- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- London—Fanshawe
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $211,722.86
- Government Page
- May/2/24 6:35:09 p.m.
- Watch
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 and the Department of National Defence, which is not meeting the urgency that this moment requires.
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 the 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 there not just 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, and we must prioritize supporting them over our partisan interests. At the 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 the 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 the committee stray from our sacred obligation in favour of obstructive tactics and rage-farming clips.
That brings me to the 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 the bill, but the Conservatives used procedural tricks and tactics to delay the important legislation from coming forward by moving the concurrence motion before us.
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 worked 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. The motion was moved for debate while the committee was meeting to hear from officials on the 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 the 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 the 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 am disappointed to say 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, and 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 is completely unequipped to make a value-for-money analysis on maintenance and service contracts. It is not equipped to measure the success of individual contracts in order 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 is then fixed by department 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 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. Billions of dollars were 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 will see only $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. However, we know that the current status quo approach is not enough. There is 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 that 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 the 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 from for-profit consultants.
The audit by Deloitte proposed solutions to work more closely 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 near 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 run, and I hope that at committee we can continue to push that forward in terms of that solution.
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 the issue studied at 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 accomplish at 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.
1427 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:33:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope that this does not have any say in how excited the members in the House will be to actually hear what I have to say. 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—
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 6:30:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before I get started, I will let you know that I will be splitting my time with the member for North Island—Powell River, an incredible representative for the 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—
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 7:04:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I knew the hon. member would not disappoint. I really appreciate her taking part in this debate tonight.
At the defence committee last week, we had the Minister of National Defence before us. When I was asking about following up on support for rangers, the chief of the defence staff said something I found quite disturbing. I would love the member's input on it. He said that when it comes rangers, “We've noticed that perhaps some of those traditional skills are eroding”.
Could the member comment on why they believe that to be the case and how we can stop that from happening?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/27/23 6:35:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this concurrence debate, although I will note, of course, that it is within the usual tactics and games used by members of the official opposition. However, it is an important topic, so I am glad to speak to it tonight. I will be splitting my time with the member for Nunavut; I look forward to hearing her incredible contributions to this debate.
First of all, this was a really important report to put forward. I am so grateful to all the witnesses who came before us, the members of the armed forces who spoke to this report, the academics, the community leaders, the policy-makers, the analysts from the Library of Parliament, our committee clerk and the interpreters. We are truly lucky in this place to have such an incredible group of people to work with and whom we can hear from to create better legislation and better policy within the government. I appreciate those workers and all the evidence provided by the participants. After hearing the recommendations and reflections from the committee, we worked on the study to look into Russia's threat to Canada's Arctic, China's threat to Canada's Arctic, the security of the Canadian Arctic archipelago and the security of the Northwest Passage and NORAD modernization.
This report's recommendations strayed from the mandate a bit. Sadly, we ignored one of the largest points and most imminent threats to our Arctic, which is climate change. According to the report:
The committee was reminded by Dr. P. Whitney Lackenbauer that we must distinguish “between threats passing through or over the Arctic rather than threats to or in the Arctic”.
The committee did not quite get that in terms of the recommendations, which is a real shame.
The committee's recommendations focused heavily on “potential threats to North America passing through the Arctic, at the expense of centering threats to the Arctic itself.” The warming rate of the Arctic's oceans:
...is up to seven times faster than the global average. The United Nations estimates that by 2050, up to 70 percent of Arctic infrastructure will be at risk from loss of permafrost. This is a direct threat against both the Canadian Armed Forces and Arctic communities....
With climate change, we have already seen the number of voyages in Canadian Arctic waters triple in the last three decades. New sea lanes are being opened by melting ice, which will cause increased fishing, transportation, tourism and research activity in the area. Further, the loss of permafrost is also increasing the viability of access to the Arctic's massive oil reserves, natural gas and precious minerals.
This threat to Arctic security was discussed at length throughout the committee by top officials. We heard from the chief of the defence staff, General Wayne Eyre, who stated that there was a challenge in “making that infrastructure durable and sustainable into the future with the changing circumstances related to climate change.” Vice-Admiral Topshee, the commander of the Royal Canadian Navy, told us about the important holistic approach necessary to deal with the increase in traffic. He said that the CAF is working with territorial governments and indigenous partners to build Canada's capacity, from unauthorized vessel detection to search and rescue.
In the same study, we heard from the national security and intelligence adviser, Jody Thomas, that more than 40% of Canada's territory and over 75% of its national coastlines are Arctic. She stated:
The Arctic is fundamental to Canada's identity and its sovereignty....
Rapid and enduring climate change is making the region more accessible for navigation. New commercial and military technologies are connecting the North to the rest of the world and eroding the region's historical isolation from geopolitical affairs.
We took all this into account. We heard it as part of the testimony, which, of course, was rooted in the context that the increased activity caused by climate change is highly disruptive. It is a problem. It is the major threat.
It is very alarming that, within those recommendations, we did not actually see recommendations calling to address climate change. Certainly, I tried to bring that forward, to have the consideration of climate change as the existential threat to Arctic security be known. Sadly, we do not see those recommendations in the report. It is truly a mystery, but maybe not a mystery for anyone who has heard arguments from the official opposition's side. However, I will leave it there.
It is imperative that the federal government treats climate change as a national security threat, as outlined by all these officials and academics. This summer alone, 45.7 million acres of forest in Canada burned and released the equivalent of 1.7 billion tonnes of CO2 emissions.
Additionally, indigenous peoples in Arctic communities need to be central to what we are talking about in terms of Arctic security. The impacts of climate change are felt first and foremost in the Arctic. Indigenous people are often on the front lines as first responders, and all government spending on the Arctic security question has to reflect this truth. As the report notes, “As part of Arctic security, we must see investments in the north help northerners access safe housing, clean drinking water, fresh food and healthcare.”
It is easy to fall into the escalating calls for the militarization of the Arctic, but I believe this is a disconnect from what the committee heard from witnesses. We heard that the best Arctic security policy is an investment in the communities themselves and in their people.
One clear message heard at committee was the need to invest in the Canadian Rangers to address the threats to the Arctic. We heard from Calvin Pedersen, a fourth-generation Canadian Ranger, about his work in monitoring vessel traffic in the northwest. The report notes, “The Canadian Rangers are essential to meeting the security needs to address the impact of climate change and increased economic activity in the Arctic.”
We also heard from Dr. Peter Kikkert, who said:
The Rangers wear lots of hats, so they’re often volunteers on the ground search and rescue teams in their communities. They’re often members of the Coast Guard auxiliary units that go out to do marine searches.... The training that is given to Rangers is not always just used in an official capacity, but is often used to bolster the search and rescue system on a voluntary basis.
The report goes on: “Investments in the Canadian Rangers will increase our domain awareness, increase the CAF’s operational capabilities, and will bolster search and rescue capacity.” There were some good recommendations, especially recommendations 21 to 25, as part of this report, and I hope the government will act upon them very quickly. They include a change to the way rangers have faced mistreatment from successive governments. Often, rangers are expected to continue service while being undercompensated for equipment usage, and they are slowly and inadequately reimbursed for damaged equipment. They also lack funding for administrative supports.
Just last week, I questioned the Minister of National Defence about this, because in the study, witnesses clearly called for the equipment usage rate to be tied to inflation. I did not get the answer I wanted, but I never really do from the minister, unfortunately. I hope that will change. I hope he will take the recommendations from this report seriously.
In addition to that support, the defence ombudsman reported that rangers lack adequate access to the health care, housing and basic infrastructure needed to do that work. We keep hearing the same messages over and over again. We need the government to hear them.
The report notes, “As the need for Canadian Rangers increases, we must act immediately to solve these concerns.” In addition to the permanent Arctic search and rescue round table that has been called for, the committee received a written submission that called for the need to build up community resilience.
This brings me to recommendation 13 of the report. The report says:
[I] wish the language in the recommendations went further to mandate the Government to prioritize investments that serve Indigenous peoples and Arctic communities. As we expect more and more from Arctic communities, Canada’s history of neglect and harm must be reconciled with meaningful investments. In prioritizing the backlog of NORAD modernization and the backlog of infrastructure gaps in the Arctic, we can address [a lot of the] shared needs.
The government has a clear opportunity here, and it needs to “use funding allocated for NORAD modernization to address the infrastructure and service gaps in the Arctic. We must give greater attention to the water crisis, housing crisis, and health care crisis in Arctic communities”.
I also want to address a recommendation that I agree with in this report, which is recommendation 3. In witness testimony for this study, General Wayne Eyre stated, “I think policies related to ballistic missile offence are becoming less and less relevant.” The recommendation reads, “That the Government of Canada reconsider its longstanding policy with respect to the U.S. Ballistic Missile Defence program.” I am 100% against that.
We heard from Dr. Adam Lajeunesse, who stated:
Arctic security and defence are very important, and we need to make serious investments, but we need to zero in on what exactly the threat environment is. What I have argued is that we are not seeing, and are not likely to see, a great power threat to the Arctic.... I'm arguing that it would be a waste of money and an inefficient use of our resources to build the Arctic defences in such a way as to gear them towards Russia or China.
Again, he pointed back to the existential threat. This all points back to the inappropriate and disappointing wedge in a conversation of our study that refused to put those recommendations forward, in terms of climate change. I—
1687 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the national defence committee, and we are discussing a lot about cybersecurity, which relates to the debate today. Obviously, the armed forces are having quite a recruitment retention issue, but across the board we are seeing this with the labour shortage. One of the questions we were talking about regarding cybersecurity as it relates to national defence was around security clearances and what the government needs to do to attract people to the cybersecurity industry, potentially trying to ensure that people from outside Canada are attracted to this industry. Maybe the member of Parliament could address that a bit. I know it is a little outside our scope, but it certainly gets into how we start to address a lot of the problems we have been discussing all day.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will try to take no offence in the fact that my hon. colleague forgot to mention that I, too, was on that trip. I did get quite a lot out of it, of course. It was fascinating.
One of the things that our defence committee is studying is Arctic sovereignty and how Canada is investing into NORAD and its modernization and our role in that. We have heard a lot about how we can continue to be that partner in NORAD to help with the security that is at threat through the Arctic, to the Arctic and in the Arctic. While we are focusing as the defence committee on “through” and Canada's role in that, maybe the member could talk about some of the investments his government needs to make and has not made in the Arctic.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
