Debates of March 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the member to address comments to the Chair and not to the individual.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, you may not be aware, but this member is about to become a member of the military family. I wonder if she could comment on what she might perceive some of the effects would be on families when decisions like this become all of a sudden thrown in their laps.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have had the great pleasure of working with the member opposite when I was on the veterans affairs committee. He himself is a family member of the Canadian Armed Forces. His father served valiantly in our Canadian Armed Forces. I would like to thank him and his father for their service.

I am a family member of the Canadian Armed Forces. I have two sons currently serving, very proudly, so I am a proud military mom.

I can assure members that this government takes the physical, mental, and financial well-being of our Canadian Armed Forces members and our veterans very seriously. We will continue to do so. I am happy that we are having this conversation today to show that all sides of this House can come together in support of our Canadian Armed Forces.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I did not hear a lot of information on the heart of the Conservatives’ motion, the tax benefit of between $1,500 and $1,800 per month to our military based on the adversity and risks of the missions on which they are deployed.

Could my colleague talk specifically about the tax benefit of between $1,500 and $1,800 per month that her government may be withdrawing? I would like to know more about her position on this.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As the minister said earlier, we support this motion. We are currently ensuring soldiers sent to Camp Arifjan get retroactive payment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it bears mentioning that the minister stood in the House today and dealt with this motion. He indicated to the House that the 15 people affected in Camp Arifjan will have their pay retroactively restored. Would the hon. member be prepared to comment on the swiftness with which the minister reacted, given this egregious situation and given that it had been outstanding for 10 years previously?

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Madam Speaker, as my colleague mentioned, the minister, upon being made aware of this, asked the chief of the defence staff to look into it to not only correct the issue but to look into the process that has been put in place to make sure that we are not only following specific guidelines but are making sure that decisions being made are in support of our Canadian Armed Forces. I am happy that we are not only rectifying this but are looking into making sure that the process is as complete and as robust as possible.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this motion, but regrettably, this motion has been rendered moot by virtue of the minister's commitment to retroactively deal with the military personnel who were affected by the pay change on September 1, 2016.

This has had a 10-year history. The government was asked no less than 15 times in the past number of years to address these situations where personnel arrive on the field with a certain understanding of their pay and compensation package, and then while there, it is changed. The minister has done the right thing and addressed it. Therefore, in some respects, the motion is moot.

The government will be supporting the motion, and I am assuming the Conservative Party will support the motion. I do not know the position of the NDP, but I expect it will support the motion. In some respects, we are debating something that everyone agrees to. Whatever else I might say at this point, and possibly what has been said prior to this point, would be something less than useful to the actual motion that is on the floor of the House.

In the spirit of contributing things that are tangentially relevant, with the indulgence of the chair, I will go to a discussion about the value of our people who put on the uniform. No matter what they do, whether they are in Halifax or Wainwright or Kuwait, when they put on the uniform, they are taking a proud place in Canadian history.

As we approach our 150th birthday this year, it is worth remembering that in many ways the story of Canada's military is Canada's history. In August 2014, we marked 100 years since the First World War began. The world had never seen such a conflict. More than 650,000 men and women from Canada and Newfoundland served;, which is no small feat for countries with a combined population of eight million. Let us project forward and ask what would that be if we had a population such as we have now, somewhere in the order of four or five times bigger? We would have three million men and women in uniform in this kind of a conflict. It is unimaginable given the year in which we live, 2017.

Sixty-six thousand people gave their lives, and more than 172,000 were wounded. Many spent years away from home fighting from trench to trench across bloody battlefields in Europe which was pockmarked with shell holes. I hope as people come to Ottawa to celebrate our 150th anniversary they take advantage of that opportunity to go to the Canadian War Museum just down the street from here, and spend a day going through Canada's military history. It is a fascinating and honourable history.

This year a Canadian Armed Forces contingent will return to one of the most important and well-known battlefields in Canadian history, Vimy Ridge. At Vimy, regiments from coast to coast saw action together in a distinctly Canadian triumph, helping creating a new and stronger sense of our nation's identity. The success of our soldiers at Vimy is seen as one of the defining moments of our history, the moment when Canada came of age. Today on land granted to Canada by a grateful France, the Canadian National Vimy Memorial rises above the now quiet surrounding countryside.

At this point, if I may, I will tell a story about a Scarborough soldier. His name was Lieutenant Leslie H. Miller. He was a farmer, like many other people who enlisted in the Canadian military. He went to Vimy. He participated in that fight and he survived. When he climbed to the top of Vimy Ridge, the only thing left of an oak tree was the acorns that had fallen to the ground in the course of the battle. He gathered up those acorns and had them transported back to his farm in Scarborough.

If people go to the farm, which is located in the northwest section of Scarborough, they will see a huge stand of oak trees. These oak trees have been there for literally 100 years. People from Vimy Oaks are keen to have saplings from those trees planted on French soil at the foot of the Vimy Ridge memorial. It is really quite an interesting and exciting concept where 100 of those trees are planted along what will be an interpretive path from one of the villages in France right to the Vimy Ridge memorial. That work is actually being undertaken as we speak.

It is an interesting and challenging problem, because there is so much unexploded ordnance in the fields surrounding the Vimy Ridge memorial. That work is taking place. I want to commend the initiatives of Monty McDonald and a variety of other people who have taken it upon themselves to initiate this Vimy Ridge memorial and express it in a uniquely Canadian way by bringing the saplings that had been grown on Canadian soil and replanting them on French soil. In a uniquely Canadian way this expresses our commitment to the people of France, to the people of Europe, and our own nation-building exercise.

Vimy was not the only battle that shaped our nation. Just over two decades later, a new generation of service men and women returned to the battlefields of Europe and further afield to fight in the Second World War. They landed on the shores of Dieppe to face great adversity. More than half of their number were killed or taken prisoner.

They landed in Sicily and launched an assault, slowly retaking Italy back from the Germans. They landed at Juno Beach, fielding the third largest allied D-Day force. From there, they pushed through Normandy, to Belgium, and on to liberate the Netherlands. Those who have been to the Netherlands on the various memorial days know that still the Dutch greet Canadians with a special pride and enthusiasm and a special affection.

Meanwhile, in the icy waters of the North Atlantic and the Barents Sea, men braved the German U-boats to keep the vital flow of men and supplies open between North America and Europe and into Russia.

Not far from this very House there is a street named after one such man, Jerome Jodoin, who joined the navy with nine of his buddies in 1941. Before his 20th birthday he had sailed the Murmansk run four times over. When the City of Ottawa named a street after him, a fellow veteran and Legion comrade, Gus Este, was there at the ceremony. Mr. Este was one of more than 26,000 Canadians who answered the call of a recently formed United Nations to help maintain the international peace and security in Korea. He also served in Germany, Cyprus, Egypt, and as a member of the Canadian Postal Corps, ensuring deployed personnel could keep in touch with their families back home.

The Canadian military has a proud history, one that we all should take some pride in, particularly on this anniversary of our nation at 150 years and of Vimy Ridge at 100 years. We are a nation that does answer the call. We continue to answer the call. We have some of the absolutely finest soldiers. We hope that in passing this motion, we will honour their deployment by appropriate compensation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member is a former parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, and he has always been a consistent advocate for our men and women in the forces. I wonder if he would like to expand on why it is so important that government support our men and women in the forces. We often talk about that social contract. I wonder if he could underline the importance of why our forces are there for our sovereignty, for ensuring that Canadian values are that much more appreciated around the world.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Canadian military has three great tasks: to provide defence of Canada, to provide defence of North America, and from time to time provide expeditionary forces. In that way we protect our own sovereignty. It is a foolish nation that outsources its own sovereignty; hence the importance of our Canadian military to retain and maintain and expand our sovereignty so that other nations that might wish to take advantage of Canada will not be able to do so.

The key importance of our military is that we project our own sovereignty and we protect our own sovereignty and we do not outsource our sovereignty to other nations.

[Dan Albas, Conservative, Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, BC]

Madam Speaker, on the point about how important it is for a nation to protect its sovereignty, the previous Martin government refused to participate in the ballistic defence program. I just want to hear the member's thoughts on whether or not Canada should seek to work with the United States, because if there are issues having to do with missile defence, right now it is the Americans who hold all the cards when it comes to that. I would love to hear the member's thoughts.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the minister launched a defence review last year, and I am not going to pre-empt what that defence review might say on this particular subject or any other subject for that matter.

The issue of not outsourcing our own sovereignty, of protecting our own sovereignty is top of mind and it has to be for any government. It does not matter whether it is a blue government or a red government.

I am rather hoping that our excellent relationship with our NORAD partners will enable us to contribute in ways that are useful for both nations.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, this topic is of particular interest to me because I did have the opportunity to work as a financial educator at the Garnison Saint-Jean in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. I witnessed first-hand the financial concerns of the members of the Canadian Forces at that time, which was at the time of the deployment to Afghanistan. That is why it is of a particular concern to me when the motion seems to imply that this is a very recent phenomenon. In listening to the very interesting speech by my colleague, the previous government was asked 15 times to change this. I would like the member to comment.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, it was 15 times in 2013 alone. The response was by then prime minister Stephen Harper, then parliamentary secretary Chris Alexander, and then defence minister Peter MacKay, all of whom punted the problem on to somewhere else and it has been punted on to us. The minister today said enough with the punting and we will fix it. When he says that is going to happen, that is going to happen.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is great to be up speaking today. Before I get started, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Souris—Moose Mountain.

I want to express my deepest condolences to the family and friends of Master Corporal Alfred Barr, who died yesterday in a training accident near Yorkton, Saskatchewan. Our thoughts and prayers go out to his loved ones at this very difficult time.

The other thing I want to say is that just recently, within the last couple of years, my youngest son has had the chance to join the reserves. Now that I have a family member involved, this subject is more personal. My son joined the Lincoln and Welland Regiment in St. Catharines and had the chance this past summer to do his basic training in Meaford, Ontario. I am certainly proud of Andrew, who is over in Germany right now. I am proud of all my children, but I thought I would mention that.

Turning to the discussion on the motion today, what the Liberals seem to have done is commit a major wrong against our men and women in uniform who are serving and fighting against ISIS in some of the most hostile and dangerous territory in the world. ISIS is an enemy whose members have beheaded people on camera, and just to prove a point, they have sexually enslaved young Yazidi girls just because they are Yazidi or non-Muslim. They brought hellish conditions to hundreds of thousands of innocent people just because they do not believe and worship in the same way. ISIS is a clear enemy that stands against everything that Canada and the civilized world represent.

ISIS must be eradicated through concerted, consistent, and strong effort, no matter how long it takes. This is why when we were in government we committed to doing exactly that. It is why the current Prime Minister is continuing with a similar mission.

ISIS has bought back medieval views, way of life, and treatment of minorities and women in a way the world has not seen in recent times. Its members have conquered territory in Iraq and Syria, and they have enslaved, forcibly converted, sexually enslaved, or killed their victims along the way. Canada and the world have faced many evils in the past, and ISIS is one of those evils that we have with us today. It is why our fight against ISIS is absolutely necessary and critical to win. Canada cannot stand on the sidelines when the rest of the world is committed to fight and eradicate these genocidal fanatics.

Our brave men and women in uniform have contributed and delivered significant results in this fight. For over two years, our Armed Forces have done their part and made tremendous sacrifices that very few of us in this place have made. What is the reward for the incredible service and sacrifice for our country? The reward the Liberals have decided to give our men and women in uniform fighting ISIS is to take away their tax benefits. Some 15 soldiers in Kuwait were told that they were going to lose a tax benefit, which provided $1,500 to $1,800 per month for them and their families, saving more than $9,000 each over the course of a six-month tour.

If that was not enough, the Liberals went ahead and cancelled the benefit for all Canadian troops in Kuwait as of June 1 of this year. This was done, according to the Liberals, because it is not dangerous enough for our troops to receive this benefit while they are stationed in Kuwait and fighting ISIS in Iraq. I have to repeat this for everyone to really hear it, because it is so stunning. The Liberals ended a $1,500 to $1,800 per month tax benefit, essentially danger pay, for all Canadian troops serving in Kuwait and fighting ISIS.

Removing danger pay does not seem wise when the Minister of National Defence's own parliamentary secretary admitted that “...it is true that our soldiers will be at greater risk”. This refers to the Liberal's decision of February 2016 to put more troops on the ground in the fight against ISIS. More troops on the ground means greater risk. This was acknowledged by the Minister of National Defence who said, “Our people will be in close proximity to the dangers inherent in the region”. Now we are seeing the defence minister take away danger pay for our soldiers serving and fighting in that very area.

One of our Armed Forces members serving in Kuwait said that he believes that the Canadians are the only ones who will not be getting this tax break. When I first read this I thought that I had not read the report correctly. However, to my shock, I found out that it was indeed true. I could not understand why the Liberals would do this. To serve as a comparison, the United States provides tax exemption status to its fighters that are fighting ISIS. It is no surprise that one of our soldiers said that it felt like “we got kicked in the stomach”.

Do the Liberal government, the Liberal defence minister, and the Liberal members of Parliament want our troops in Kuwait to feel like they got kicked in the stomach by their own government who sent them into harm's way to flight a murderous, genocidal enemy? Right now, that is exactly the way it feels.

We can also listen to Glenda Lindsay, the mother of one of our affected soldiers, who said that she feels as though her son is being cheated. She said, “They're cutting corners at the troops' expense”. Ms. Lindsay has also started an online petition to help rectify this major error on the part of the Liberals. Petition e-882 calls upon the Government of Canada to immediately reinstate and retroactively pay back the tax relief measures for all troops deployed in Operation Impact. I encourage all Canadians watching and listening today to go online and sign their name in support.

Let us face it. As we are sitting here discussing and debating, those soldiers are fighting for our very right to do so. They are defending our right to have this debate in an open, tolerant, accepting society. Our troops will be fighting an enemy that hates these very values and is willing to die to destroy that throughout the world. What do our soldiers get for fighting this enemy? A well-earned and much-deserved tax benefit of $1,500 to $1,800 per month was taken away, just like that. This makes no sense. There is simply no logic to explain why the Liberals are doing this.

Our men and women in uniform volunteer to serve their country against all sorts of threats, in all sorts of dangerous environments, and it is difficult to think of a more dangerous mission than the one now being fought against ISIS. Members of our Armed Forces leave their wives, husbands, boyfriends, or girlfriends to travel abroad to perform extremely dangerous work and put themselves at risk in service to our country. They often miss their children's birthdays, their own wedding anniversaries, and their kids' graduations. Family members of those deployed to Camp Arifjan reached out to MPs to express concern and in search of explanations. They said this treatment of our service men and women is embarrassing. Why would the Liberals even consider taking a tax break away from any of our troops, especially those fighting ISIS?

What also shocked me is that the Liberals have known for months that the Canadian Armed Forces members deployed against ISIS have not been adequately compensated for the hardship and risks associated with their deployment. To be clear, the decision to take away this tax credit was made after the troops had agreed to deploy. What this means is that the Liberals have cheated our troops and their families out of hard-earned money, money that our troops and their families expect, count on; and to be very clear, it is money our troops and their families deserve.

If all of this money is being borrowed on the backs of our future generations, why are the Liberals penny-pinching when it comes to our men and women in uniform? Just yesterday the Liberals decided to spend another $650 million in other countries, but they away tax benefits from our soldiers fighting ISIS. I am not sure I can quite understand the logic of that. Do our soldiers need to transfer and serve in the armed forces of other countries to be properly compensated? I do not think that would be the case.

When I first read the reports of our troops losing this tax benefit, I thought it was definitely bad news and something I could not support. To make matters worse, when we brought it up in the House, the Liberals decided that the best solution to this issue was not to restore the benefits but to revoke them for all our troops fighting ISIS. I thought to myself, what about my son Andrew? As I mentioned earlier, he joined the reserves and has been training. What if he had been in Kuwait and he had lost his danger pay because the government did not think it was dangerous enough to fight ISIS? How would all of us in this place think if it were our sons or daughters who were serving? What would we want our government to do if we were in the same position?

When we were in government, a similar issue came up in relation to our troops in Afghanistan. What we did as a government was very different from what the Liberals are doing. We cut through the bureaucratic red tape, and made sure our troops got the support they deserved. We did the right thing for our men and women, and although we are no longer in power, we will continue to do right by our men and women in uniform. We ask the other side of the House to join us.

We have been listening to the families of those affected. We have raised the issue on multiple occasions. The Prime Minister and his Liberal MPs have no excuse. At this time, the Prime Minister has plans to deploy more troops to dangerous missions in Africa. It is very clear that he is interested in winning a seat on the United Nations Security Council. The Prime Minister and his Liberal MPs should not be penny-pinching when it comes to our troops.

Let me end with family members of deployed soldiers at Camp Arifjan, who said in correspondence with their MPs that this is a country worth working for, worth continuing to strengthen and build and worth sacrifice; to have someone pass a policy that impacts their family in such an essential manner without taking into consideration the implications on the families who readily sacrifice is shocking and disconcerting.

We call upon the government to finally do its job, reverse this terrible decision to take away this tax benefit, and start supporting our brave men and women who stand on guard for all of us.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member and I sit on the foreign affairs committee, which I would like to think is one of the more civilized committees on the Hill. We accomplish great things and, miracle of miracles, actually arrive at consensus opinions.

In the spirit of consensus opinions and civilized debate, would he agree with me, given the minister's speech this morning, in which he undertook to retroactively fix the issue as of September 1, 2016, for the 15 people involved, that this debate is largely moot, that the motion will be supported by the government, by his party that moved the motion, and as I understand it, the NDP as well? Would he agree with me that in some respects, the motion is moot?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, yes, I think there is a lot of consensus in the foreign affairs committee. It is a committee that does great work. I am hopeful, in this age of consensus and the fact that we are working together, that this is a moot point. If everyone supports it and the money is reinstated, our troops will be paid danger pay, and I am looking forward to the government fulfilling that commitment.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member's son on what he has decided to do, and I thank him for his service.

The chief of the defence staff indicated that troops are supposed to receive a six-month warning if their tax status is lost. I am wondering if the hon. member could comment on that and, though this does not seem to be the case, if perhaps that could be adding to some of the frustration.

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would not say that governments and bureaucracies always communicate the way they should or could. Communication is something on which individuals can always do a better job. It always important that we have clarity. My colleague mentioned that the defence minister is going to support this and vote for it, and I certainly hope that sends a clear message to our men and women in uniform that they do not need to worry about us in the House or the government supporting what they do.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

I would like him to tell us about the issue that was raised a couple of times concerning the fact that the Conservative government was well aware of the situation that allowed Canadian Forces pay to be reduced when they were deployed overseas. This has been requested quite a few times.

What does he know about the previous government’s response? Why is it up to the current Liberal government to solve this problem?

[Dean Allison, Conservative, Niagara West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is one thing Conservatives on this side of the House find amusing, and that is that we have not been in government now for a year and a half—it will be two years this October—and it is always somewhat entertaining when we are blamed for things that are happening at the present time. Another one the government likes to refer to is the softwood lumber agreement that expired when we were in government, which was at the end of our mandate and just before the election.

My concern is not so much what happened then, but what happens now. What is the action the government intends to take, whether it is issues like this one or softwood lumber? Sure, the softwood lumber agreement may have expired as Conservatives were nearing the close of our time in government, but it has been a year and a half and I am now concerned about moving forward and making sure things are being done now.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, I too would like to offer my heartfelt condolences to the family and friends of Master Corporal Barr, and everyone involved, as well as the unit, on the loss of his life yesterday.

I am pleased to rise today in the House and add my voice to the debate concerning the Liberals' move to end the tax benefit that was being provided to soldiers fighting against ISIS. This is an important conversation that needs to be had. I want to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for his tireless work on this issue and all the issues that are facing our Canadian Armed Forces personnel.

On September 1, 2016, the Liberals chose to end the tax relief measures provided to 15 Canadian troops stationed in Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. They did so without giving any warning that this would be happening, and yet at the same time, approximately 300 other Canadian soldiers who were also in Kuwait under Operation Impact did not have their benefits touched. The change only occurred after the troops were already deployed, and without any notice.

Immediately, the families of these soldiers began reacting, reaching out to their members of Parliament to express their frustration and dismay that this promised benefit was taken away without any justification for doing so. These families were counting on this benefit to help support them while their spouses were far away from home, serving their country.

In my youth, which was just a few years ago, I was one of these family members, which is why this issue resonates deeply with me, but I will touch more on that later.

Once this matter was raised by Conservative members of Parliament, we took action. We listened to the concerns of the troops' families and committed to standing up for them and to representing them in a way the Liberals refused to do.

In November 2016, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman sent a letter to the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance asking that they look into the issue and ensure that all troops deployed on Operation Impact received equitable benefits.

A few days after this, he raised the issue directly with the CDS at his appearance at the Standing Committee on National Defence. The following month, he raised the issue again with the Minister of Defence at the same committee. The minister responded along the following lines:

For the specific ones that you're talking about, there is some work that the military has to do with Treasury Board as well, but we are working through the complexities based on how this is done to make sure there is more equity for our troops when it comes to deployments.

Finally, in January 2017, the departmental hardship and risk committee announced to the troops that in its December 2016 quarterly meeting it was determined that all tax relief measures to CAF members deployed to Kuwait under Operation Impact would be cancelled and that this change would take effect on June 1, 2017, to allow members and their families to adjust to the decision.

This is absolutely unconscionable. These brave men and women were being given this tax relief because they are putting their lives on the line to serve their country every day. Instead of doing the right thing, which would have been to reinstate the tax benefit after the initial 15 troops lost it back in September 2016, the Liberals have decided to end it all together.

When Canadian troops are deployed, there is an inherent risk associated with that. These risks can mostly be broken up into two parts. The first part deals with what we, and most Canadians, traditionally see as the dangers of being in a combat zone, such as the risk of coming under enemy attack. This is not just a concern for the front line. It affects all troops who are deployed, as they could potentially become soft targets for attacks, including mortars and suicide bombers.

As an example, when our Canadian Forces were deployed to Afghanistan, the high-risk area was deemed to be Kandahar, while Kabul was considered less dangerous. In Kabul, our troops would regularly leave their compound in order to go to the military hospital in Kabul. They would work there during the day and return to their compound at night. My brother, when he was performing these duties, fortunately had no incidents while he and our troops were there. However, as many members likely know, there was an attack on that very same hospital just two days ago, where an ISIS bomber and others dressed up as doctors in white clinic jackets entered and shot and killed 38 people and rising, and wounding many more.

That is just one type of risk that our men and women in uniform have to consider when they are volunteering to deploy. Other risks include environmental risks and diseases. Kuwait is a hot climate and there are diseases that exist there that we are fortunate not to have to worry about here in Canada, such as malaria.

The drugs used to protect our troops against malaria can have major side effects, as well. Our soldiers need to be protected, but they also need to feel as though their country understands and appreciates the risks that they are taking to serve. By taking away measures that provide tax relief for them and their families, we are doing the exact opposite of recognizing the sacrifices they have made.

I would like to acknowledge that while these troops are deployed, their quality of life changes dramatically. My father was a major general in the Canadian Army, and there were years when my entire family spent time following him around the world to his various postings. I recall that when we lived in Pakistan, the temperature was often so hot that it felt like going out into a blast furnace every time we stepped out of the air-conditioned building.

Our soldiers are expected to be able to work long hours in these conditions, often carrying equipment and gear such 40-pound rucksacks, sometimes seven days a week, for weeks on end, with limited time off. They deserve to be compensated for this, and I cannot understand how the Liberals do not recognize that.

One important aspect that needs to be considered in all of this is the effect that the removal of this tax benefit will have on the families of our troops. When my father was deployed to Cyprus in 1966, my family faced a number of challenges while he was gone. My mother had to step into the role of both parents, and as a child l keenly felt my father's absence. He was not around to help me with my schooling, to watch me play the sports I was so passionate about, or to teach me those day-to-day life lessons that are only available when someone is there, physically, in front of us.

After my father and mother passed away, I came across some of the letters that he wrote to her during his deployments. In them, he expressed his concerns about being away, and he expressed how he was trying his best to figure out how he could help with raising their four children while he was not around. He would indicate the friends and colleagues my mother could contact for help where possible.

One of the issues he brought up was finances. It is something that every household has to deal with, but it becomes infinitely more difficult when one parent is away and often unreachable. I strongly feel that anything that can be done to help our soldiers and their families ease the burden of deployment should absolutely be done. It is shocking that the Liberals do not seem to feel the same way.

One of the roles that I am honoured to hold in Ottawa is that of vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. We regularly hear from veterans of the Canadian Forces who have been deployed to high-risk areas such as Kuwait. One of the recurring things that we have been told is that when it comes to dealing with the Department of Veterans Affairs, there is a huge level of distrust. Countless veterans have expressed their frustrations surrounding promises that have been made and broken by the federal government, time and time again. They are tired of hearing platitudes being dispensed by ministers when there is little or nothing to show for it at the end of the day.

Some veterans who struggle with PTSD are even triggered by receiving an envelope in the mail from the Department of Veterans Affairs. This is called “brown envelope syndrome” and it is real.

When the government makes decisions unilaterally and without warning, such as ending this tax benefit, it shows our Canadian Forces members that there is reason to distrust those who are meant to be helping them.

The ending of this tax relief measure for our troops could have been easily resolved back in September 2016. The Liberals could have recognized the error and reversed the decision that took away the benefit for the 15 troops in Kuwait, troops who were already deployed when this decision was made. Instead, they chose to end the tax relief measure for all troops stationed in Kuwait.

The risk in Kuwait is still real. On Canada's travel website, travellers are warned "you should exercise a high degree of caution due to the threat of terrorism." I cannot comprehend how the government can say this, and still deny that our soldiers are at risk due to these same factors.

In making the decision to cut this benefit after the troops were already deployed, the Liberals have cheated our soldiers and their families out of hard-earned money that they expected, counted on, and deserve.

In conclusion, this motion calls upon the government to show support and appreciation for our brave men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces. While I am hearing positive signs, I will call on the Liberal government to step up to the plate and do the right thing. Reverse this ill-thought-out decision, retroactively reinstate the tax benefit, and show our Canadian Armed Forces that their government truly does recognize the sacrifices that they have made to serve their country.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

Madam Speaker, this issue is largely moot. We agree, and likely when the motion comes before the House when we return, it will be a unanimous vote, I want to focus on the hon. member's personal experience of being, for want of better term, an army brat. He obviously had some personal experience with it. While the designation on the degree of risk is not on the floor of the House, generally, the military divides it into four categories of risk, one, two, three, and four, the lowest being one and the highest being three and four. Clearly, not all deployments are equal. I am sure the hon. member has experienced that not all deployments are equal, in terms of their risk.

Notwithstanding the fact that the discussion about risk level is not on the floor, I would be interested in the hon. member's views as to whether the current categorization of risk, which then triggers the degree of compensation, is appropriate and is adequate.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Madam Speaker, that is true I was an army brat. I did not spend a lot of my time on the bases, as many soldiers' families do, but I was fortunate enough to see a lot of the world and I have benefited immensely from that travel experience with my father.

He is correct in the sense that the levels of risk are gauged at various levels. Level two is exactly where we start to see that avenue as to where the risk becomes higher in certain areas. Those risks are often based on where they are deployed, the conditions they are in, and whether it may be in a subtropical part of the world as we do experience issues that I have talked about, mosquito-borne malaria virus. We look at issues such as whether we might be sending our troops to Africa and the concerns if we end up sending our soldiers to Mali.

Definitely, each one of those risks need to be looked at individually and independently and they need to be assessed on those various merits.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wonder if my colleague can comment further on the retroactive component of the motion and, also, recognize that this is a non-binding motion. I am very glad to hear members of the government say they will support it, but that does not necessarily mean that they will be implementing it. It is important for us to emphasize all aspects of the motion and follow up with the government to make sure that this actually gets done, given the withdrawal of that payment in September of last year, well after the government had taken office.

I wonder if the member could comment on the importance of the retroactive component, restoring the payment that was lost in the past, and also the need to follow up to make sure this actually gets done.