate communities or provide suggestions on reinvigorating communities. Perhaps HUMA does or perhaps Veterans Affairs does, but it is outside OGGO's mandate.

Again, if any member wants to bring in a motion, they just have to show up any Tuesday afternoon at 3:30 p.m. or any Thursday at 11 a.m. and simply table a motion. There is no need to waste hours in the House for a motion to study something that is not actually binding on the government.

I will give an example. Just last month, in the government operations and estimates committee, a majority voted and agreed that the government extend the term of the interim Parliamentary Budget Officer. However, what we saw today was that the Liberals actually voted in their own candidate.

There is no imperative on the government to actually listen to a committee study. The Canada Post recommendations that the government operations committee tabled were ignored, and what did we hear today? There is a $1.6-billion loss from the operations of Canada Post. A lot of those losses could have been dealt with if the government had actually listened to or followed committee recommendations. However, it is not forced to.

The green book says, “A motion is a proposal moved by one member in accordance with well-established rules that the House do something”. They could have simply come to OGGO and moved a motion.

Now what could the Liberal member have brought in instead? Her riding of Cumberland—Colchester has a child poverty rate of 25.5%. Imagine going door knocking in that community for an election, where there is a 25% child poverty rate. The Amherst women's shelter had a 50% increase in requests for beds in December 2025 compared to the previous year. Imagine going door knocking, asking people for their vote and asking about their biggest issue, and it is not child poverty, nor the fact that there is a 50% increase in requests for help at women's shelters because of intimate partner violence. I wonder how many people actually said that they wanted OGGO to study something outside of its mandate. Honestly, does anyone think a single person in that riding actually said, “Let's do that study”?

There are other issues. Amherst business owners told Global News that they are feeling unsafe. Donna Gogan, the owner of a restaurant next door to a crime scene where someone was shot, said, “I wish I could say I’m shocked. I’m not shocked. I expected something like this to happen over the last year or so”. Crime is up so high. Violent crime is 50% above the national standard. Again, imagine this being the priority, to have OGGO do a study outside of its mandate, when members could actually just walk into any committee and drop a motion to study this.

Thirty per cent of all renter households are living in housing that is officially considered unaffordable. We have a rental crisis as well. As of August 1, there are 7,900 Nova Scotians who need a family doctor. This riding is about one-twelfth of the province's population, so there are probably about 800 who are living without a family doctor in that riding, one out of every 12. Eight out of 37 ERs in the province were closed simultaneously due to staff shortages. In the member's riding, Pugwash, Parrsboro and Springhill experience frequent closures of their emergency rooms. People cannot find a doctor, and if they do have an emergency, these communities are shutting down access. Imagine the member hearing that, and what is her reaction? It is to come to the House and put through a motion to tie up the government operations committee.

This is not a motion or a private member's bill to move something forward for the community. It is not one that would actually move anything forward that would help veterans. It is done to tie up an opposition-led committee. Those are the cold, hard facts. The member is part of the government. She could actually walk up to the vice-chair and ask them to do this. She is part of the government. If this was an issue, she could actually work inside her own caucus to address issues for Veterans Affairs.

We heard Veterans Affairs come to the government operations committee on the CER cuts, the expenditure review cuts, where they are actually cutting veterans' access to pension help, when pension help shows that 90% of the reviews are going in favour of the veterans. The Liberals have cut this. Instead of actually helping veterans, the Liberals are cutting services to them. This motion does nothing to help Canadians or veterans or anyone in that member's riding.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, Conservatives want to help veterans with concrete measures, not with another study.

The government has known for years that lots of federal buildings are empty. A 2017 report indicated that nearly half of all federal office space was underutilized, but the government has still not taken action. The Office of the Auditor General confirmed that more than $1 billion was allocated to reducing office space with very little progress to show for it. Meanwhile, those empty buildings are still costing taxpayers dearly.

Moreover, the basis for this motion is flawed. The Auditor General said that the Canadian Armed Forces fell short of its recruitment target by about 5,000 soldiers and that the recruitment system is too slow and poorly organized. The government also announced more than $4 billion in cuts to Veterans Affairs Canada. They cannot say they want to deliver more services for veterans while simultaneously shrinking the budget. Conservatives believe the government must stop wasting time, use empty buildings and help veterans now.

We are debating a Liberal motion with respect to veterans. I think my colleague from Edmonton West ably made many of the arguments I was planning to make with respect to the general absurdity of Liberal government MPs' using rare private members' bill slots to put forward motions asking committees to do studies.

Briefly, to summarize those arguments, if a member believes that a committee should study an issue, the member can simply go to the committee, make the appropriate arrangements with their colleagues at the committee and move the motion at the committee to do the study. The House does not need to instruct a committee to do a study. At times it chooses to do so, but the simplest way to achieve that objective is to simply go to the committee and move a motion for that study. That frees up the private member's bill slot to put forward an additional initiative.

The only reason to use a private member's bill slot in the House to do an instruction to committee is that a member cannot think of anything else to do with their private member's bill slot. That seems like a missed opportunity, when, again, they could simply go to the committee to move the study motion. Moreover, I think the committee itself is often in the best position to prioritize the various options in terms of a study.

There are certainly important studies that the House may wish to bring to a committee's attention. The House can do other things, such as create special committees or provide committees with priority access to the resources of the House. There are certain powers that the House uniquely has and can exercise, but nothing in the motion before us proposes the unique use of powers that are only those of the House. This motion would direct a committee to do something that a committee could choose to do itself. Further, a member could use the time to propose legislation on this matter, which the member has chosen not to do.

I know that the committee is already doing important work in a number of different areas. I want to use the balance of my time to talk a bit about some of the work that, as I know, has already happened at various committees dealing with veterans issues and to highlight some of the work being done by the opposition on veterans issues.

I have had the pleasure of working with our veterans shadow minister, drawing attention to the critical issue of how veterans have been treated by Veterans Affairs Canada, particularly in the context of seeking access to other services but having facilitated death, MAID, proposed to them. It is based on these conversations and evidence gathered at the veterans affairs committee that I have put forward Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, which using a private members' bill slot to put forward specific legislation that tries to change law in a way that a motion at committee cannot.

What veterans are deeply concerned about is how, in a growing number of cases, represented by multiple caseworkers from multiple provinces, an untold number of veterans are reporting that they have called Veterans Affairs Canada asking for help, asking for assistance with a stair lift, asking for mental health supports or asking for other kinds of supports, and instead of receiving the supports they have asked for, bureaucrats from Veterans Affairs Canada have proposed to them that they pursue facilitated death instead. This is wrong. It is a violation of a sacred trust. It unfortunately really drives people away from seeking the help that they are entitled to.

The reality of the life of a veteran often involves a constant need to interface repeatedly with Veterans Affairs Canada to explain things that have been explained before and to advocate for things that a person should be entitled to. This constant need to be in an annoying and, at certain points, painful dialogue with Veterans Affairs Canada to seek the basic things they are entitled to is, unfortunately, a part of the life of many veterans. We should work to do better and to push for a reality in which veterans do not have to be frustrated by or even fear these contacts with bureaucrats. Instead, they should simply, as a matter of course, receive the services that they have been promised and to which they are entitled.

People are not receiving the services that they are entitled to and are instead talking to bureaucrats with no direct involvement in medical services or facilitated death. They are being told if they are frustrated by all these things or if they are having such difficulty, why do they not pursue a facilitated death instead? That is wrong. I think in the past, the government has acknowledged that this is wrong when it has been unable to deny that it has happened, but we need to go further and actually ensure that this sort of thing does not happen again. That is why I put forward Bill C-260, the care not coercion act.

Bill C-260 would ensure that a person in this country would not receive a recommendation or pressure for a facilitated death from a bureaucrat when they are seeking unrelated public services. It would not apply in cases where a person is asking for information about facilitated death. It would not apply in the case of a conversation with a doctor or a nurse. If Bill C-260 passes, it would mean that if someone is contacting government bureaucrats and asking about public services, they will no longer be told, if the government cannot get someone a stair lift within the time they want it, to consider a facilitated death instead.

It is ghoulish and bizarre that this has happened in this country, but it has happened. It has happened many times to many different veterans in different provinces across the country, demonstrating pretty clearly that it was not just a one-off. This is something that has involved multiple caseworkers on the part of the government.

I think there are many ways we can and must do better for our veterans in this country. One clear step we can take is to address the retraumatization, the pain and the frustration that is often associated with this need to continually contact and be in touch with bureaucrats in cases where those interactions have been very negative for the individuals. We can try to put parameters around what is and what is not appropriate in those conversations in order to protect veterans.

Bill C-260, the care not coercion act, is concrete legislation that the Conservatives are putting forward. It builds off work that has been done at committee. I commend my colleagues, particularly on the veterans affairs committee, who have been studying the issue of veteran suicide, and who have been looking at these instances of pressure and coercion around facilitated death and other things. This is the work being done by committee.

Again, I suggest members who want the committee to conduct other studies or work on other issues to go to those committees, talk to the members of those committees, and put forward ideas there for studies, as they are entitled to do.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I offer the member for Cumberland—Colchester her right of reply, for five minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, right now, as our government is making historic investments in the Canadian Armed Forces, we must not only prepare for thousands of new service members to put on the uniform but also consider what it means for them to one day become veterans, because while meeting the commitments we have made to our NATO allies is important, the commitments we make to the soldiers, sailors and aviators in the Canadian Armed Forces are paramount.

Quite honestly, this is an area where we have fallen short in the past again and again. Through both Liberal and Conservative governments, none of us has succeeded in providing the full support that our veterans deserve. No government has gotten it perfectly right. Now, I expect I am not supposed to say that, but it is true. The way I see things is that we can stand around these hallowed halls for the next decade continuing to play the blame game or we can step up and do the right thing. We cannot, in good conscience, use our frustration at past inaction as logic for blocking action today.

Over the past couple of months, I have found myself approaching this issue, this opportunity, with the words of poet and president Václav Havel humming in my ear. He said that “the real question is whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if,” he asked, “it has been here for a long time already, and only our own blindness and weakness has prevented us from seeing it”? What if solutions we are looking for have been here for a long time already? What if the pieces of this brighter future are found in resources we already have? The motion that has been put forward is focused on the future. It is focused on veterans. It is focused on recognizing opportunities available to us within resources that already exist.

Motion No. 16 would direct that we undertake a fast and focused study to examine the best ways to activate the potential in surplus federal properties across the country. Such a study would provide us with a road map for communities to adapt to their own specific local circumstances. Motion No. 16 would allow us to actually take the time to outline a strategy for local action at scale. One size does not have to fit all. What we desperately need is a plan to move us beyond these one-off agreements and delays that lead to missed opportunities and crumbling buildings.

I would venture to say that not a single member in this chamber disagrees with the goal of utilizing federal properties more effectively, and I bet no one will find an MP who thinks we should not be striving for better supports and services for veterans. We already agree on these things. The motion seeks to move the situation beyond the administrative limbo that has for too long constrained the federal government from efficiently coordinating with provinces, municipalities, first nations and non-profit groups that might better maximize the potential within many government-owned properties.

The North Nova Scotia Highlanders landed on Juno Beach 82 years ago this June. They fought their way across northwest Europe, they liberated villages, and they paid an unbearable price. The Colonel James Layton Ralston Armoury in Amherst, Nova Scotia, the building where the Highlanders gathered and trained and kept that legacy alive, is one of the underutilized properties I have been speaking about today, property that deserves better than the red tape of administrative limbo, property that deserves a future.

I believe we can do better for the riding of Airdrie—Cochrane, better for Laurentides—Labelle, better for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, better for Cumberland—Colchester and better for communities from coast to coast to coast, and this motion is how we start.

Even now, the words of Havel continue to hum, asking whether the brighter future is really always so distant. What if only our own blindness has prevented us from seeing it? I ask the membership of this chamber to focus on the future and support this motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would ask for a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 22, at the end of the time provided for Oral Questions.