Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this very important debate. I would like to congratulate my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman. He is working very hard for his riding and for our soldiers.
This motion deals with a very important issue, and I think it is important for us to take action on it immediately and for the government to take action on it immediately. I will start by reviewing the substance of the motion, and then I will talk about the reasons I think it is important for us to support it and also the action that needs to follow.
This is an opposition motion put forward by the Conservative Party. It calls on the government to restore a tax benefit that is traditionally given to soldiers who are in a dangerous situation in the midst of a deployment. The government removed that money with respect to some of our Canadian Armed Forces involved in the fight against Daesh, and this motion calls for the restoration of that money and, importantly, calls for it to be done on a retroactive basis. It is not just to restore the payment of that money going forward, but to go back and provide that danger pay that should have been given to our soldiers ever since it was removed.
As we discuss this motion and scrutinize whatever government action comes out of it, it is very important to underline that retroactive component as well. We are not just talking about restoring the payment going forward. On this side of the House, we recognize that an injustice has been done to our brave men and women in uniform, and that injustice needs to be remedied not just going forward but also we need to address the past injustice in the context of the ameliorative action that may be taken as we go forward.
It is our position that this danger pay should not have been cut, and I will identify a number of specific reasons why that is the case.
First of all, this is an issue of basic fairness. I do not mean fairness just in the sort of objective sense of treating people as is due, but I mean fairness specifically in the sense of following through on commitments that have been made. If soldiers are committed to a dangerous deployment with the understanding that they will receive danger pay, and then if that danger pay is withdrawn, in some cases without even giving them a proper level of notice to plan their personal finances accordingly, it is a real injustice. It is an injustice objectively not to pay danger pay in these cases, but also simply in the very specific sense of not following through on commitments that had been made, and not honouring expectations that were put in place. We can see that, yes, this does represent a real injustice.
In general, the government should honour the commitments that it makes to government employees. In particular, when we have soldiers in the midst of a dangerous deployment and are not here in Canada to be involved in advocacy because they are in the field, to then undertake policy changes midstream after they have been deployed that negatively affect them financially, very clearly, members should recognize the fundamental injustice of that. Again, it is an injustice that requires a remedy both going forward and also with what happened in the past. That is why this motion specifically has that retroactive element.
A second reason it was not right for the government to do this and why this needs to be addressed going forward is the issue of the morale of our forces. We have heard on this side of the House some discussion from our troops about the impact the withdrawal of danger pay has had on their morale. It can convey a sense that our soldiers are not being properly supported, and that clearly has a negative effect on morale. It is certainly not a message we want to see sent.
The responsible thing for us to do is to not only support our troops, but also to take every opportunity we have to express our support and not to pursue the kind of policy change that the withdrawal of this danger pay was, which negatively affects the morale of our troops in the midst of an ongoing deployment. This is something that I think we have to be very careful about. The policy direction that was taken just was not right, and we need to see that remedied and addressed again in terms of what happened in the past and also what happens going forward.
I also want to speak about a related issue, that of fairness. There is the issue of fairness in terms of following through on commitments, but also in recognizing that this is a dangerous situation, and therefore, providing the danger pay that is normally given in the context of proper recognition of the nature of that situation.
In the current context, we are living in a world where there is not quite simply a front line and then anyone behind the front line is not involved in the action. Warfare today is much more complex. We know that all of our troops deployed in the fight against Daesh are facing a great deal of danger from different kinds of attacks they may be subject to. The purpose of danger pay is to recognize the added challenge, stress, and potential impact on them and their families associated with being in this kind of position. It is to recognize that and to properly compensate for it. That is part of the understanding of and the commitment we make to those who are part of our military.
It also reflects basic notions of fundamental justice, that we pay what is due to them in light of the situation we ask them to be in. Therefore, this is fundamentally the right thing to do, to restore this money. This is why we are bringing forward the motion, because it addresses two different issues of fairness. There is fairness in terms of giving what was promised, but also in terms of giving what is due. It is also conducive to strengthening the morale of our armed forces.
In the context of this discussion, there are a couple of general points that should be made about what the debate suggests about where we are at, more broadly, in our political conversations here.
I am frustrated, as a member of the Conservative opposition, to often hear the tendency of the Liberal government to parry proposals for individual specific solutions by saying they are doing a broader review on the subject. This was an issue in a vote that happened last night. Fortunately, we were able to pass the bill on to committee anyway, but the government was opposing the bill, not necessarily because of specific objections to the specific measures but because it said it had to wait for a broader review. Here, again, in the motion, the government is saying it has to look at a broader review when it comes to this area.
What we on this side of the House say is rather than always waiting for that broader review, why not take specific action that is necessary that responds to real issues of justice and fairness in the moment? That is what we have called for. Yes, have that conversation about the broader direction of where we are going in terms of national defence, but this is an issue of basic justice and fairness to our hard-working men and women in uniform, and let us satisfy that obligation. Let us fix that problem now and not parry that with some references to a broader review.
One of the things we see from the government is it is a big-spending government, a government that wants to spend all kinds of taxpayers' money in all kinds of different areas, yet perversely, we see it nickel-and-diming our soldiers in exactly the wrong way and wrong place. This often happens with big-spending governments. They want to spend the cupboard bare, but then they realize that the cupboard is empty when there are important, real priorities that that money needs to be spent on. The reason Conservatives advocate fiscal prudence is precisely so we can invest our resources in those vital areas when they are most needed. That is why we need to be careful with taxpayers' money, so that we have money available to use when we really need it.
Some members of the government have indicated they intend to support the motion. I welcome that, but motions are ultimately non-binding on the actions of the government, so what we are really looking for is action to implement the fullness of the motion. I hope that if the government chooses to vote for the motion, and if the motion passes the House, that it will have the integrity to implement the fullest of the motion, including the retroactive component, and to ensure that that is implemented as soon as possible. It will have the support of the opposition in moving forward in that direction. It is the right thing to do to address the danger pay issue going forward, but also to remedy it from the past.
I am proud to be supporting this motion and hope that there will be strong action by the government very soon.
