MP Mathyssen Speaks About Working To Make Life Better For CAF Members

Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I would let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River, an incredible representative for many people in the CAF who live in her riding.

We are here today to debate the motion that we unanimously passed at the Standing Committee on National Defence about the incredibly out-of-touch decision to raise rents for on-base housing in the midst of a recruitment and retention crisis. As the New Democratic Party's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been fighting every day to support the women and men in the Canadian Forces and their families, as they face—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that this does not have any say in terms of how excited the members in this House will be to actually hear what I have to say, so I will continue.

As the NDP's spokesperson for National Defence, I have been trying to fight every day to support the women and the men—

Mr. Speaker, I hope that is the last interruption.

I am working hard to support and fight for the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces and their families as they face the rising cost of living. The Department of National Defence that is not meeting the urgency of this, as is required.

I look forward to discussing our ideas on how we could support CAF members and their families, but first, I want to put today's debate into context. Since I first took on this role in 2021, I have greatly appreciated the maturity and seriousness that all my colleagues bring to the Standing Committee on National Defence. Members from all parties do understand that we are not just there to criticize the government of the day.

As parliamentarians in general and as members of the defence committee, we have a sacred obligation to the women and men in the Canadian Armed Forces. We must prioritize supporting them over our partisan interests. At our committee, we look at a lot of big generational questions, questions that are not siloed to the government of the day and questions that do not always make the evening news.

Successive governments, Conservative and Liberal, have failed to grapple with defence procurement reform, with Arctic security and sovereignty, with recruitment and retention, with meeting our international commitments on peacekeeping, with combatting sexual misconduct in the military and with the supply of military housing. These are big questions that cannot be tackled in a day, and that is why the defence committee's work is so important.

We can work together across party lines to study these big, generational questions and to propose solutions for government, which is why I find it so disappointing that I have to tell the House today that our committee is not immune to the tricks that have come to dominate Parliament as of late. Particularly since the change in the leadership of the official opposition, I have seen our committee stray from our sacred obligation in favour of obstructive tactics and rage farming clips.

That brings me to this debate today. At a time when Canadians are being forced to decide between filling their prescriptions or buying groceries, the NDP was able to fight for a national pharmacare program. Parliament was due to debate this bill, but the Conservatives used procedural tricks and tactics to delay this important legislation from coming forward by moving this concurrence motion.

Now let me be clear, I want Parliament to study military housing and to find the solutions that CAF members and their families need. That is why I work with all parties to ensure that the Standing Committee on National Defence undertook a study on the lack of housing availability on or near bases, and the challenges facing military families when they are required to relocate.

This motion was moved for debate while our committee was meeting to hear from officials on this very subject. We should have all been at committee to work on finding real solutions for this really big question, but there was a deliberate choice to weaponize the military housing crisis as a procedural tool against pharmacare and, I would say, against Parliament.

When it comes to supporting military members and their families, we need to put the partisan games aside. I want to share an example of how this could be done. In December, the Nova Scotia Legislature heard testimony that military personnel in that province were living precariously and some may be homeless. Canadians were shocked by this, and as parliamentarians, we knew we had a responsibility to investigate this matter further.

I tried to coordinate a joint letter from all opposition parties to the Minister of Housing, asking him to engage in a whole-of-government approach to tackle the housing crisis. I wanted to take the partisanship and games out of this tragic situation, and instead focus on finding answers to this really big question.

I am deeply grateful to my Bloc colleague, the member for Saint-Jean for sending this joint letter to the minister with me. The Bloc and I were able to set aside partisan differences that we may have on other things and collaborate on this important issue. I was disappointed that the Conservative Party could not do the same.

Regardless, I am happy to share some of our ideas on military housing. I have heard about the horrific state of Canadian Forces real property portfolio. The buildings on bases, whether it is military housing, child care buildings or mess halls, are falling apart. According to the government's response to an Order Paper question that I put forward, there are 51,586 open work orders for repairs across the country. There are bases where buildings are being demolished without any plans to replace them. There are countless incidents of military members being exposed to hazards from old buildings.

A major part of the problem is the mess of maintenance and service contract procurement by the Canadian Armed Forces. According to a 2018 report by the assistant deputy minister of Review Services, the Real Property Operations Group are completely unequipped to make a value-for-money analysis on maintenance and service contracts. They are not equipped to measure the success of individual contracts to inform future business with contractors.

I have heard of constant examples of base contracts being handed out to contractors with no oversight only to have more damage be done by poor craftsmanship, which are then fixed by department and public servants. In effect, we are paying for many repairs twice, once to the contractor and then again through the salaries of the department staff brought in to fix the mess and then they do the work properly. When I hear from CAF members, one of the largest concerns we hear is the mess of properties on base.

Building housing and base properties was a large part of the defence policy update published last month. We saw billions of dollars earmarked to be spent on military housing and property maintenance, but I have two concerns that I want to raise about that plan.

First, of the $295 million promised for building military housing, we only will see $7 million earmarked for the next five years. When I asked the minister about this, he stated that the previously existing funding for housing is enough to carry them for those five years, but we know that the current status-quo approach is not enough. We have a shortfall of 7,000 housing units, but in the last two years, fewer than 40 new units have been built.

Second, I am concerned we will not be able to tackle the military housing crisis without fixing the overreliance on contractors on bases. The department knew its approach to contracts was a problem, so it ended up hiring Deloitte on a major contract to audit its real property portfolio. However, as a New Democrat, and after all the discussions we had in this chamber last year on the growing reliance on big consultants, I am incredibly skeptical that this major contract was made with the best intentions. The government should be seeking recommendations for solutions from public servants, not for-profit consultants.

The audit by Deloitte proposed solutions to work closer with the private sector, and I fear that the government listened based on its new vision for military housing. It has proposed leasing DND properties to develop P3 housing nearby bases.

Instead of cutting down on the problematic contractors in military housing, we will be fronting the cash for private, for-profit developers to become the landlords for CAF members. The Department had the option to partner with not-for-profits to deliver housing or for that build to be public, to be federally-ran housing, and I hope that at committee we can continue to push that forward in terms of that solutions.

In closing, there are so many more aspects of military housing that we have not been able to discuss in this concurrence debate, which is exactly why I worked to get this studied at our committee where we can work collectively and productively towards the production of a report to present to the House. I am proud of a lot of the work that we have been able to accomplished at our committee to date, and I invite all committee members to stay committed to our obligation to CAF members and not be distracted by the political gamesmanship.

Mr. Speaker, “scintilla” is not a word I hear a lot. I appreciate the vocabulary from the member, although the tone is certainly not appropriate. I want to do everything I possibly can to work together, as I said in my speech, to ensure that things are better.

Was the budget an NDP budget? If the member had maybe caught my speech a couple of days ago about the budget, I was very clear that it was not. However, the division that we consistently see, the trying to tear down this institution, is unhelpful. I will do everything I possibly can to honour the institution and to work as hard as I possibly can to ensure that people in the armed forces get what they need. It may not be perfect, but we need to move forward, and we need to do that together.

Mr. Speaker, that is a tough question because there are so many, but I do appreciate the member's question. Again, it is with that desire to work together, so I want to highlight that as well.

It is really problematic, however, that we are going to be waiting so long to see the increase in spending that we need in devotion to housing. I have spoken to officials who have raised this for the bases in Halifax and in Wainwright, but it is across the board. Further to the study we have done at committee, we need to really focus much more on this.

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the hon. member, as he was at committee when a lot of this took place, what I was referring to. Continuously, while we had witnesses in front of us at committee, giving us their time and offering us their expertise, which is so valuable, we ended up debating motions on issues, which is important. I said, very clearly, that this is important, and that is why I supported this motion. However, it takes time away from the studies that we need to continue.

In fact, this study was proposed and was used in concurrence to deliberately halt conversations that we, as the NDP, believe are very important to the provision of pharmacare. That is why it was proposed, and that is why it is being used. It was not to talk about the importance of housing, but to be used in a weaponizing style. That is what I am referring to.

I am glad the member needed the clarification.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in her speech, stated that the government will replace the Canadian Armed Forces with a climate corps.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member, in her speech, stated that the government will replace the Canadian Armed Forces with a climate corps.

Now, I am happy to support my PMB on the introduction of a youth climate corps, which would generate more training and job opportunities for young people in a clean energy and conservation type of economy. However, I know that the member loves conspiracy theories and that she does not necessarily believe in climate change. I cannot even count the number of times she said “socialist”, which I happen to think is a good thing, but could the member actually point to any proof she has that the creation of a youth climate corps, and this socialist plot of the government, would actually replace the Canadian Armed Forces?