Debates of March 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion--Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

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

Madam Speaker, that is a very important part about the motion: the very issue of making sure that the motion, and hopefully we will see throughout the House that we will have unanimous support for the motion, looks at that aspect of retroactivity because the soldiers were told about it after they had committed to deploy and were in theatre. That has a huge effect on the soldiers and their families when all of a sudden they are being told that now it is being taken away from them. That trust issue is one we need to talk about, because in Veterans Affairs it is a big issue when we deal with issues of how our veterans express themselves with respect to the ongoing effects of their life after they leave the military.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to share my time with my colleague from Laurier—Sainte-Marie, whom I respect. She will have the remaining time I am giving her to tell us about the Conservatives’ motion that we are debating today.

The motion fortunately seems to have the unanimous support of the House, based on what I have heard so far. However, we will see if that is the case when it is put to a vote. The motion is fairly specific and aims to restore to members of the Canadian Forces a tax benefit that was taken from them. Deployed members recently learned that their compensation was reduced under the Liberal government. Of course we all agree that the members of the armed forces should be given what they deserve, since they give so much of their time and they are put in harm’s way while on missions. As a country, it goes without saying that we give them reasonable compensation in exchange for the missions they carry out.

I will speak of the Canadian Forces with humility. In the House, if there is one issue that makes me humble, it is the Canadian Armed Forces, who do an extraordinary job in our own country and on various missions around the world. In Sherbrooke, I have the opportunity to work with extraordinary members of the Canadian Armed Forces. Indeed, in the riding of Sherbrooke, we are lucky to have four reserve units of the Canadian Armed Forces, stationed in two beautiful armouries. In fact, the Colonel-Gaétan-Côté Armoury on Belvédère Street is beside my constituency office. I encourage everyone who passes by my office to look at the armoury and think of the sacrifices made by the two reserve units there.

As we know, Canada has a long military history. The regiment located in the Colonel-Gaétan-Côté Armoury is the Fusiliers de Sherbrooke, a well-known reserve infantry unit. In fact, it has taken part in many missions, and I want to acknowledge it. I salute Lieutenant-Colonel Philippe Côté, the unit commander. He is a good friend, and I appreciate him very much. I would also like to thank him for the sacrifices he has made for our country as unit commander. The same armoury is home to the 35 Signal Regiment, a reserve unit that also conducts its drills there.

I also want to mention the other two reserve units in Sherbrooke. The 52nd Field Ambulance is housed in the same armoury as the Sherbrooke Hussars, the William Street Armoury. The 52nd Field Ambulance is under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Pierre Simard, a good friend whose work I admire. The fourth reserve unit is the Sherbrooke Hussars, which also has a long history of participating in Canada's missions. I just want to mention Lieutenant-Colonel Louis-Benoît Dutil, commander of the Sherbrooke Hussars.

These four reserve units do the Canadian Armed Forces proud in the Eastern Townships. I applaud their work and their dedication over the years. As we all know, being a reservist is not the same as serving in the regular forces. Reservists have other careers. Many of them work full-time in Sherbrooke businesses, but they take the time, even on weekends, to train in armouries. They sacrifice their family time to be prepared for deployment.

They have to be ready to leave at a moment's notice in the event that they are called by our country to take part in a mission. They deserve our utmost recognition and, in Sherbrooke, we very much appreciate these four units. By the way, I just want to say that we absolutely must protect the William Street armoury, the second oldest building in Sherbrooke. The Government of Canada owns and maintains it and it is occupied by the two reserve units that I mentioned.

Unfortunately, we recently found out that there has been a plan in place for years to abandon the William Street Armoury and move the four units to the Belvédère Street Armoury. Every socio-economic, cultural, and heritage stakeholder in Sherbrooke opposes the decision, which would spell the demise of the William Street armoury, an historic building in Sherbrooke. By all accounts, no one wants the Minister of National Defence to go down that road.

When it comes to giving our Canadian Armed Forces the training, equipment, and support they need to do their work, it goes without saying that we must properly maintain the armouries where they train and work every day. It goes without saying that the Government of Canada must take the needs of each unit in due consideration. In this case, it is clear that Sherbrooke does not welcome the proposed decision by senior Canadian Forces leadership to merge the four units. As I was just saying, we would end up losing one of Sherbrooke's historic buildings in the heart of its oldest neighbourhood, a unique neighbourhood in Canada.

The building used to be a courthouse, and behind it was an old prison. Next to it was the judge's house. Across the street that leads directly to the armoury, there were lawyers' and notaries' offices. It was a unique legal district in Canada at the time and still is today. It is important to the Sherbrooke community to protect this heritage.

Of course we support this motion, for the reasons I mentioned. We need to fully recognize the sacrifices and efforts made by our Canadian Armed Forces. I think the uncertainty surrounding compensation for our soldiers can be attributed to the uncertainty that surrounds the entire mission the government supports.

There is also some uncertainty regarding the level of risk our soldiers will be exposed to on the ground there, since the government continues to equivocate regarding the nature of the mission and the rules of engagement. While the Liberals seem to be saying that this is a support and training mission, at times it appears to be more than that.

Our current situation is due, among other things, to the uncertainty surrounding the nature of the mission itself and the risk levels our Canadian Armed Forces personnel and our country will be exposed to. Maybe that is why we are having this debate today.

I would also remind the House that this problem is also a result the Conservatives' inaction. They knew very well that our soldiers' pay could change once they were engaged in the mission. This could have been fixed a long time ago.

In closing, I want to recognize our Canadian Armed Forces for the work they do, which deserves proper recognition. That includes giving them adequate compensation for the missions they are asked to take part in.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, during question period this afternoon, I quoted comments made by a journalist in his column today. These comments could be perceived as being unparliamentary. I acknowledge that I cannot do indirectly what I cannot do directly in this place. I wish to unconditionally withdraw my comments.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I thank the hon. member for Joliette for his comments, which I accept.

[Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. colleague two questions.

First, could he tell the House who removed the tax benefit to our men and women who serve in our forces, which had provided them with extra pay for hardship and risk, and when did that happened?

My second question is more philosophical. Many of us on this side of the House in the New Democratic Party believe we need to equip our armed forces with the most modern, effective, and technologically advanced equipment possible and that we should focus our armed forces on peacekeeping, on defence of Canada, and on aid for natural disasters in Canada.

Does the member have any comments or thoughts on the nature of the military mission that is taking place in Syria and Iraq right now, the one that the Conservatives committed us to and that the Liberals claimed they wanted to end but seemed to have deepened?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his two excellent questions.

With respect to the question of who removed the tax benefit, it happened under the Liberal government. However, as I was saying earlier, it may be the problem was inherited from the previous government, because it has indeed come up often. It makes it possible for soldiers' compensation to change after they have already been deployed. This is the problem that we are trying to address. In my opinion, not only are we going back and acknowledging the mistake, but we are also trying to identify long-term solutions to address this situation. This is something that should have been done a very long time ago.

In Canada's peacekeeping and aid missions, I believe that, at least in recent years, Canada has distanced itself somewhat from its traditional image on the international scene. This has definitely had an impact on how Canada is perceived by the rest of the world. I hope that the current government will recognize that we have to restore our image, which is that of a peaceful nation seeking to bring peace to the world.

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

Madam Speaker, members of the NDP talk about equipping our troops, which is important, but they are not really interested in any of the kinds of active commitments that in many cases are needed in the context of the world today There is not really a peacekeeping mission to be undertaken in the present environment in Syria and Iraq. Even the peace operations contemplated by the government are a good deal away from what we would traditionally conceive of as being peacekeeping given the dangers in those environments.

In listening to the comments the member just made, I wonder if he would like to clarify his party's position specifically, for example, in the context of Syria and Iraq. Do we do nothing, because there is really no role for peacekeeping in that environment? Surely, to get to peace what is required first is the defeat of Daesh.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

Even though we were not in power and not involved in decision-making, we repeatedly outlined our vision during the debate on this mission in Iraq and Syria, our vision of the role that Canada can play to help save lives on the ground now, by addressing the worsening humanitarian crises in Iraq and Syria. Canada should instead be a leader in alleviating civilian suffering in this conflict and in expediting the arrival of refugees to Canada, especially with the new U.S. president who is disengaging the United States from some of the necessary commitments surrounding refugee resettlement.

I think we could play a much more constructive role. That is the NPD's vision, one which we raised a number of times when the House considered potential future Canadian deployments.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise today and speak about such an important issue. It is extremely important, because for the government it is an enormous responsibility to send our men and women in uniform into harm’s way. This is why we must face up to this responsibility, which means a number of things.

For example, this means providing the safest possible framework and proper equipment, and we know the needs in that respect are great. We must continue to work on this and provide proper training. What is not more fundamental but just as important as the technical and material aspects is the need to treat our men and women in uniform with respect. This means recognizing the risk they are put under and giving them adequate compensation.

This is why the very idea of eliminating the tax benefit, which provides between $1,500 and $1,800 per day to soldiers fighting ISIS in compensation for the adversity and the risk they face while on mission, is a disgrace, especially considering the tax breaks offered to big companies and the very rich.

Some people will say that all our soldiers are doing is providing training, advice, and support, but we know that such is not the case. There are risks associated with fighting ISIS. Our soldiers in Iraq in particular are often on the front lines. There have been firefights and even one death. I call that a high-risk mission. I think the Minister of National Defence himself recognized that. That level of risk will have to be taken into account. The government cannot bury its head in the sand. It needs to be open, transparent, and honest about the nature of the mission and properly compensate our men and women in uniform.

I would like to come back to a question that my colleague from Sherbrooke was asked. He gave an excellent speech and he is in close contact with the people and organizations in his riding. He always knows the people he talks about. He actually goes out into the community. He is not just putting on a show.

The member for Sherbrooke was asked about what Canada can do, and I also want to talk about that. There are certain areas in which Canada can play a critical leadership role. That role can be shared in some regards. For example, the Secretary General of the United Nations and others have asked us to stop the flow of weapons and fighters. That is so vital.

Allied forces are retaking Mosul, but the fighters slip away. One of my colleagues made a comparison that I like to use. He said that these terrorist groups are like the Hydra from Greek mythology. When we cut off its head, two heads grow back in its place.

If we want to solve this problem, we need a practical political solution. Stemming the flow of weapons and fighters and fighting radicalization are important, but essentially, we need to find a political solution and take preventive action in fragile regions.

Two other elements that have always been key for the NDP are humanitarian aid and welcoming refugees. Humanitarian aid is still essential. On the ground, it comes in waves. We do not hear much about it these days, but truly awful things are still happening. We must not forget. How can we be so quick to forget the photo of little Aylan, who was found on a beach? That happened just a few months ago.

What about the children in Syria? It is terrible for them because they are under tremendous psychological stress in addition to the stress of everyday living. Assuming a political solution is found eventually, the question is, how will Syria be rebuilt? We need to start thinking about that now. How will Mosul be rebuilt? Are the different communities talking to each other enough? Can we foster that dialogue so the city can be rebuilt as harmoniously and inclusively as possible?

Yes, last week there was an announcement about humanitarian assistance. While I thank the government, there also needs to be development assistance. We need to stop being so short-sighted and think further ahead than the immediate future.

This morning, a woman from Syria who has been living in Turkey for four years spoke before the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development. She has established centres in Syria where she provides safe spaces for Syrians of all political and religious backgrounds to come together in a safe location. These centres work with women and children because they know very well that their chances of success increase greatly when women are actively involved in conflict resolution and reconstruction.

These centres are building for the future. They are supported in Canada by Development and Peace. We had the chance to speak about it this morning in committee. Unfortunately, many Development and Peace programs, which are critical if we do not want to end up with the same problem in 10, 20, or 30 years, have more to do with development. However, funding is limited; the organization only receives small grants for six months or a year, which does not allow it to train people or put things into place.

I will use this motion as an opportunity to appeal to the government as well: we cannot forget to work on this aspect in the longer term because it will have to be dealt with one of these days.

I see that my time is running out, but I simply wanted to say in closing that I will be voting in favour of this motion, as I believe my colleagues will. I find that in a way it reaffirms the government’s moral obligation to our men and women in uniform.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to much of what was said. I have a great deal of respect for the member opposite in terms of the analysis and history the member has on this issue. Something confused me, and I seek clarification, because a member of her party made the same comment.

My understanding is that this policy existed, and in fact, if we look at the resolution of this issue, it seeks to make it retroactive to 2014. That is obviously a date prior to the Liberal government taking office, which means that this policy is not an expression of Liberal Party policy or this government's policy but rather is a policy we inherited. However, I heard NDP members make reference to the fact that our government changed the policy to take pay away from members of the service. In fact, what we have failed to do, if we have failed to do anything, is change a policy we inherited. It is a policy we have promised to change and to change retroactively back to 2014.

In light of that, would the correct assessment not be that the previous government put this policy in place? The previous government denied pay to Armed Forces members, who are serving this country so well, and it is the previous government's policy that we are now seeking to correct.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would point out that, if memory serves, I was talking about the Government of Canada.

I think there is no place for partisanship when we are talking about our men and women in uniform. I know that we are always steeped in partisanship here, but I was talking about the Government of Canada.

In this instance I was not pointing fingers, although on some topics I find that the Conservatives and Liberals have rather similar positions. What I see is that this motion seeks to correct an unacceptable situation; I will support it.

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

Madam Speaker, we appreciate the fact that the NDP is supporting the motion and that the government is at least going to vote in favour of the motion, although again, since it is a non-binding motion, we hope the Liberals will actually implement it, including the retroactive component.

It is a little surprising to hear the passing of the buck by the parliamentary secretary. Of course, a time honoured practice of the government members is to try to blame everything, including what has happened since the last election, somehow on the previous government, if they are not blaming the Mulroney government or the Diefenbaker government.

The reality is that we had soldiers lose their danger pay as of September 1, 2016, and that is what the motion speaks to and seeks to address. I wonder if the member could speak to the fact that the government at some point actually needs to take responsibility for the decisions it is making.

[Hélène Laverdière, NDP, Laurier—Sainte-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have no intention of being caught in the crossfire or being used as a ping-pong ball by my Conservative and Liberal colleagues.

I would be quite willing to delve deeper into the issues I raised, for example. What are we going to do? We are going to deal with it, fine. Now, what are we going to do for the future, not only to prepare for a return to peace in this highly sensitive region, and not just in that region, but what are we going to do to prevent further crises like this?

It may seem like I am veering way off course but, for me, these topics are closely related. What are we going to do in the refugee camps in the Central African Republic, where the recruitment of extremists never stops? What help will we give to these places?

It would appear that everyone agrees on this motion, except when it comes to which side gets the ping-pong ball and who is to blame. I would like us to use our time differently: once we agree this situation needs to be resolved, which I believe we did in the first half hour or the first hour of debate, it would be nice to talk about what we are going to do in the future to resolve this situation and avoid situations like this happening again.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherbrooke, Air Transportation; the hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, The Environment; the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan, Public Services and Procurement.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

I am pleased to stand to speak in support of the motion by the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, calling upon the government to reverse its decision to take away from the soldiers fighting against ISIS the tax benefit that provided them with $1,500 to $1,800 per month for the hardships and risks 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.

It is appalling to me to realize that this decision to strip away this tax benefit was made after the troops had agreed to deploy, adding additional stress to their families back home and causing deep frustration for these soldiers while deployed.

The Minister and many Liberals rising to speak today are doing doublespeak when they claim the troops were deployed without benefits.

On record, the minister tabled a response to an Order Paper question on January 30, in which he stated, “All Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving at all Operation IMPACT Kuwait locations received Tax Relief effective 5 Oct 2014...to 1 Sep 2016”.

In February 2016, the Liberal government made changes to Operation Impact that clearly made the mission more dangerous. It withdrew our six CF-18s, and increased the number of troops on the ground.

The minister stated the following in the House of Commons on February 17, 2016, “Our people will be in close proximity to the dangers inherent in the region. There may be times when they will have to defend themselves, their coalition partners, or the forces they are mentoring.” However, his department decided they did not deserve this risk tax benefit.

Since September, families and the soldiers who have been deployed have been reaching out. Our official opposition critic, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, has responded with a letter calling upon the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Finance to rectify this unfair decision. He raised the issue directly with General Vance and again with the minister himself at the Standing Committee on National Defence.

Ultimately what is the outcome our soldiers are facing, and why did we feel this motion needed to come before the House?

The departmental hardship and risk committee, in its December 2016 quarterly meeting, announced to the troops, not the public, that all tax relief measures to CAF members deployed to Kuwait under Operation Impact would be cancelled as of June 1, 2017, to allow members and their families to adjust to the decision. That sounds like it is full of mercy, but clearly that would not be the case for most families in this circumstance.

This is so in line with the fears and concerns raised with me by veterans in my riding of Yorkton—Melville when they recalled the frightening decade of darkness under the previous Liberal government. Knowing the tax-and-spend ideology of the Liberals, they were afraid that if the they were to form government, they would again fund their extravagance on the backs of everyday Canadians, and our Canadian Armed Forces specifically.

Here we are, looking at my grandchildren reaching the ages of 33 to 45 before the government will supposedly bring in a balanced budget while also bearing a $1.5 trillion debt.

The supposed infrastructure stimulus has yet to have any impact on the Canadian economy. The lowering of taxes for the middle class, while raising taxes on the wealthiest 1%, has failed in two ways. It is costing Canadians $1 billion annually because it is not revenue neutral, as the Liberals had promised in their campaign. The government has removed tax credits and increased taxes on those who can least afford it, effectively penalizing Canadians to lower take-home pay, with no hope of reaching that non-defined Liberal middle-class marker.

Entrepreneurs, our economy builders, along with every household in the country, are being burdened with a carbon tax that increases the costs of absolutely everything, and that will also not be federally neutral.

Significant volumes of Canadian taxpayer dollars are being spent outside of our country by the government to build the Prime Minister's good will with the United Nations. On top of that, as of yesterday's announcement, it is making an ideological shift in the reorientation of Canada's foreign aid strategy, committing $650 million on sexual and reproductive health rights worldwide

In plain speak, this means the Liberals are intending to legally challenge 125 countries worldwide, mostly in Africa, Latin America, Southern Asia, and the Middle East, where abortion is illegal, where women, their cultures, and the governments do not want it to be part of their maternal health plans. The government will be funding advocacy groups that will work to remove judicial and legal barriers, including the anti-abortion laws in many of these countries.

Perhaps it is time for big brother to come home and to start to focus on the needs of Canadians. If going into a spiralling debt is valid by spending the hard-earned money of Canadians overseas, where is the funding that is needed for 132 drinking water advisories in 89 first nations, and for even more advisories in rural communities in Canada? Where is the funding that returns growth to our small businesses and dependable jobs for our youth, rather than leaving them hanging with no hope but to job churn into the debt-laden never land? Where is the funding for procurement so our armed forces on land, air, and sea can protect our sovereignty and democracy long into the future, rather than reducing their capabilities and losing the deep respect our allies have for our willingness to fulfill our obligations to combat terrorism around the world?

I am glad the motion has the support of all parties in the House. However, as has been said, motions are only carried so far, that it requires more after that. Therefore, I am glad to hear we are all in agreement that this is something we need to do.

However, our armed forces need to know beyond a shadow of a doubt that when they deploy to train, protect, and fight on our behalf on dangerous combat fields, we have their backs and will not demoralize them or their families by not providing the danger pay and tax benefits they deserve. Canadians want them properly cared for.

Future young men and women, whom we need to enlist, are watching how we care for our armed forces. Our veterans sense of care, compassion, and respect is tied closely to how they see their brothers and sisters treated while they are in the service.

To right this wrong simply requires an order from the minister to respect the request of our armed forces embraced in the motion, right now. It can be done. Reverse the departmental decision to take away from the soldiers fighting against ISIS the tax benefit that provides them with $1,500 to $1,800 per month for the hardship and risk associated with their deployment, and retroactively provide this payment to members stationed at Camp Arifjan, whose tax relief was cancelled as of September 1, 2016.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Madam Speaker, when one reviews this policy, one sees that it has been in place since 2003. One sees that the previous government made no effort to change it, or re-evaluate it, or modernize it to respond to the volatile and sometimes rapidly changing conditions we find on the ground in different places where Canadian Forces are deployed.

My question for the member opposite is a very simple one. In light of the fact that this is a policy that has simply been executed, not a decision made by the government, and in light of the fact that the government has already committed itself to reviewing this policy in conjunction with the armed forces to ensure our personnel are properly paid and the risk is properly assessed, has the member opposite taken the opportunity to ask a former minister of defence who is in her caucus why the Conservatives did not change it over the last 10 years if it is such a critical issue?

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, the truth of the matter is that there are policy changes that need to be taking place all the time throughout government. I understand the government is reviewing this.

In fairness to our soldiers who are on the ground in a very dangerous environment, who were promised this care while they were away on this deployment, I believe we have the responsibility as legislators to say to the bureaucrats that this is not the right time for this. That was certainly done under our previous government when Minister MacKay was in place. In fact, there was a circumstance where apparently the soldiers were overpaid on the error of the department, and the department tried to grab the money back. He said no, that it was not appropriate, that it was wrong, that these people were putting everything on the front lines and putting everything at stake with their families for us. That is why this circumstance needs to be rectified, and it needs to be rectified now.

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

Madam Speaker, let me just provide a bit more clarity on the issue. Our troops went in back in September 2014. That supplementary financial support was not provided when Mr. Harper sent the troops into Kuwait. In fact, a number of months later there was a review process, to which my colleague just made reference, and under that review, the Conservatives said that yes the troops should receive further compensation.

One would think that the Harper government would have given it then but it did not. It was not until after the election, under the current Minister of National Defence, working with the Minister of Finance, that not only did we put it into place but we also made it retroactive.

Now a minister is saying that we are reviewing the process to see if there is something else we might be able to do. On both accounts, the former Stephen Harper government failed our troops. I wonder if the member would provide further comment on that.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would be very pleased to provide further comment on that. Actually, when the same interdepartmental committee that you are dealing with right now recommended the same benefits—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I want to remind the member to address comments to the Chair.

[Cathay Wagantall, Conservative, Yorkton—Melville, SK]

Excuse me, Madam Speaker. It is just so engaging. When the same interdepartmental committee that the government is dealing with right now recommended the same benefits be stripped from our troops in Afghanistan, the government cut the red tape to ensure troops received what they deserved. This decision about the hardship and risk pay was made by officials. We believed it was incorrect and the government intended to re-examine it. That was done.

The former VAC minister, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse, said that the decision was not appropriate and in that circumstance, we dealt with the department and we ensured the circumstances were taken care of.

On that note, for this situation, I want to quote the member's minister, who is on the record with a tabled response to an Order Paper question on January 30, in which he states, “All Canadian Armed Forces personnel serving at all Operation IMPACT Kuwait locations received Tax Relief effective October 5, 2014...to September 1, 2016”.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which helps us shed more light on the motion introduced today by my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, the official opposition’s national defence critic. I also congratulate him on his excellent work advocating for our troops and pointing out the Liberal government’s many shortcomings with respect to the men and women in our armed forces defending our country.

The motion is also supported by our deputy critic for national defence, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles. He is also hard at work every day making the Minister of National Defence aware of the importance of our troops for Canada and the importance of treating them properly. Here is the motion:

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.

Like many of my colleagues in the House, I served my country in Canada's armed forces many years ago, though not for very long. I attended the Collège militaire royal de Saint-Jean for a few months as a cadet. The circumstances made it impossible for me to pursue my military career. However, several of my colleagues and friends at the time went on to pursue great and distinguished careers in the Canadian Forces. They have served their country in different parts of the world.

During my service, I developed an emotional bond with the Canadian Armed Forces that nothing can undo. I suspect all the men and women who have served their country in the Canadian Forces know what I am talking about. No matter how long we serve in the Canadian Forces, we always keep something that binds us to the men and women who defend our country and our freedom day after day.

The purpose of the motion is to support members of our military forces who are fighting backwards-thinking, murderous terrorists with no respect for human life. I am talking about the terrorist forces of ISIS.

I read an article published on February 28 in Le Soleil, in Quebec City, that astounded me. I was astounded by the comments made by a retired soldier who served his country abroad on numerous occasions, in particular in Afghanistan. There are two passages I would like to quote, the first of which is this:

“The motivation for being deployed has been taken away,” added the man, who also believes the financial impact on those affected will be “considerable”.

From the same article:

“The guys are definitely angry....They are losing a lot of money....There won't be much [money] left to compensate us for the danger and length of the missions. It is certainly going to be a factor...”

Near the Valcartier military base, several other soldiers spoke out against this measure to a journalist:

“It’s crap,” one of them spat. “I was supposed to be deployed to Mali, but I'm not so sure anymore,” he said, adding that this was a real step backwards.

These people expect to be treated properly, particularly when they put their lives, their families’ health and their relatives’ health in danger simply by being in danger zones.

The decision to eliminate this tax exemption, which may be worth almost $10,000 for a six-month period, is making soldiers angry, as well as putting their families in danger. Their families sometimes have trouble making ends meet when their breadwinner is away from Canada for six or nine or even 12 months, in some cases, not to mention the problems associated with distance and worry.

The men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces leave their families voluntarily. They travel abroad to do a dangerous job and they expose themselves to risks. They miss important family occasions, like birthdays and graduations. They sometimes suffer physical, emotional or mental injuries that are often associated with serious consequences both for them directly and for their family members.

Why do these men and women make all these sacrifices? They do it to protect us from potential and actual enemies. They do it because they are concerned about the dangers that lie in wait for our country. They do it because it is their purpose in life and because they want to do it. They do not do it for the money. I want to be very clear on that point. I have never met a soldier who decided to be deployed to a danger zone solely for the money we are talking about today. These men and women do not do it for that. They do not voluntarily put themselves in danger for $10,000 for a six-month period.

The money they were paid was a mark of recognition for their efforts and the additional risks, no more nor less. Everyone knows that they do these jobs in a very risky environment.

The Liberals have known for a long time that Canadian troops deployed in the fight against ISIS are not paid adequately for the hardships and risks associated with their deployment. The government has changed the rules, while many soldiers have volunteered and are in the theatre of operations, as we speak. Unfortunately, that decision was made after the troops agreed to be deployed.

Could it be that the Liberal government wants to discourage soldiers from volunteering for dangerous missions so they will be available for other missions? I do not think so. Decisions like that are not made on the assumption that people will avoid taking part in missions. A decision like that cannot be made for that reason.

Moreover, the government is hoping for a seat on the UN Security Council, something we would be remiss not to mention in a file like this one. However, it is important that our soldiers know where they stand. By eliminating this benefit, the Liberals are deceiving the troops, denying them the hard-earned money that they were expecting and that they deserve.

I would like to take a few moments to point out that this Liberal government is still working on running up its deficit, which has become much more massive than what it had promised during the campaign in the fall of 2015.

Today, during question period, I had the opportunity to address the Minister of Transport on the possible sale of Canadian airports in order to finance a possible infrastructure bank, something that will perhaps be announced on March 22, when the budget is tabled. We see that the Liberals are currently looking for every opportunity to make money. Every dollar counts, because they are currently trying to pay the interest on the Minister of Finance’s credit card. The ATM ran out and now we are living on the Minister of Finance’s line of credit and credit card. Nearly everyone is being called on to do their bit. I hope the government is not wanting to top up its kitty on the backs of our troops. That would be completely insane.

I am very happy to learn that all parties in the House will be supporting the motion. I am glad to learn that there is a sincere and genuine desire to resolve the situation for our troops. What I do not understand is why this has not been done already.

In closing, I would like to quote a comment that the Minister of National Defence made earlier today in his speech:

“The highly political approach that the opposition has taken to this issue may give Canadians a false impression that our Canadian men and women are demanding more money in exchange, but this is not the case. Our women and men chose to sacrifice a great deal in order to serve their country. We want to honour that spirit of sacrifice to ensure we have a fair, transparent compensating system for them”.

That is what the minister said today. If the minister wishes to do away with the whole political approach, then let him stop waffling and simply do something. He has the power and he can decide immediately to make sure that our men and women who serve in dangerous places receive the fair compensation they deserve.

Once again, I am very happy to see the support for this motion from all parties in the House.

I would again like to congratulate my two colleagues who have worked very hard in recent weeks and months to raise this problem here in the House.

[Adam Vaughan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families]

Mr. Speaker, one could be confused by the comments across the way. One would think we had cancelled the F-35 mission in Iraq, based on the glory the opposition members try to paint themselves in when it comes to military procurement support for our veterans. I would remind them that it was the F-18 mission that was suggested so that we could pursue peace in a different way. That is instructive.

If we have made a mistake on this side, the mistake we made was believing that a party that wrapped itself in the military so tightly and so consistently would have solved this problem before we took office. If anything, our assumption that the Conservatives actually treated the military fairly was the problem.

The policy in question has been in place since 2003. The adjustment was not made by the Government of Canada. It is a procedural and bureaucratic problem in the way the military assigns these credits. The issue is this: are there any other mistakes the Harper government, and the survivors opposite, left behind that we should be paying attention to that we can fix? Quite clearly, when it comes to veterans, procurement, and compensation for our veterans, there are huge mistakes that have been made, and we would love to fix them, because quite clearly, the Conservatives did not. What other problems did they leave for us to fix that they are going to blame us for?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the main mistake we made was to let them win the last election. However, I promise that we are going to try to correct that mistake in 2019. That is the only answer I have for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development for Housing and Urban Affairs.

What I want to say is that when the bureaucrats try to apply something that makes no sense, what has to be done, and what we did in the previous government, is to show leadership, as the then Minister of Defence did. He simply acted as a minister of defence who is responsible for his troops should do, and ensured that people received the fair compensation they deserved. That is how a minister of defence who cares about his troops should act.

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

Mr. Speaker, maybe what we should do as we are winding down the debate on the motion is just take some time to acknowledge the valuable role our Canadian Armed Forces play. That is something that is universally recognized on all sides of the House. They do an incredible job. They make not only parliamentarians but all Canadians very proud in the efforts they make to protect our sovereignty and our values and so forth.

I would ask my colleague across the way to recognize and possibly even agree with me on how important the job our Canadian Forces do is and that it is to be recognized and applauded.