Pierre-Luc Dusseault

[National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians Act, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague, who seemed to be quite worried about Bill C-51 that passed in the previous Parliament.

She talked about some serious concerns regarding the excessive powers given to this country's security agencies; at the time, however, her party did not share those concerns. Instead, it voted in favour of Bill C-51—enthusiastically, I might add.

How can she reconcile her comments today to the effect that serious concerns remain about excessive powers with the fact that her party voted in favour of Bill C-51 at the time?

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, tax evasion and patronage scandals continue to seriously undermine the credibility of an important institution in our country. Our officials are leaving the Canada Revenue Agency to go to accounting firms that are not shy about evading taxes, firms such as KPMG, which developed a scheme with the Isle of Man. The scheme sought to help KPMG's clients avoid paying taxes in Canada. It is as simple as that.

My question is simple: is the minister committed to tightening the post-employment rules to prevent situations like this, situations that erode public trust?

[Air Transportation, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her detailed response. It seems to me that we got more answers this evening than in other adjournment debates, so I thank her for that.

She clearly understands the issue, which is that there is very little chance that an airline will decide to establish an air link between a non-designated airport and a designated one. That is the main problem for Sherbrooke. We have had difficulty getting air links for a long time because the airlines are not interested in landing in Sherbrooke, as my colleague said.

I am therefore wondering why the government did not decide instead to reassess the risk associated with each airport and rework the designations accordingly, since the easiest way to get air links is to be one of the 89 designated airports.

Why did the government not reassess the risk associated with each of those 89 airports and rework the list accordingly?

[Air Transportation, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this adjournment proceeding to come back to a question I asked the Minister of Transport in November 2016 regarding non-designated airports in Canada.

For the benefit of those watching us at home, I will sum up the situation. The 89 airports in Canada that are designated can receive services from the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Unfortunately, there are more than 89 airports in Canada. Unfortunately, regional airports are non-designated and are not on this list.

The problem we have in Sherbrooke is that we have an airport with a runway long enough to accommodate large aircraft and a terminal large enough for security screening. However, ours is not among the 89 designated airports. Adding an airport to the list of designated airports is easy enough. There is a regulation for that. It is a matter of adding a schedule to the Canadian Aviation Security Regulations, 2012. The list of 89 designated airports can be found in the schedule of these regulations.

These regulations were created in response to the September 11 attacks to provide maximum security in our airports. The Canadian Air Transport Security Authority was also created. At the time, it was determined that 87 airports would be designated, because it was believed the level of risk justified their designation. A few years later, there was even a decision made to add two airports, in Mont-Tremblant and Red Deer. The mechanism is therefore quite simple. Airports can be added to the list. At that time, the number of airports went from 87 to 89.

Sherbrooke has long been asking for what nine other airports are also asking for, which is to be added to the list. Just as we are asking to be added to the list, some airports that do have the designation are not even using it. Some airports in Canada are designated and are on the list of 89, but have no regular or commercial flights. Ultimately, the designation does not mean much. These airports are not in operation.

However, airports such as the Sherbrooke airport and others are ready to move forward. Sherbrooke had even signed an agreement in principle with an airline for commercial flights. Unfortunately, one of the conditions of the agreement was that security check points be set up in the airport, which did not happen under the previous government. The best they could do, and it is important to mention this, was to come up with a way for non-designated airports to set up screening check points anyway, but on a cost-recovery basis.

This is a viable solution for Sherbrooke. We are currently attempting to set up the necessary check points with this mechanism. However, the fact remains that the simplest and quickest solution would be to have Sherbrooke become the 90th designated airport. Another solution would be to remove an airport from the list, because it is just as easy to add one as it is to remove one. We could remove an airport that is not being used. There are some. We could keep the 89 designated airports if that is what the government absolutely wants to do. We could continue to have 89 designated airports substituting one for another.

My question is when does the government intend to propose an amendment to the regulation adding to the list of airports, or changing some of the current designations in order to keep the number of designated airports to 89?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

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.

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague.

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

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

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

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

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

[Canada Revenue Agency, March 9th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, things are not going well at the Canada Revenue Agency. It is a sinking ship.

First came the private receptions and amnesty for fraudsters. Now, we have learned that many CRA employees are jumping ship to go and work at KPMG. There is a revolving door between the Canada Revenue Agency and the country's accounting firms. A new ship's captain was appointed a year and a half ago, but still nothing has changed.

When will the minister put an end to the appalling cronyism in her own department?