Debates of March 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I absolutely love it when Liberals get up in the House of Commons to try to defend their record on spending for our men and women in uniform. We know that successively since the first Prime Minister Trudeau, it has been an ideological opposition to the existence of the military. The first Prime Minister Trudeau did everything that he could to reduce the—

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member across the way does have experience inside the House. It is the second time she has made reference to the prime minister with his name. It is okay to say prime minister Stephen Harper because he is no longer inside the House.

If we are going to say prime minister with the name, then we should be able to do it on both sides of the House, because I would love the opportunity to say all the wonderful things our current Prime Minister has done.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

I believe the hon. member did correct herself by referring to the father and not the son. She said “the first“ just as you were getting up.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did say the first Prime Minister Trudeau. Again, I will say it. The first Prime Minister Trudeau, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. This was a man who was ideologically opposed to Canada having a military writ large.

I look at the history of our former government. Frankly, we had to spend 10 years recovering from an entire generation of Liberal policy that gutted our military equipment and sent out troops in bright forest green camo in the middle of the desert. I find it completely rich and ridiculous that the members stands and has the audacity to suggest that the Liberal record on this is better.

That aside, I will also note that he deflected and did not say whether or not the government would support making a very simple change here, ensuring that this situation that is happening in Kuwait right now is rectified.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I agree with the member. It is shameful that we are here in this House today talking about the cutting of this tax benefit. As the member Barrie—Innisfil said earlier, with a stroke of a pen we can fix this. I am very glad that all parties have agreed to support the motion.

Canadian troops must receive the equipment and training that optimizes the successful completion of their mission. This includes the government delivering on efficient procurement and increasing major capital investment in the Canadian Armed Forces as a whole.

Given that the Department of National Defence faces the largest recapitalization of the Armed Forces in its post-World War II history, could the budget cuts that were mandated under the former Conservative government have actually delayed crucial procurement that is needed to meet current operational requirements of the Canadian Armed Forces? Maybe the member could answer that for me.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member needs to look at his own voting record. He actually voted against increases to the Department of National Defence's budget that were made under our government. In every single budget, I think he voted against that, consecutively, time and time again. He is from a party that, frankly, is ideologically opposed to using our military to serve any purpose. I will not take lessons from the New Democratic Party members on any sort of policy to support the men and women in uniform in our country because, again, I think they would be worse than the Liberals in this. I will put that on the record.

That said, I feel like if I was serving in the military and was listening to this conversation right now, I would be ashamed and say, “Just pay me properly. I'm out here doing a lot of work for my country and I'm away from my family. Get it right.”

To those people who may be listening, I apologize on behalf of all of us and I certainly hope the government will do the right thing.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

As the motion before this House today acknowledges, Operation Impact carries risk and our fight against ISIL carries risk. All deployments involve an element of risk, and on that there really is no debate.

I am happy to speak in support of the motion this afternoon and also to support our government, which is also in favour of the motion.

Whatever the mission, we cannot eliminate risk entirely. What we can do is protect our troops by preparing them well. This means, of course, giving them the right training and equipment to do their job. It also means making sure that they receive timely mental and physical health care that meets their specific needs.

The military health services that Canada provides are mission-tailored. They are different for every deployment, and their size and nature differs on a case-by-case basis.

How is that done? The Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces consult the host country and our allies on the ground. They look at things like geography, from the location of our operations and the isolation of our troops to the harshness of the environment. They also take into consideration factors such as the presence or absence of ally medical facilities in the region, the travel restrictions imposed by local authorities, and ease of travel. They also analyze every security threat.

All of these considerations, not to mention the number of Canadian military personnel who will be deployed, help to determine the services that are put in place for our men and women in uniform.

As members can well appreciate, these services can take any number of forms. The driving force, however, is always the same, which is to ensure that members have access to excellent care and support before, during, and after a mission.

Before they can confirm their assignment, CF members have to go through a pre-deployment screen with our military health professionals. The purpose of this screening is to flag any pre-existing condition that could lead to problems during the mission. A simple earache, for instance, can be very disruptive to deployed members, and it can keep them from doing their job effectively. For a pilot, however, it could even cloud his or her judgment and have catastrophic consequences. Members also get dental screenings prior to departure as well as vaccinations against current and emerging infectious diseases in the region where they will be deployed.

Another important purpose of the pre-deployment screening is to make sure that each member is well and ready to go on mission from a psychosocial perspective. Lessons learned from past missions have taught us that most stress injuries are not caused by trauma alone. We know that the risk of stress injuries is higher when a member has experienced mental health issues prior to deployment, such as chronic anxiety problems, or when a member is in a difficult social or family context, such as tensions in a marriage or stress associated with taking care of an ill parent. Part of the pre-deployment screening process is to help members identify any pre-existing concern that should be addressed prior to deployment.

Personnel also go on a half-day training with a group of peers as part of the road to mental readiness program. This training gives members new techniques to cope with stressors; new tools, such as goal setting, visualization, and self-talk to build resistance; and new strategies to harness their inner strength to rebound from possible challenges during the mission.

Another key lesson that CF members take from this training is knowing when they feel good and when they should seek help.

The Canadian Armed Forces have cleared away many obstacles to seeking help. For too long, asking for help was seen as a sign of weakness. Our CF members suffered in silence for fear of losing their colleagues' trust or jeopardizing their career.

However, the organization has changed. Much progress has been made toward creating a culture in which everyone is comfortable saying they are not okay. At no point are Canadian military members left on their own without any resources, not even after their role in a mission is over.

As for people who leave the military for medical reasons, the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces work closely with Veterans Affairs Canada and other partners to facilitate a successful transition to civilian life.

These measures are taken so that injured or sick CF members and their families have access to benefits, services and compensation.

For other soldiers, the return home can, in and of itself, be a significant stressor. Readjusting to life in Canada and reuniting with loved ones after experiencing radically different realities can be hard, so the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces make sure to provide adequate support at that point as well. Within three to six months, members have a post-deployment screening with physical and mental health professionals, whose role is quite simply to make sure that they are well in all aspects of their lives, to help them transition to a normal life, to rebuild healthy relationships with their families, and to help flag any signs of an operational stress injury.

For serving members who need help, the Department of National Defence has made excellent specialized services available. There are 26 mental health clinics and seven operational trauma and stress support centres located on military bases across Canada. In all, there are 33 sites to ensure that ill and injured personnel receive high-quality support, regardless of the communities they return to in Canada. Personnel can also call the 1-800 number 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. All of these services, of course, are free of charge.

One of Canada's most valuable and cherished resources is our women and men in uniform. The unfortunate reality is that some become ill or injured while in service. The Canadian Armed Forces are dedicated to ensuring that each and every one of these members receives high-quality care and support. Not only are the Armed Forces duty bound to do so, they are proud to help our sailors, soldiers, and aviators get the most from their careers and their lives.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the opportunity to rise to talk about our men and women in uniform.

The member spoke about many of the different services offered within the Canadian Armed Forces to make sure that men and women are supported. However, the motion before us today is specific to danger pay. Would the member say that in his opinion, as a member, he feels that the motion should be supported and that men and women in the forces should receive that support due to the difficulties they are currently in and the environment we send them to?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am in support of the motion. I feel that danger pay is applicable. It is almost a no-brainer that when we send our men and women into harm's way, compensation should be commensurate with the risk, the isolation, and the hardship. It is not just the Canadian Forces that do that. It is the United Nations, with which I had the privilege of serving in Iraq, as well as the U.S. armed forces.

I will take the opportunity to inform the House that the defence committee travelled to Washington just this week and had a chance to speak with Senator John McCain, who expressed his gratitude for the service of the men and women of the Armed Forces, particularly in Afghanistan, and of those members who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives. It is a resounding sentiment that the level of danger inherent in these missions should be compensated.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Dartmouth—Cole Harbour, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to welcome the hon. member back to the House after a few days away in Washington talking about the issues he mentioned in his speech.

I would ask the member if he could describe to the House the feeling he got about the relationship between the Canadians and the Americans as they served together in various parts of the world.

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question from my colleague from Dartmouth—Cole Harbour underscores the length of the Canada-U.S. relationship along so many axes, but perhaps none more important than in the field of security and the joint security work we are doing in North America and abroad and in very dangerous but important missions, such as the fight against Daesh.

We have an excellent relationship, which we received feedback on during our trip to Washington. From the level of our Minister of National Defence and the U.S. Secretary of State down to the serving women and men who are so intricately connected operationally in terms of values, logistics, military histories, and aspirations to make this world a better and safer place, this relationship could not be stronger, more positive, or more important.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his intervention today and for supporting the motion. One thing I really want to know from the Liberals is whether they are going to support retroactive pay for those who lost the tax benefit of $1,500 to $1,800 a month on September 1, 2016. How soon can we expect this to be fixed so that the remaining 200 troops in Kuwait do not lose those benefits in June?

[Sven Spengemann, Liberal, Mississauga—Lakeshore, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yes, the principle of retroactivity is supported in this context. Really, it is to establish fairness to make sure that nobody falls through the cracks with that entitlement. Retroactivity is the mechanism to fix that.

With respect to the implementation of that conclusion, there is a process that involves a number of departments, but it is certainly on the radar, and the government support for the motion exemplifies the priority it has been given. I cannot comment to an exact time frame, but certainly it is in progress.

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to contribute to today's discussion on how Canada shows support for the members of our Armed Forces. I would like to take a few moments today to highlight some of that work and to remind my fellow members just how integral the Canadian Armed Forces are to our safety and well-being. As parliamentarians, as the representatives of our fellow Canadians, our first responsibility is to those here at home. It is to the safety and security of our country and its citizens and their prosperity.

For the Canadian Armed Forces, the priority is the same. While their international operations tend to get the most attention, there are tens of thousands of military men and women working here at home every day in defence of our country and our continent, on land, at sea, and in the air. The most familiar of these, and one of the most important, is undoubtedly our contribution to the North American Aerospace Defense Command, or NORAD. As the world's first and most successful bi-national command, it is an important link with our American friends to the south and a critical piece in the system of systems that defends our airspace and provides surveillance of our maritime approaches. This year, 2017, marks the 60th anniversary of this incredible partnership, and it is only growing stronger as NORAD evolves to deal with the modern security environment.

Canada is also working hard with our allies on several missions. Three have been very much in the news of late. We recently extended our commitment to Operation Unifier in Ukraine. Canada is deploying approximately 200 Canadian Armed Forces personnel to Ukraine until the end of March 2019. Through Operation Unifier, we are helping Ukraine build the capabilities it needs to maintain its sovereignty, security, and stability.

Canadian troops are good trainers and mentors, and they are putting those skills to use by sharing their knowledge and expertise with Ukrainian armed forces members. So far we have trained more than 3,200 Ukrainian soldiers, and most of them received tactical infantry training. However, Canada has also delivered more than 90 training programs since the mission began in 2015. Many taught specialized skills and capabilities, such as explosive ordnance disposal, medical training, and my personal favourite, military logistics.

Canada's assistance to Ukraine also includes non-lethal military equipment to enhance the capabilities of the Ukrainian armed forces. With more than a million Canadians of Ukrainian descent, we can imagine that this is a mission that is very important to them, but it is also a mission that is important to all Canadians.

What is happening in Ukraine threatens border security in the region, and it is deeply concerning to our NATO allies in Europe. NATO is a cornerstone of Canada's defence policy, and the strength of the alliance lies in collective defence. Threats to the security of some of our members matter to all members.

Operation Reassurance is Canada's mission in support of our NATO allies and partners in eastern Europe. As part of Operation Reassurance, we participated in NATO Baltic air policing, a defensive mission to protect our allies' airspace. The air task force also deployed on a training mission in Romania, and they worked to improve interoperability with allied air forces. That training is critical to the ability of NATO allies to fight alongside each other. It also gives the Royal Canadian Air Force invaluable experience.

Canada will be deploying another air task force to Iceland and Romania this year. The CF-18s we are sending will continue air policing duties, and they will also continue to train with our allies.

The Royal Canadian Navy has contributed to Operation Reassurance as well. Our maritime task force has kept a constant presence in the region as part of the Standing NATO Maritime Group. HMCS St. John's recently replaced HMCS Charlottetown as part of our contribution to the Standing NATO Maritime Group, and just last month, HMCS St. John's wrapped up three weeks of training in the Black Sea with allied and partner nations.

The last component of Operation Reassurance is the land task force. It first deployed almost three years ago, in May 2014, and the seventh rotation of Canadian soldiers arrived in Poland last month. They are now participating in the multinational exercise Allied Spirit VI, in Germany.

Canada is demonstrating its commitment to NATO by sending our brave women and men in uniform on Operation Reassurance. I think I speak for all of us when I say “Bravo Zulu” for the great work with our allies.

I would like to update the House on Operation Impact, which is our effort to dismantle and defeat Daesh. I think it is clear to the hon. members present that Daesh is a scourge and a threat to regional and international security. We know it, our allies know it, and the world knows it. We are doing our part in the efforts to degrade, and ultimately defeat it.

Joint Task Force-Iraq is responsible for command and control of Operation Impact, as well as for the coordination of operations at coalition headquarters. Joint Task Force-Iraq is collecting and processing intelligence, helping to plan and execute military operations, and facilitating the hosting of a tactical aviation detachment and medical facility.

In the air, the Royal Canadian Air Force has carried out 2,802 sorties from its locations in Kuwait. It has delivered fuel to allied aircraft and has carried out critical reconnaissance flights.

Meanwhile, on the ground, members from the Canadian Special Operations Forces Command are training, advising, and assisting Iraqi forces. They are developing the skills of Iraqi officers so they can effectively fight Daesh and build a more secure country and region.

We must support our soldiers deployed around the world. We must recognize the dangers and discomforts they face. We must compensate them fairly for their sacrifices.

The Department of National Defence has in place an independent and impartial process to ensure that we do. Every member deployed receives a comprehensive compensation and benefits package, and sometimes that package includes a hardship allowance and a risk allowance, two monthly payments to compensate for conditions that are more uncomfortable, more stressful, and more unsafe than those on a base here at home.

We reassess the country's hardship and risk levels on a regular basis. In the meantime, we will ensure that the people who were deployed to Arifjan when the risk level was last assessed will continue to receive the same allowances. We will continue to support our troops. We will continue to provide first-rate compensation and benefits packages. We will continue to ensure that our soldiers benefit personally, professionally, and financially from their hard, much appreciated, and much respected work.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill for her service to Canada when she was in the air force, as well as her husband's. I appreciate her comments about Operation Unifier and Operation Reassurance as deterrence measures against the Russian aggression not only in eastern Europe but particularly in Ukraine. She is married to a good Canadian-Ukrainian boy.

As she was going through all the different missions that were deployed, it was interesting to hear that the Liberals would continue on with our NATO air policing rotations in Iceland and Romania as part of Operation Reassurance measures. It is unfortunate that they did not keep the CF-18s in the fight against ISIS through Operation Impact, which originally were stationed in Kuwait.

As a former serving member, does she believe it was fair that the minister did not use his ministerial authority to stop the clawback of hardship pay and benefits for recognition of the risk the troops were facing and in recognition of the hardship their families were going through as they were deployed overseas? Does she believe the minister should have used that immediately on September 1, as he said he did back in February? Also, does she believe the payment to those troops that are stationed at Camp Arifjan must be retroactive so they receive the same benefits as all of the other troops that were deployed as part of Operation Impact?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for all his hard work in this area. He is definitely committed to our country's defence and is constantly ensuring we have a competent and capable defence system.

In all honesty, I have a great deal of confidence in the Government of Canada and in the Department of National Defence. I was fortunate enough to be involved on the periphery around the assessments that were made. I have a great deal of confidence in how the organization, pretty much independently and comprehensively, reviews the risk and dangers associated with an operational mission to ensure our soldiers are compensated effectively and adequately.

If we, as elected officials, do not place our confidence in our members and seniors members in uniform to better assess the dangers of an operational mission, particularly relative to the other operational missions, then we have a far more critical situation that we need to address.

I absolutely believe we have a good process. reviewing the process is also very important, but we need to have confidence in the infrastructure and structure of that process to ensure it is fair and just for all our members in uniform.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have one simple question for my colleague. If Canadian troops are engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State fighters, how can the government justify taking away the combat tax benefit to our deployed troops?

[Leona Alleslev, Liberal, Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, we have an independent committee within the Department of National Defence that assesses the hardships and risks associated with an operational mission, and makes adjustments on a regular basis as that mission and the dangers associated with it change over time. Therefore, when a government minister, a duly elected official, makes a decision based on the recommendation that comes from our government's experts, then that is the best we, as members of Parliament, can and should be responsible for.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today in this debate. I would be remiss if I or any of our colleagues did not recognize that we lost one of our brave men and soldiers. Yesterday Master Corporal Alfred Barr, who was a member of the 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron based in Winnipeg, died in an accident. On behalf of my friends and family, our heartfelt thoughts and condolences go to Master Corporal Barr's family, his friends, and his colleagues. I thank him his service.

We are here to talk about a serious issue today. Once again, we see the Liberal government shortchange our men and women in uniform by rolling back their tax benefits. The text of the motion before us today reads:

That the House call on the government to show support and appreciation for the brave men and women serving in the Canadian Armed Forces by reversing its decision to take away from the soldiers fighting against ISIS the tax benefit which provides them with $1,500 to $1,800 per month for the hardship and risk associated with their deployment, and to retroactively provide the payment to members stationed at Camp Arifjan whose tax relief was cancelled as of September 1, 2016.

We are taking away money and tax relief to these brave men and women who are serving us, who answer the call without hesitation when the world calls.

I will be splitting my time, Mr. Speaker, with my hon. colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

I have been listening to and following along with the debate throughout the day. I am heartened to hear that the government will support the motion. I hope that by the end of the day, the Liberals will support the motion in whole and work toward retroactively ensuring that those brave men and women who are there and who had this benefit taken away from them in September will have them reapplied.

However, I am going to stay the course with my speech. Until this motion is passed, it is important that we get on record exactly what we are talking about today.

On September 1, 2016, the Liberal government ended the tax relief measures provided to 15 Canadian troops stationed at the Camp Arifjan in Kuwait. For 300 Canadian soldiers also stationed in Kuwait under Operation Impact, their benefits remained unchanged.

However, in January of this year, the departmental hardship and risk committee announced to the troops in its December 2016 quarterly meeting that all tax relief measures to CAF members deployed to Kuwait under Operation Impact would be cancelled. A bureaucratic change, a stroke of a pen, was going to impact brave men and women who put their uniforms on to serve our country so our flag could stand tall and we could remain free and indeed promote Canadian values abroad. They are facing financial hardship.

The good news is that the change will not take effect until June 1, 2017, allowing time for members and their families to adjust to this decision. How kind of the Liberals. Instead of taking time to reflect on this choice, the Liberals came up with an equally appalling solution. Instead of restoring the benefits that our troops at Camp Arifjan deserved, they decided to revoke the benefit for all our troops that were battling ISIS. I understand, through the debate, that the Liberals are reconsidering and re-examining this, but I would challenge them to agree to our motion and keep this benefit in place.

The arrogance of the Liberal government is unprecedented. The Liberals are rolling back the tax relief for our men and women who protect our Canadian values, those men and women who ensure Canada remains “The True North, strong and free”. These men and women of our Canadian Armed Forces volunteer to leave their families as they travel abroad to perform dangerous work and put themselves at risk in the service of our country. They miss important milestones such as birthdays, anniversaries, graduations, births, and deaths.

Instead of providing compensation that is a drop in the bucket for the tax-and-spend Liberals, they are choosing to take away from those who voluntarily sacrifice their lives. Instead of thanking our troops, they are telling our troops that are deployed to foreign third world countries that they are not in enough danger to justify $1,500 or $1,800 a month in additional finances.

I would like to use statistics because they tell the real story. Here is one for the House. During the last break week, from February 24 to March 5, Liberal MPs travelled throughout Canada on taxpayers' dollars spreading fluff and flowers all across the way and announcing 188 loans, grants, contributions, and government contract awards worth a combined $1.25 billion. I will repeat that for the record, $1.25 billion. Now they are going to trumpet it and say that they are spending dollars and they just announced another $650 million to be spent abroad, when indeed those who are in harm's way here at home and those who are most vulnerable and those who are wearing the maple leaf on their shoulders and protecting and promoting the maple leaf and all of our Canadian values abroad are being told that they are going to receive a pay cut. It is shameful.

The Prime Minister felt it necessary to cut the tax benefits of our military. This is simply unacceptable. The Liberals have known for months now that the Canadian troops who are deployed in the fight against ISIS have not been adequately compensated for the hardships and risks associated with their deployment and yet the decision was still made to cut this financial aid while the troops had already agreed to deploy. In cutting this benefit, the Liberals have cheated our troops and their families out of hard-earned money that they expected and counted on, and most of all, that they deserve.

I was not a part of the last government or the one before that, but all I have heard today and in recent months is that whenever the Liberals have to justify some of the things they are doing, they always like to say that Prime Minister Harper and his government started it and the Liberals are simply following through. They like to point fingers. It is a smokescreen and it is unacceptable. Liberals knew about this. If they believed the words coming out of their mouths, they would stand up for those who are putting their lives in danger for our country and our communities, but I guess it is acceptable to treat our heroes the way the Liberals are treating them.

Last night, something remarkable happened. The House stood in unanimous support of my bill, Bill C-211, and collectively we sent the message that we in the chamber value the brave men and women who serve our country and our communities. Collectively we have provided hope and I look forward to working with all colleagues to ensure Bill C-211 is strengthened where necessary and passed as quickly as possible, because with every minute, every hour, every day wasted, we are losing lives.

Over the course of the preparation for Bill C-211, I heard tragic stories from the men and women who have served our country proudly. Their stories were deeply personal and will sit with me for the rest of my life. I also had the honour of meeting with surviving friends and families of those who we lost in combat and those we lost here at home because we failed to live up to our responsibility in ensuring our soldiers are whole, that they are healthy, that they have every opportunity to integrate back into our communities and to provide for their families. I am going to say again that they are not healthy. There is tremendous stress placed upon our soldiers and their families when they are deployed, emotional, physical, and financial stress. We need to ensure that we provide every tool possible for our soldiers to be successful in their mission abroad and their mission here at home.

Taking away this tax credit from Canadians who have answered the world's call and are serving our country without hesitation is shameful. It flies against what we all stood together for here last night and against the message that this chamber delivered to all of the Canadians who were tuning in and to members of our armed forces, our brave men and women who put the uniform on every day to serve all of us and our families.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague for his bill yesterday. It gave me a good deal of pride to vote for that bill. I serve on the veterans affairs committee and I have been watching a very interesting subject on veterans' suicide. It is meta-traumatizing, if I can call it that, to see what is happening.

From what I understand, the government is committed to providing the retroactive payment today's motion calls for. I am looking to get more information as to what my colleague's concerns are with respect to the motion considering that we are doing what it says.

I want to draw attention to the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs was at the veterans affairs committee yesterday talking about how all but two of the veterans offices that had been closed in the last few years have been reopened and the last two are going to be opened in the near future.

I wonder if the member could express his impression of the importance of taking care of our veterans after being in operation as well as while they are in operation.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am going to apologize. I could not hear all of the member's question. I am not sure whether he was picking something out of his teeth as he was speaking, but it was very jumbled. Perhaps my earpiece was the problem.

Our veterans affairs office in Prince George is being reopened. I heard loud and clear during the course of the campaign that this was something our Legion and the brave men and women in our local area were looking forward to. The government has announced this but we are still waiting. We have heard no date or time frame as to when it is going to be opened. It is a promise that the government made. It is a commitment that it made. An announcement was made that it is going to be reopened but we still have no time frame as to when that will be, so our brave men and women are still waiting for that to happen in my riding.

We should be doing everything we can in a non-partisan way to make sure that we are providing our men and women that serve our communities and serve our country with the tools they need to be successful in their mission. We need to make sure they have the tools they need to be healthy and made whole upon their return and integration back into our communities.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a really good point with respect to the Liberal government. On the one hand it is a big spending government, spending all kinds of new money in all sorts of areas. On the other hand, in some of these vitally important areas which are clearly within the role of the federal government we see it nickel-and-diming. I wonder if the member could reflect on the perversity of this.

On the one hand we have this sort of wide open, will spend any amount of taxpayers' money on anything attitude on things that cover the full gamut, while on vital areas like this which deal with the basic security of Canadians and the strength of our armed forces, we see a completely different approach when it comes to spending.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will reference the announcement made the other day that $650 million will be spent overseas. In no way am I devaluing that money and in no way am I devaluing what the government is doing, but the reality is that there are people here at home that could use that money. Organizations and vulnerable sectors of our society could use that money here at home.

We are talking today about the brave men and women who serve our country. On the one hand the government is clawing back $1,500 to $1,800 from them and saying they signed up, volunteered, but someone in Ottawa has decided that, sorry, they are not at enough risk. What message does that send? What value proposition message does that send to our brave men and women that they are not worthy of that? They can read the newspapers and listen to the media as much as anybody else. They know that their paycheques are less yet they are still doing the same work that they were asked to do. They are still in harm's way regardless of whether some bureaucrat in Ottawa says it is not as risky as it was first thought. They are still at risk. They are still not at home with their families. They see the value going out the door. They see the money that is being spent overseas, yet it is not going toward helping to protect them and their families. That is shameful.

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

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.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I heard correctly, but I thought the member for Laurentides—Labelle said the government is going to stop imposing this heinous tax on our service people.