Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate this afternoon.
As someone who served for a brief period on the defence committee and to elaborate on the last question asked about why we were not more visible at those public hearings, I remember that the first swing the committee took was in late January. Our caucus had a meeting and a subsequent meeting the following weekend so I was only able to get to one of them.
I must respond to the question of the hon. member for Nepean—Carleton regarding whether it demonstrates great political leadership and wisdom to convene the committee to hear frankly from military men and women about pay and rations.
Calling a committee meeting probably demonstrates the absence of political leadership. The easiest thing anybody can do is to have a committee to discuss an issue. As I said in committee, and I feel very comfortable standing in my place and saying it here today, a lot of this was about busy work. It was to keep the defence committee travelling around. It was also demeaning to hear people admit that they used food banks.
In the meeting I attended in Moose Jaw in late January, Mr. Cory Robinson, a second lieutenant at CFB Moose Jaw, indicated he had to go to the local town and country mall to moonlight there for $5.75 an hour to properly feed, house and clothe his family. It must have been extremely difficult for Cory Robinson and hundreds of other people who attended those meetings. They all came out because they are concerned but I am sure it was not easy for them.
I remember saying at a committee meeting last fall that I did not run for parliament to determine what was an appropriate pay and ration for men and women who serve in the military forces. I am aware that there are professional people who do this on a permanent basis.
There are standards. There are groups that are at the lower end of the pay scale and others at the upper end that are doing relatively the same kind of work such as police officers and firefighters. If we look to the United States, the United Kingdom or other appropriate countries we can find their levels of pay and benefits for military men and women.
I do not accept that it is showing great political leadership to have directed the defence and veterans affairs committee to travel around the country to meet with people to discuss this issue.
It was probably a way of keeping the defence committee from looking at other things that would be more relevant. Obviously we do need an effective well paid military, but if we wanted to look at the helicopter issue or submarine issue in a more in depth basis we could not do it because we were travelling to look at pay and benefits. I do not accept at all the premise I have heard earlier this afternoon.
My colleague from Halifax West also talked about alternate service delivery. That has been a major concern in the Palliser riding which has 15 Wing Moose Jaw. I will read into the record a recent letter from Mervin Ernest who said:
My co-workers and myself have been in limbo awaiting decisions on contract finalization and most of all, job offers from—Bombardier—.This whole privatization process has dragged on far too long. This has been an extremely stressful time for all the employees and their families. I have seen many manifestations in my co-workers including stress illnesses and all the personal problems it can cause.
It's very clear that with everyday that passes, current Departure Incentives, Alteration and Relocation options that have been available to us will very soon cease to exist—.
As an employee of DND, I have only two burning questions. Do we have a job or not and if not, will there be financial assistance (Early Departure Incentive—) for those being terminated?
In bold face he wrote:
Please, we just want to get on with our lives!
That is the kind of lack of esprit de corps that the committee has seen and heard about over recent months at both the military and the non-military levels.
At this point in time the Canadian government has not decided what it is that the department of defence could and should be. It is trying to be all things to all people. It has not decided whether its primary role is to be a peacekeeping role or whether it is to be a full military role.
Because it has been unable to decide that, it is stretched very thin. Its equipment, as we all know, is relatively seriously outdated. It is stretching badly the pay, rations and benefits of the men and women who serve in the armed forces or the civilians working in the armed forces.
Until the government demonstrates the leadership to determine what in effect it will be when it grows up, these problems will continue to be there with the poor quality of housing and the lack of other amenities which come with that territory.
I have not seen any lack of leadership. I would agree wholeheartedly with the recommendation before us:
That the House condemn the government for its failure to provide strong political leadership to Her Majesty's Canadian forces.
I hope we put an end to this charade of travelling around and forcing people to demean themselves by telling their personal stories, of their trips to the food bank and their moonlighting jobs at a minimum wage, and get on with the job of paying our Canadian men and women who work in the armed services a decent and fair salary.