Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I agree with certain aspects of the motion, but there are others that I don't. I'll try to be as clear as I can.
We've always been able to come to a pretty good consensus at this committee. We're generally able to speak with one voice, and that's one of the strengths of the committee.
I hope that will be the case with this motion. For example, we did so when we held discussions on the issue of the 2% of GDP that wasn't being met, which somewhat undermined our ability to be a relevant ally internationally. We've always been able to find consensus.
What I like a little less about this motion is that certain elements haven't been the subject of testimony before the committee. For instance, I'm thinking of the issue of food banks. Unless I'm given evidence to the contrary, I find it hard to include this in the motion when it hasn't been discussed at all in committee, whereas other topics have. For instance, we talked about the fact that Canadian Armed Forces morale is currently at a lower level than ever. This is unprecedented. We did a full study on recruitment and retention, and we heard testimony to that effect. I don't think it would be a bad idea to mention it with one voice in the House, to remind people of the urgent need to act and the committee's fears.
There's also the fact that there have been gaps in defence spending and that budget cuts have left our soldiers understaffed. It's true that soldiers are underequipped and understaffed, but cuts may not be the only reason; indeed, there are others. I think that portion could be reworked. In its conclusion, the motion reads: “Therefore, the committee recognizes that the morale crisis as the result of a lack of political will and investment …”. But there are also other causes.
I think that the motion could be worked on in such a way that it is consensual and that it is a heartfelt appeal sent by the committee to the House.
I don't think it's consensual as currently drafted, but I think there's a way for it to become so. I'm sure we could get there if we discussed it, because the basis of the motion is good. I think we can also see it as non-partisan, depending on how it's written. It needs to be seen as a call to action from this committee to the government.
There is merit to this motion, and its content could be called upon to produce results.
I don't feel comfortable voting in favour of the current motion, but I think we can make changes to it, and then I could.