Debates of March 9th, 2017

Opposition Motion—Canadian Forces Tax Benefit

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, members opposite can put false statements or alternative facts on the record, but just because they do so does not mean they are factual. Everything the member just said was incorrect.

This whole business of taxing our troops is more and more about finding new tax targets all across the board. This week we even found out that the government is going to tax women who have home-based businesses when it put through the changes supposedly to ensure that house flipping in the housing markets in Vancouver and Toronto would be remedied. The government also managed to sneak through a requirement so that people working from home now have to register their homes. If they are claiming any part of their house as a business expense, when they sell that house, part of the profit that would be made from the sale would have to go back to the government.

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

Madam Speaker, on February 22, a family member of mine, Captain Mark Biernacki , a pilot with the Royal Canadian Armed Forces in the 5th (B.C.) Field Regiment, born and raised on Vancouver Island, retired after 12 years of service. Our family is very proud of his incredible commitment and sacrifices, as we are of all members of the armed forces in Canada. I am sure my colleague shares that same sentiment.

I am glad that all parties have agreed to support today's motion.

I will talk about the mental and social change that occurs when a member of the Canadian Armed Forces leaves. It really cannot be qualified. Veterans Affairs is critical in helping with this important transition. Veterans need easy access to services. The Conservative government was responsible for closing Veterans Affairs offices to members. Maybe the member could let us know if she has changed her opinion on the closure of those offices and how we could better support Mark and other members as they leave the armed forces and make sure they get easy access to services.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Madam Speaker, our government added on to the suite of services available to veterans who were medically releasing from the military as well as all veterans. In so doing, we allocated funds toward the people rather than just the bricks and mortar that was not really being used. Where veterans needed services, the people servicing them actually went to the veterans so they did not have to travel miles to some out of the way office.

Furthermore, I am pleased to say that for releasing veterans, there are new programs in the private sector in co-operation with government that are coming up. For example, we have a new cybersecurity program located right here in Ottawa. There is funding from all sources of government so that when members medically release, even though they do not fit the universality of service, they can continue serving our country in a security capacity and be a contributing member of our society.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the opportunity to share time with my esteemed colleague who just spoke, who has proudly represented the folks at CFB Petawawa for years. It is no accident that she has been here longer than most members of Parliament because of her advocacy for members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the military.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to clear the record on some of the misconceptions that have been put before the House by other members, but more importantly, it is an opportunity for the House to do the right thing.

Yesterday, we voted on three private members' bills that went through, and two of them actually went against what the government wanted. The people of Canada, through their elected representatives, got what they actually wanted. If members in the House are listening to the debate on today's motion, Canadians widely across this country would want members of Parliament to do the right thing again and vote in favour of the motion, because the motion corrects an injustice. Whether anyone here wants to admit it or not, it is an injustice.

When Canadian Armed Forces members are asked to serve their country overseas in a theatre of operations, the policy generally speaking is that these members would have tax exempt status for their salary while they are there. There is a process whereby they can go through a bureaucratic rigamarole, a set of rules that are set up to basically do an assessment as to whether somebody should or should not get this tax exempt status, but that does not mean it is right.

What the problem and the issue here is, and this is a pattern of behaviour that we see from the government across the way, is the Liberals hide behind the rules all the time and then they blame the rules when things politically go wrong for them. Without having the good common sense to know what the right thing to do is, when they are only guided by a set of rules because they do not have a compass when it comes to ethical lapses, we know they are going to change the rules because it must be the rules' fault because they cannot get it right because the rules are not right. They do not have a compass when it comes to genetic discrimination. They have to hide behind the rules again. They do not have a compass when it comes to Wynn's law. They do not have a compass when it comes to this issue because this is what Canadians would expect their members of Parliament to do.

Members of Parliament, especially those like me who travel great distances to come here, get thousands of dollars a year to accommodate us for our living expenses while we are away to help us do our jobs better. We are not home on Tuesday night to mow the lawn or shovel the driveway and we cannot be out of pocket for the extra living expenses that come from our being away from our homes, because those resources from our pay and salary need to support our families back in our ridings where we actually live.

This is the exact same issue. It is a different way of dealing with it, but it is the exact same issue. These men and women put their lives on the line to serve us. We can have debates about whether or not they should or should not be in a particular theatre of operations, but that is not the point. The reality is these soldiers in the Canadian Armed Forces are deployed right now and 15 of them have lost this benefit going back to September of last year. Another 300 of them are slated to lose these same benefits this year. This is absolutely unacceptable.

We need the House and Liberal members to take the bull by the horns and realize the solution is simple. Ask the Minister of National Defence and ask the Minister of Finance, simply with the stroke of a pen, to fix this problem. This is what happened when the Conservatives were in government. It was brought to the attention at that time to the minister of veterans affairs, the minister of defence. “When the interdepartmental committee recommended the same benefits be stripped” this was back when Stephen Harper was the prime minister, “from our troops who were serving in Afghanistan, we cut through the red tape to ensure these troops received exactly what they deserve”.

I will quote what was said at the time, because the folks who were in charge at the time actually had a compass on this issue. They knew what the right thing to do was. They did not run and hide behind the rules.

“This decision about hardship and risk pay was made by officials; we believe it is incorrect, and the government intends to re-examine it.” This is from the press secretary of former defence minister Peter MacKay on April 10, 2013. “This decision was not appropriate, and we are asking for this decision to be reviewed”. This was said by the then veterans affairs minister on April 10.

“Our troops left with an agreed-upon salary, including risk benefits for those missions, and now halfway through their deployment this government is making significant reductions to the income on which they and their families depend.” That was said by Liberal Senator Roméo Dallaire.

When our troops were overpaid by a departmental error, former defence minister Peter MacKay demonstrated how we stood on guard for those who defended us, and we did not ask them to pay that back. Rather than penalize the soldiers who were deployed overseas, who were overpaid by $1,600, we had a compass that said it would be inappropriate to even ask them for the slight overpayment back. It was departmental error, an error that was no fault of the soldiers who were serving overseas and who had probably already spent or invested that money. We are not talking about millions or billions of dollars. We are talking about 15 soldiers receiving about $1,500 to $1,800 a month, and another 300 soldiers.

For a government that actually has no compass when it comes to balancing the books, and does not have one for any foreseeable future, surely the Liberal argument cannot be that we will balance the budget on the backs of soldiers and veterans. We have seen this before. However, I do not see any intention from the government across the way to balance the books.

If we ask Canadians what issue would be so compelling that the government would even consider going into debt for, surely it would be to compensate the men and women in out Canadian Armed Forces who stand on guard for us on a day-to-day basis, and those veterans who have served valiantly in the past. If there were ever a group in Canada that we needed to go into debt for or run a deficit for, those are the people we need to do that for.

We need the unanimous support of the House for this motion. The issue is not what he or she has said, or this is what was done years ago, or this is what has been done throughout the years. The issue is that there has been an injustice done to 15 soldiers serving overseas, and that there is about to be another injustice done to 300 more, we can fix that injustice. This is what Canadians elected us for and sent us to this place to do.

While I am on my feet, I want to talk a bit about something that is going on in my riding, and why this issue is so important and so near and dear to my heart. The mission in Afghanistan, the current mission notwithstanding, was a mission of a next generation of Canadians. We have to go back to the Korean War, the Cold War, and World War II for previous generations of Canadians. The last Canadian soldier killed in the mission in Afghanistan was Master Corporal Byron Greff from my riding and my hometown of Lacombe, Alberta. Right now I am asking for support from anyone across the country or who is watching today. There is a project in place to remember that sacrifice by bringing a light armoured vehicle monument to my home community of Lacombe. Stickers are being sold and there are other various fundraising campaigns. I think this will take off for the same sentiments that are being discussed in the House today.

The people of my community and of Canada really want to support the men and women in the Canadian Armed Forces. I know I can count on that kind of support from my community. I also know I can count on the same kind of support from my colleagues in the House, across all political divides, when it comes time to vote on this motion. This is the right thing to do.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I can see how deeply he cares for our military, and rightly so.

We certainly cannot disagree with giving deployed soldiers danger pay. They are far from home just like us, but in addition to being far from home, they are in danger zones. Compared to that, being here in Ottawa is not so bad.

However, there is something of a disconnect here because the member was part of the previous Conservative government that cut the army's budget to the bone. Does he see a cause and effect relationship here with the current government's attempts to pinch pennies when it comes to health care and our military families' peace of mind? Are we not lying in a bed that his party made when it was in government?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am not sure what the hon. member is talking about. If he was paying attention, over the past 10 years when Stephen Harper was the prime minister of Canada, we had never seen more historic investments made into the Canadian Armed Forces after a decade of darkness. That included the purchase of Nyala light armoured vehicles and tanks for our soldiers on the ground in Afghanistan, the purchase of strategic lift airplanes so we no longer had to rely on Russian Antonovs to get our disaster assistance response teams, and other equipment we needed to get around the world. Now we have the C-17 program. We have five Globemasters that we can count on at any particular point in time. We also have tactical lift helicopters. We were poised to replace our entire fleet of fighters as well, and were going through that process, which has now been sidelined.

The hon. member should be asking me questions specifically about the policy when it comes to the pay, and the record the previous government had with respect to pay, which I was glad to address in my speech. All I know is, thank God Stephen Harper was the prime minister of our country for 10 years. The Canadian Armed Forces is better off for it.

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

Madam Speaker, we might differ in whether we appreciate the valuable contributions that Mr. Harper made to the Canadian Armed Forces. We will get another opportunity to talk about that.

Could the member provide his thoughts on the process? Does the member believe we currently have a hardship and risk committee that evaluates the level of risk and hardship? Overseas, things do change over time. Could the member share his thoughts about the importance of re-evaluation, who does the evaluation, and who is best to do it?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will remind my hon. colleague that it was his government's decision to withdraw our six pack of CF-18 fighters from the fight against ISIS. Our troops were in better shape because they had the superior air power there to defend the troops on the ground. That capability is now lost. In return, there are several hundred more men and women on the ground.

Members do not have to listen to my opinion. We can listen to the chief of the defence staff, John Vance, who said, on February 9, “We want Canadians to know that we will be involved in engagements as we defend ourselves or those partners who we are working with.” The chief of the defence staff clarified “You put a lot more people on the ground in a dangerous place, it is riskier overall.”

Brigadier General Peter Dawe, updating Operation Impact on October 6, 2016 said:

The key takeaway for Canadians is we are more engaged at the line. There should be no doubt about that. And by extension, the risk has increased to our troops simply by virtue of time spent at the line and the work we’re doing right now in a more dynamic and fluid environment.

I could go on with several others. I do not know why the hon. colleague has not listened to the advice that his own government bureaucrats have been providing. Everybody there seems to think they are in a riskier situation than they were when the fighter jets were there.

The policy of the government is to withdraw the six pack of fighter jets, which provided more certainty and predictability and more protection for the soldiers on the ground, and instead put more soldiers on the ground, putting them in a riskier place, and then has taken away their pay. Well done.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a difference between this government and the former Harper government. We believe it is important that we work with our global partners. In working with our global partners, it was determined this was the best way in which Canada could perform at that site. All in all, things are going quite well, and it was a smart decision made by this government.

I want to pick up on a couple of points. It is important that we recognize the role members of our Canadian Forces play. I want to quote what the Prime Minister said back on February 14, because it really highlights the importance of our Canadian Forces. He said:

We are focused on delivering what is necessary in terms of equipment, in terms of support, and in terms of honour and value to the extraordinary men and women who serve this country on the front lines and everywhere around the world.

This government has been consistent from day one in wanting to be there in a very real and tangible way in supporting our troops.

We have a Minister of National Defence, a decorated veteran from Afghanistan, among many other things, who has done an incredible job in picking up what was left from the Conservative Party and moving us forward. The issue we are debating today is an excellent example of that.

I listened to members across the way as they tried to change history. At times it is important we ensure that listeners and others who might be reviewing what is taking place are aware of the facts.

I pointed out a fact and the member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke responded by closing her eyes, being completely blind to the truth. She continued to spread concerns or thoughts that were stretching the limits of truth.

I should give a bit of a review of what we are talking about.

We all recognize the important and incredible work that members of our Canadian Forces do for us abroad and in Canada. At times, there is a certain amount of a risk level or a hardship level that our troops have to endure. We have a special committee of individuals, which is made up of a representative from the RCMP, multiple members of the Canadian Forces, along with a government representative from Treasury Board, quite possibly, who sit on this hardship committee. There is a very robust system they have to go through to make an evaluation. When we deploy someone overseas, they look at the hardship and other risks. Based on that criteria and robust approach, they are able to come up with an assessment and a recommendation to the government.

I should have said at the very beginning, Mr. Speaker, that I will be splitting my time with the member for Saint-Jean,

That committee of experts understands the situations at hand. It is important to recognize that this evaluation is done after deployment.

Former prime minister, Stephen Harper, sent members of the forces to Kuwait back in September 2014. Conservative members across the way are trying leave the impression that along with that deployment went a government directive saying that hardship and risk allowance were going to be provided for them. That is not what took place. The previous government did not say that it would give a hardship and risk allowance when it deployed the troops back in September 2014.

In fact, what had actually taken place was that there was a hardship committee, which had been established for many years, that had to do an evaluation. That evaluation took place and conclusions were drawn, I believe, some time in June 2015. At the time, it was still Prime Minister Stephen Harper. There was no decision by the former government, within days or weeks or even months of receiving it, to give what we often refer to as danger pay to our men and women overseas in Kuwait. There was no decision on the Conservatives' part to make that immediate decision and give that pay.

In fact, I thought it was interesting that the former Conservative minister of defence said something to the effect of, “The Conservatives say just do it”. I would suggest that Stephen Harper did not do it. In fact, October 2014 is when the troops were sent. The Conservatives are telling our Minister of National Defence and our government to just do it. They did not just do it.

After the election came to an end and a new government was in place, a litany of priorities were brought to the table of the government. I would argue that the Minister of National Defence did his job and brought this issue to the table. It was the current Minister of National Defence who brought the issue to the attention of the Minister of Finance, and then we actually had it passed in 2016. That was just last year. It was this government that made it retroactive. The irony is that the Conservative Party is trying to take credit for what was clearly a Liberal decision based on a sound recommendation from a committee.

Now the Conservatives are trying to rewrite history and say that the government needs to do this. We have had the Minister of National Defence once again come to the table and clearly indicate to this House that this is a policy the Harper government did not want to change. We have a Liberal administration saying that it will review this policy. That is where we are today. That policy is being reviewed by this government, and at some point, there will be some results from that policy. However, the Conservatives are trying to give the impression that they are the ones who truly care about this issue, when they had a chance to act and they failed to do so. It was this government that took action and made it retroactive. The Conservatives try to come across as more sensitive than the current government. I would suggest that this is false.

We understand what is taking place. We appreciate the fact that risk levels change. If the risk factors change and it goes down, that means our men and women abroad are not having to endure the same level of personal risk or hardship, but it is not up to me to make that determination. I have confidence in the hardship and risk committee that is made up of professionals.

I believe that the government is doing what is responsible. We understand. We are the ones who made it retroactive. We understand that there is a need to review the policy. The Minister of National Defence is doing just that. At the end of the day, we will wait and see what comes of that review.

I appreciate the opportunity to share a few thoughts on the issue.

[Tracey Ramsey, NDP, Essex, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is about Canadian troops who are engaged in combat operations against the Islamic State fighters. How can the government justify taking away the combat tax to benefit our deployed troops?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the member heard what I was talking about with respect to the hardship and risk committee that has been established. It has been in place for many years now. As the level of risk changes, which can be positive, circumstances may change. That is one reason the Minister of National Defence made very clear that we want to review the policy. This is, in fact, what is taking place today. It is the responsible approach in dealing with this issue and in providing assurances to members.

We appreciate the valuable role members of our Canadian Forces play in our values and our sovereignty. We are working diligently in a very robust fashion on a number of fronts to make sure that our Canadian Forces are served well through the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary made the same mistake the Minister of National Defence did by saying that they had dealt with this issue in the past and that in February, the minister had to stop a reassessment for troops that were deployed to Kuwait. However, in fact, I had a question on the Order Paper, Question No. 600, that I asked back on November 16. The response from the minster was that all our troops in Operation Impact, whether in Kuwait or anywhere else in the Middle East, received all of their tax benefits, $1,500 to $1,800 a month, and it is signed by the Minister of National Defence. It was tabled in the House by the parliamentary secretary himself. I have the signature. I wonder why he never read it to know that all of our troops had their benefits for the entire time they were in Kuwait, up until September 1.

Even if what the minister is saying is true, that he had to intervene back in February 2016 to ensure that all troops received their hardship pay and benefits and tax relief, why did he not do it in September 2016? There is the rub. There is hypocrisy here in what the minister says he did in February that he refused to do back in September 2016.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know how much clearer one can make it. If it were not for this Minister of National Defence, our men and women in Kuwait would never have received the benefit. It was this Minister of National Defence who brought the issue to the government of the day, which ultimately allowed the payments our men and women received in Kuwait.

The former prime minister, Stephen Harper, did not sign off on it. He did not allow the money to flow to our men and women. If it were not for this Minister of National Defence, they would never have received the money, as it was determined that they were in a high-risk, hardship situation, which allowed them to be eligible for the allowance and the tax relief. It was this government that recognized that, and it was this government, through the recommendation of the Minister of National Defence, I suspect, that put it in place. It is this government that is reviewing the policy, a policy the former government did not see fit to revisit.

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, consensus in this House can be elusive.

However, on one point we all agree: our women and men in uniform deserve our highest respect. We must support our soldiers deployed around the world. We must recognize the dangers and discomforts they face, and we must compensate them fairly for their sacrifices.

The Department of National Defence has in place an impartial and transparent process to ensure that we do. Every member deployed receives a comprehensive compensation and benefits package. 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.

Decisions regarding whether a mission warrants those allowances do not happen at the bureaucratic level. The Treasury Board Secretariat is at the table, but in the chairperson's seat is a brigadier general. All around the chairperson are lieutenant colonels, majors, RCMP officers, women and men in uniform who have been on tour, who know the realities of combat, and who have made the same sacrifices we ask of our current troops abroad.

What is more, no one on the committee is answerable to the chain of command. Everyone can make their decisions without outside influence, without fear of reprisal, and without concern for operating budgets. Cost is never a factor. The committee's sole interest, then, is to determine hardship and risk levels that reflect the actual conditions on the ground, assign hardship and risk levels that represent the true stresses and hazards in the field, and lastly, assign hardship and risk levels that are objective and defensible.

The committee looks at 21 individual factors that affect a mission’s hardship score. The committee weighs everything from the quality of drinking water and the availability and cleanliness of washrooms to the receptiveness of the local population and the demands of soldiers’ daily routines. Similarly the committee weighs six factors for the risk score: from civic instability and the threat posed by hostile forces to the presence of infectious diseases and the risk of a natural disaster. The committee examines the probability of each hazard and considers the severity of the possible impact on our troops.

The evidence for their conditions? It comes straight from the source. Thirty days after the start of a new mission, the committee requests information directly from the field. In the case of the operations in Kuwait, senior military officials submitted a 20-page report on the conditions in the theatre of operations.

A doctor familiar with the mission, and an intelligence officer with his ear to the ground in the Middle East provided insights, too. At the time, soldiers were deployed to three locations in Kuwait: first, where our CP-140 Aurora and CC-150 aircraft were based; second, where our CF-18 fighters took off and landed; and third, where a small group of staff people was posted. Effective October 2014, all three were deemed medium risk. However, as you are well aware the security situation in the region is fluid.

Circumstances change continually and, in some regards, change dramatically.

For this reason, the committee reviews levels regularly, with regard to risk and difficulty, to ensure that they continue to reflect the actual conditions of a specific operation in a specific location. When the committee reassessed the risk scores for Kuwait in March 2016, all three operations dropped slightly. Two slipped just below the medium-risk threshold. They dropped again for one of the operations six months later, when conditions had changed significantly enough to warrant yet another review.

Finally, in December 2016, the committee reviewed a combined assessment for the two locations in Kuwait where personnel are deployed for Operation Impact. The hardship level went up, and the allowances paid to soldiers went up immediately too. The risk level, however, went down.

Soldiers will continue to receive risk allowances based on the earlier, higher rate for six months following that decision. In other words, personnel will have six months' grace, until June 2017, before they see the actual risk score reflected on their paycheques. As a result, soldiers have not yet seen any changes in their pay.

For some members of the House, the issue is not about the pay itself but rather the applicable tax break. The Income Tax Act states in black and white that risk allowances for medium- and high-risk missions are eligible for tax relief. Any mission with a risk score of 2.50 or higher receives the relief automatically. Missions that score between 2.00 and 2.49 receive the relief when the Minister of Finance designates them as medium risk.

The Minister of National Defence has always asked the Minister of Finance for that “medium risk” designation for our troops. He has always sought that tax break for our soldiers, and he has always received it. Once a mission’s risk level falls below medium-risk threshold, however, it is out of the Minister of National Defence’s hands.

The Income Tax Act simply does not allow for tax breaks on relatively low-risk missions. The two locations in Kuwait now fall within that category. Brigadier Generals, Commanders, Lieutenant Colonels, and representatives from the Treasury Board Secretariat agree on this.

The committee followed every rule in the book to ensure the same considerations are given to all service members everywhere. Their assessments specific to the postings in Kuwait are fair, objective, and rooted in the realities on the ground. Should those realities change, we will reassess the country’s hardship and risk levels.

In the meantime, we will continue to support our troops, and we will continue to provide first-rate compensation and benefits packages. We will continue to ensure our soldiers benefit personally, professionally, and financially from their hard, much appreciated, and much respected work.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today’s debate is centred on the following question: who is telling the truth? Official documents were signed by the Minister of National Defence. Today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister is saying something else. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence made a lovely speech, reading the notes from the Department of Defence, which is fine.

I would like my colleague to explain to me how they can tell soldiers deployed specifically to Arifjan, Kuwait, that their status is going to change and that they will be stripped of their benefits while they are deployed there on missions.

Why will the deployed soldiers not be able to keep their benefits, and why will the next soldiers to be deployed there not be given the new rate?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Like him, we care about pay for our military. It is important to us.

As for the case he is referring to, the standards that we apply are very reliable and very transparent. They were established when my colleague’s party was in government. His party encountered this problem at the time and could have changed the standards.

The minister asked the chief of the defence staff to validate and analyze these standards and to recommend a procedure that will not operate on a case-by-case basis, but instead that will stretch out over time and probably be included in the new national defence policy.

[Pierre Nantel, NDP, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, especially considering that the member for Saint-Jean is very familiar with the reality facing our soldiers, at least with respect to military bases and their families.

We will recall that a while ago there were disagreements about the interpretation of the mission. It was often called an advise and assist mission, when clearly our troops deployed there are put in harm’s way. I would therefore like to know the reasoning behind the decision to not grant this danger pay.

Is it because, deep down, they want to deny that our troops there are being put in harm’s way?

[Jean Rioux, Liberal, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Obviously, everyone in the House of Commons agrees that every member of the Canadian Armed Forces must be given fair and equitable pay.

It is a matter of ensuring that we have an impartial and transparent process. No one is denying that there is a level of risk. We are analyzing that risk. As I explained earlier, there is a process in place to re-evaluate the level of risk of every mission, and we are making adjustments as a result of that process. It is a matter of fairness.

I would like to remind members that, in this case, the status has changed but people have not seen any change in their danger pay. That will not change until the end of June. Anything can happen between now and then. However, our goal is to ensure that we have an impartial and transparent process.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Calgary Nose Hill.

I would like to begin today by expressing my condolences to the family of Master Corporal Alfred Barr and those he served with. He was a member of 435 Transport and Rescue Squadron based in Winnipeg, Manitoba, part of 17 Wing Winnipeg. He died in a training accident near Yorkton, Saskatchewan, yesterday. I would like to express my sincere condolences to his family, those he served with in the Royal Canadian Air Force, and all Canadian Armed Forces.

It highlights that, regardless of whether our forces members are engaged in training missions or active missions around the world, every day they face dangers, just as our first responders do when they put on the uniform to go out and protect us, as members of the Canadian Armed Forces do. They face dangers every day. I want to express my sympathies to his family and his colleagues.

I also want to highlight and express gratitude to the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and his deputy defence critic, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, for putting this motion forward today in Parliament. Quite frankly, I am having a tough time believing that we are actually spending a day in Parliament debating whether our forces, deployed overseas in danger zones, are going to have tax-free benefits taken away from them. I find it unbelievable that we are actually debating that.

With a simple stroke of a pen, the Minister of National Defence could advise the Minister of Finance that this can be done. It is that simple. We heard this morning from other members of a similar situation that happened with the hon. Peter MacKay. He made sure that a wrong was righted with respect to Canadian Forces members and tax-free allowances for danger pay. It is incredible to me that we are actually spending time debating this issue today.

Base Borden is in close proximity to the area that I represent. The base is an integral part of the community. It employs 3,200 military members and 1,500 civilian members. It also houses the military generation training group, which 16,000 Canadian Forces members go through annually, and many of them spend a lot of time in the community. The city of Barrie and all surrounding cities in central Ontario, in fact, have a great affinity for the base and the contributions it makes to all communities in central Ontario. I want to recognize as well Colonel McGarry, who is the base commander, and honorary Colonel Jamie Massie for the work that they do in ensuring that all of the military and civilian communities integrate extremely well, as they do.

Why are we here today? The answer is simple. Our forces members have been notified that they are going to have some tax-free allowances taken away from them. A CTV story in September indicated that 300 Canadian Forces personnel in Kuwait were losing a tax break of up to $1,800 a month after the military downgraded the risk assessment of their mission, even though some personnel regularly enter Iraq as part of their duties.

I will remind members of just how dangerous these regions are. I understand that it is not Iraq, but any time people put uniforms on, any time they are deployed around the world, the men and women who serve so bravely in our Canadian Forces are in danger. Just yesterday in Kabul, ISIS militants disguised as doctors killed 38 people in a Kabul hospital attack. Those are the types of threats that exist on a day in, day out basis.

To diminish in any way the dangers that our men and women face is disingenuous to them, a disservice to them. Regardless of where our troops are deployed, irrespective of the dangers they face, the least we can do from a monetary standpoint is ensure that they get what they deserve and, more importantly, that their families get what they deserve.

I am our party's critic for veterans affairs and I sit on the veterans affairs committee. We have heard a lot of testimony dealing with the transitional aspects of moving from military life to civilian life, PTSD, and occupational stress injuries and how they affect the mental health of our soldiers. These have an equal effect on their families, families that are struggling day in and day out dealing with the fact that their loved ones are deployed overseas, not knowing what they are doing and the dangers they are facing. Think of the added stress on those family members when they are not being compensated in the manner in which they should be.

As I was listening to the debate in my office this morning, I went through some figures. This issue really came up in February, although it has been ongoing since last September. Our defence critic has been speaking to the minister about this. He initiated an Order Paper question. I looked at the numbers this morning and found that, since February 15, almost $1.3 billion has been doled out by the Liberal government for various projects across the country, and that does not include the $650 million that was issued yesterday for reproductive and health issues. The retroactive cost of this benefit to the men and women who serve our country is roughly $3 million, and since this issue came up, the Liberal government has doled out $1.3 billion and $650 million yesterday.

Why? That is the question. Why are we not looking after our men and women in uniform? A simple stroke of the pen would solve this issue. To the families who serve, we have an obligation to help them while their men and women are serving overseas.

What does it say to the families of our men and women who serve, and to those who served, when our government will not look after their financial needs? Not properly compensating them, in this case with respect to tax-free allowances, somehow diminishes the risk that they face overseas. I would suggest that it causes incredible distrust of the government. It causes morale issues among those who are serving. In fact, it would cause morale issues for those who are here at home. It also affects recruitment and the ability to attract people to our Canadian Forces. What does it to say to our recruitment efforts if the government is not going to look after our members and diminishes the role they play by not properly compensating them? Why would I want to get involved in the Canadian Forces if I think that my government does not have my back if I am deployed, and more importantly, it does not have my family's back if I am deployed? It is a great cause for concern.

This is the third time I have said this today. We are spending all day debating this. This issue has been going on since last September. The government has said that it is doing consultations and that it is going to review it. One stroke of a pen would solve this issue.

I am asking the government, on behalf of the families of Canadian Forces members, on behalf of those who serve so bravely, to resolve the problem, please.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs and Associate Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the way mentioned the effects our first responders, police, firefighters, and Canadian Armed Forces members witness when serving their communities. I would like to highlight the more than 30 years of service he has given to his community in the fire department. I would like to thank him for that and for his advocacy in veterans affairs.

Does the member feel the families that are in his riding are being supported, given the many outreach efforts we are making to get this right? Could the member explain what he thinks we could be doing to make sure those families that are affected by this are supported?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her acknowledgement of my service within the community, of which I was very proud to be a part.

To answer the question, the first thing we need to do is correct this. I think all of us would agree that we need to correct what I would call an injustice to those families and those who are serving. A simple stroke of a pen could solve this problem. The Minister of National Defence could go to the Minister of Finance, use his ministerial authority, and it would be completed.

On the issue of families and what we need to do to support our members, I think the hon. member brought up a critical point. We need to understand that, when members of the Canadian Forces serve, it is not just they who are serving. It is not just they who are paying the price. Their families are paying the price; their spouses, their children are paying the price.

I have had the opportunity to visit many resource centres across the country, including Base Borden, close to home. I will say that there is a significant attempt among those who are involved in those military resource centres to make sure they help our families. However, at the end of the day, and I think all hon. members in this House agree, we need to look after not only those who serve but our veterans as well.

There is a lot of work to do. There is no question about that. I think the hon. member would acknowledge that. We have had meetings about this, on the work we can do to improve the lives of our veterans and to treat them with the respect and dignity they deserve.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Barrie—Innisfil for his speech and for acknowledging the family of Master Corporal Alfred Barr. I think our whole country shares the sadness and sends condolences to Master Corporal Barr's family.

I have a family member who just retired after 12 years of serving the Royal Canadian Air Force, Captain Mark Biernacki. He was previously a member of the 5th (British Columbia) Field Artillery Regiment. He made Vancouver Islanders and certainly my family very proud, as we are of all members of the Canadian Armed Forces. They face incredible danger, and the sacrifice they make is second to none in our country.

The mental and social change that occurs when a member of the Canadian Armed Forces leaves cannot be qualified. Easy access to veteran services is critical in helping with this transition.

Could the member talk about how we can better support our veterans when they are leaving the military? We know that the past government closed some seven veterans offices. There was concern that veterans could not get easy access. Could the member talk about supporting the reopening of all of those offices and how we can better support those veterans?

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important issue. I have family members who served in the military. My cousin's husband was with special forces in Afghanistan. He is suffering now with back injuries as a result of his years of service to our country.

One of the things we are hearing at the veterans affairs committee is the need for better transitional access into civilian life. I know the Department of National Defence ombudsman, supported by the Veterans Affairs ombudsman, has spoken about a concierge service. One of the stressors that exist is the amount of work that is required in that transitional aspect of being medically released. A concierge service would consolidate all of that.

I could go on for hours about this, on how we could improve the service.

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

Mr. Speaker, for those who are listening today, the Liberal government made the decision to revoke a tax benefit that provides $1,500 to $1,800 per month to Canadian soldiers currently deployed in the fight against ISIS and stationed in Kuwait. The motion before us today asks the House to:

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 [this tax benefit] for the hardship and risk associated with their deployment, and to retroactively provide the payment to members stationed at [this installation] whose tax relief was cancelled as of September 1, 2016.

This seems fairly reasonable to me, and I certainly hope that all members in the House will support this, for several reasons.

I want to leave the technical reasons to the end of my speech, but I want to talk a bit about a more macro-level principle. I actually have a great amount of concern about Canadians' view of the military, its role, and its necessity, and some of the decisions that have been made in this Parliament around the military's utility and function.

Last Remembrance Day, a friend who has served in the military sent me a blog post written by the wife of a deployed soldier. In it, she tried to describe their relationships and the expectations of the struggles borne by both of them. For him it is the mental and physical anguish faced by somebody who is deployed, and for her it is the loss and the loneliness that inevitably punctuate their relationships. What really struck me about this post was that it closed with this “it is worth it because” statement: that the faith placed in their trials is for the sustainment of the greater good. What really struck me about it was that the woman who was writing this post was writing it from a place of it being a personal struggle for the two of them, one that should be borne in private. Letting our men and women in uniform get to the point where the struggles they are bearing become something that is private and that the entire community and our country do not support or get behind is a source of great worry and should be of great shame for all Canadians.

I am concerned that it is both a blessing and a curse that, as a country, we are three generations removed from any sort of major conflict within our own borders or full-on global warfare. A lot of Canadians, especially younger generations of Canadians—certainly my cohort and my contemporaries—live in a world where we think war is something that happens someplace else. We think that the peace and the freedoms we have in Canada are static and unchanging and that they cannot be threatened.

If there is one thing I have learned in the six years of acting as an elected official and having gone to some of the conflict areas and having talked to people and been involved in votes regarding the deployment of our men and women in uniform, it is that this assumption and generality could not be further from the truth. The reality is that many of the rights we enjoy here in Canada are fragile and they have to be maintained. While we rely on and value innovators and entrepreneurs in our country who grow our economy, the reality is that the people who maintain those freedoms are our men and women in uniform. I sometime think that we are getting to a point in the history of our country when we are forgetting that. It becomes removed from our everyday thinking. I see it in things such as, across two governments, allowing our bureaucracy to drag its heels on procurement, making very poor decisions. Cabinet ministers have to be right on top of their bureaucrats because they are going to put up decisions that make sense to them, that are made in a vacuum, and that are not in the best interests of our men and women in uniform. I really feel this is what happened here today. I feel that a bureaucratic committee sat around and made a decision for some men and women in uniform who are standing up for what is good and right and protecting our freedoms, and the bureaucrats are not really appreciating the actual cost of that.

I spoke to a friend this morning who has served in several deployments as part of the military, and I asked why this is important.

He made the point that it is all great for this committee to make the decision, or for us to sit here and debate this and vote against it one way or another, but “...as you sit in your nice offices, we're sitting here smelling open pit burns”. I had to ask him what that was. It is when our troops have to burn their sewage with jet fuel.

They have F-16 Hellcats flying in at two o'clock in the morning, wonderful mess hall food going through them with a level of gastrointestinal distress, chemical alarms, air raid sirens, and the risk of car bombs coming in. We get to wear civilian clothes. They do not. Kuwait, where these men and women are stationed right now, is not Canada, everything costs more for them. If they do get a pass, things are going to cost a lot more.

To paraphrase the conversation, they might not be getting shot at every day, but “the risk is really high”. There is a cost both financially and emotionally that is borne by our men and women who are over there and by their families back at home.

Bureaucrats might be sitting in the government lobby right now looking at some sort of technical matrix around risk assessment levels. I am looking at the fact that American soldiers are getting this. I am not quite sure about the difference in salary levels, fair enough, but they are certainly getting tax exemption status.

I pulled up our travel advisory for Kuwait. It talks about a high risk of terrorism. This is not an environment that we would perhaps willingly go into that our men and women in uniform are going into, so this small tax exemption is something that is absolutely reasonable. Going back to my earlier statement, it shows that Canadians understand the true cost of bearing this burden by our men and women in uniform.

I have a few other points, very quickly. The government is probably going to post a budget with close to a $50-billion deficit. To my colleague's point, I cannot understand why it would not, with a stroke of a pen, support our men and women in uniform with this decision. There is precedent for this decision. When we were in government, we had a similar discussion around troops who were deployed in Afghanistan. A decision was made to do essentially what the motion today calls for.

The one thing I want to highlight that was really concerning for me is that the decision to revoke this tax benefit was made after troops had agreed to deploy. In cutting the benefits, the Liberals have cheated our troops and their families out of hard-earned money that they expected, counted on, and deserved. I cannot imagine sending someone out to serve in such a stressful situation, asking them to serve our country and to acknowledge the fact that Canadian freedoms are not a static thing, and then say, “Oh, by the way, a committee of bureaucrats has changed your risk level and you're not getting this, what you budgeted for”.

Our men and women in uniform and their families have to make tough decisions when it comes to budgeting. For some people in the chamber, $1,500 to $1,800 a month might not seem like a lot, but it sure is to the families of these people.

It is really shameful that we are having this discussion here today. I am embarrassed that I have to stand here and say the government is about to post this giant deficit, giving money to everything but this. I just do not understand.

This is the second time where elected officials have had to intervene in a situation like this. I would suggest that the process does not work and there are some seriously out of touch DND bureaucrats who are making these decisions. When I looked through the letter justifying this, which the Minister of Defence sent my colleague from Manitoba who is our defence critic, I could tell that a bureaucrat wrote the letter. There is no compassion in it. It is all, “we applied a matrix and blah, blah, blah, risk level”. The Department of National Defence spends billions of dollars on bureaucrats telling us why we cannot build ships. Surely, they can give $1,500 a month in tax benefits to our men and women who are actually doing what DND is supposed to do. I really feel like this is a no-brainer.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to go to the committee of bureaucrats that the member makes reference to. This committee of bureaucrats also made a recommendation to see pay increases for risk for our troops in Kuwait back in 2014, yet the prime minister of the day sat on that recommendation and did not put into place that recommendation.

I wonder if the member across the way, in that same compassionate way, could explain why she thinks that the former prime minister did not listen to what that committee of bureaucrats recommended when it said that we should be giving our men and women abroad that so-called danger pay. The prime minister back then had a choice. It was not put into place until the current Prime Minister and the current Minister of National Defence made their decision and, fortunately, that decision included making it retroactive so that our men and women abroad received something they were entitled to based on that committee of bureaucrats.