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.