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.