House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was forces.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Ajax—Pickering (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, would the hon. member, my colleague, agree with me that we do not invest for the sake of spending money but for the sake of results, and we take heart from the fact that our allies and our African partners are getting results.

There is something like 4,000 French troops on the ground, and they have had success. There are 3,800 troops from ECOWAS, most in Bamako but now moving northwards, and they have had success. Troops mobilized within Africa are meeting the military demand, and therefore none of our allies, who do not have troops based in Africa, are participating with troops on the ground. We are simply following their example.

Does the hon. member not agree that this has proven to be, in a very short time, a wise course of action, and that our longer term commitments to Mali, which have given institutional results in the form of some of the best units of the Malian army and the institution that is now serving as the headquarters for AFISMA, will be continued over the longer term?

In the meantime, the most urgent need, which we have met with incremental funding, is the humanitarian need. That is probably the issue that we in Canada need to be following most closely, so long as the military mission continues to progress in a positive direction.

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, let us be thorough and precise. The hon. member encouraged us to fund food security. The $13 million announced by the Minister of International Cooperation is largely dedicated to meet that challenge. That amount is in addition to the $57 million already announced for the entire Sahel in 2012, an amount that will continue to fund operations in 2013.

However, aside from food security, aside from child safety, which is a concern for all agencies funded by the $13 million announced by the Minister of International Cooperation, what would the hon. member like us to do in Mali exactly, because her colleagues, the hon. members for Ottawa-Centre and St. John's East have caused a little panic. I was on the panel looking into peacekeeping. The resolution does not provide for a peacekeeping operation. The United Nations resolution provides every measure necessary and authorizes the Malian authorities to retake regions under terrorist control. It is a combat operation.

Would the hon. member like Canadian soldiers to be involved?

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, it is important to note that history matters here, because it helps to explain the extent of the conflict and the crisis, and the number of countries involved. These are places where al-Qaeda, over years, has tried to install itself. Osama bin Laden is dead, thank God. However, al-Qaeda is not yet gone.

One of our goals, which I think we all share in the House, is not just whacking people or organizations. I do not think we use that term in these contexts. It is the destruction, the elimination of al-Qaeda as a threat to Mali, neighbouring countries and the whole world.

France acted quickly. Its troops moved on January 11. France asked us, relatively rapidly, for this heavy transport, strategic transport, strategic lift, because not many countries have this kind of aircraft. We only acquired it recently. Some members opposite did not see this as a priority for Canada at the time, but we did acquire it. It helped us in Haiti and now it is helping us in Mali. We were the first country to have an aircraft on the ground in Bamako serving French forces. I think that is quite a good record.

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, as the member well knows, we have been supporting capacity-building for the African Standby Force, which is part of the African Union, since 2006. That was in line with the G8 commitment, but our contribution was actually larger on a per capita basis. AFISMA will be based on the principles established for the African Standby Force and the Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, Standby Force, in which Canada has also invested, not over years but over decades.

This is important because investments today, through a trust fund or any other means, into AFISMA are not the crucial element. The crucial element is the institutional capacity of ECOWAS, of the AU, and indeed of the Malian army. We have played a role over the long term in investing in those.

Other hon. members have asked if there is a plan. There is a Security Council resolution that is about as explicit as I have ever seen for an operation of this sort. It also points to the Malian authorities, ECOWAS and the AU as the bodies that must articulate the plan. We want to support their plan and indeed France wants to support their plan.

It is not complete. Some of the African forces are very capable. They began deploying in Bamako on January 21. Give them time to spool up, to deploy to the north with the help of many allies, including France, which has the technical airlift capacity inside the country, and we will see what they can do, as they have performed effectively in Sierra Leone, in Liberia and on other ECOWAS missions.

The bottom line is that our investment here is long term, large scale and institutional. When we have had the opportunity to invest, it has taken place in accordance with our democratic principles and to ensure that human rights are upheld and abuses avoided.

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, of course we want to continue to invest. Of course we have invested more than the members opposite recognize or have chosen to recognize in this debate.

Up until 2010-11, Mali was the only country to receive such a large amount, $110 million a year, with the exception of perhaps two other countries: Afghanistan and Haiti. These two, three or four countries were at the top of our list in terms of our obligations for development.

Development is not something that happens overnight. It is certainly not something that can be facilitated with a government that results from a coup and lacks political legitimacy. We decided to suspend our development assistance.

I ask my colleague to name another country that has been as generous as Canada, on a per capita basis, when it comes to humanitarian assistance over the past year regarding the crisis in Mali and the entire Sahel region.

In terms of security, we continue to monitor the overall situation. We have a small group that is training armed forces in Niger. We want to facilitate participation in operation Flintlock in Mauritania, which is important in the region.

We have also made considerable investments in training the Malian army. We are no longer doing so, because that army is at war—

Conflict in Mali February 5th, 2013

Mr. Chair, it is an honour to be part of tonight's debate. We on this side are all delighted that it is happening at this time, so soon after the international community has seen some success in its efforts to support Mali in restoring legitimacy to the authority of a government over all of its territory, and particularly in the north.

I would like to touch on two aspects of the crisis Mali is facing. First is the root of the matter, how we got here, the back story, who is a threat to Mali and through Mali, to all of us. Second is the question of the military imperative that is now being met, in part by French forces in support of Malian forces, and increasingly by African forces, which all along wanted to take the principal role and were authorized to take the principal role under last December's U.N. resolution. They are filling in behind French forces as progress continues.

On the root of the matter, it is important to go back some time to remind ourselves just where these terrorist extremists organizations that finally ended up in northern Mali came from. The story begins with a once upon a time, almost, recollection that one now needs to reach back toward in 1988.

Once upon a time there was a rabble rouser, an extremist called Osama bin Laden, who brought a group of friends together in Peshawar, Pakistan in the summer of 1988. Some hon. members here were not even born then. He decided that contributing to jihad in Afghanistan was not enough, that he was going to find an organization that would go to Kashmir, that would go anywhere in the world, that would attack not just the Soviet Union, but the United States. He called it al-Qaeda. He spent five years at that time in Pakistan.

We will recall that soon thereafter he felt the call to go back to Saudi Arabia. He was in Saudi Arabia for three years. He offered the services of al-Qaeda to the Saudi government to attack Saddam Hussein at that time. Of course, he was declined. He was actually banished from Saudi Arabia. He went on to Sudan for four years where he hatched other plots. He tried to kill President Mubarek of Egypt and eventually got the call to go back to Afghanistan, which was now under Taliban rule in 1996. There, even larger plots were hatched: Nairobi, Dar es Salaam and the USS Cole in Yemen.

I mention this story because all of these places are part of the regional equation which the interim leader of the Liberal party and all of us understand has to be taken into account when we talk about Mali, because it is part of a jigsaw puzzle. It is part of a global effort in which Canada has played a central role, to bring a non-governmental threat to heel, to empower governments to stand against the kind of threat that Mali has faced now since 2010 from al-Qaeda.

Displaced from all of these other places, al-Qaeda was on the ropes in most of these other places, even in Somalia and Yemen, and was forced to seek refuge in the wastes in some of the least hospitable areas of the world, the Sahel and the Sahara itself in northern Mali. All of us working together under a level of co-operation, with the full backing of the United Nations, which is unparalleled, certainly since the second world war, have succeeded in preventing al-Qaeda from finding a host. We have prevented it from taking over the whole state in some other part of the world, as it has tried to do in Afghanistan, as it would dearly love to do in Pakistan and as it has tried to do in other parts of the world over this 25-year-old saga.

Osama bin Laden is at the heart of the story. Obviously he has not been with us, as members will recall, since the day before we were elected to this place. Thank goodness, but that is another story. However, some of his last orders, as we now know from documents recovered in Abbottabad, were to re-establish outposts of his empire in places such as Yemen, Somalia and the Maghreb.

That is why al-Qaeda in the Maghreb is one of the big affiliates of the al-Qaeda organization and one of the few that, up until recently, did not face the kind of military pressure or security response that even Yemen and Somalia, with help from other African neighbours, have been able to offer. That is why we are talking about a threat to two-thirds of Mali. That is why we are talking about a coup in the spring of last year. It is not because al-Qaeda was threatening to take over the whole country but because of the army. Some of its most disciplined units in Mali, which had been trained in part by Canada, were unhappy that their government was not taking action and was not ordering them into battle in the north to deal with this problem.

They went too far and made what we think was the wrong political decision. They overthrew a democratically elected government. In fact, the Canadian-trained units, from the information we have, were not part of that unfortunate series of events. However, the legitimacy was sapped out of the Malian government. Its authority was further eroded and al-Qaeda took control, not alone, but with several other groups, Ansar Dine, Tuareg groups, that had tilted their way, seeing how strong they were in Timbuktu and elsewhere. The world looked on with consternation and became increasingly concerned as UNESCO World Heritage sites, Islamic treasures and mausoleums of moderate enlightened Sufi saints were destroyed by these butchers who were very happy to put people to death in summary trial but also to destroy the legacy and heritage of all humanity.

Canada's voice was raised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and others on this side of the House. We were concerned but we were not yet able to take action because there was no consensus in the African Union, in ECOWAS or the United Nations to authorize that action. Therefore, the resolution that came forward in December was truly unprecedented. We have not seen that level of explicit authorization for combat operations, African-led but supported by the whole international community and the whole machinery of the United Nations, for many other conflicts. Certainly none of this would have happened until that resolution was passed in December.

Today, with the resolution in hand, we find that Mali faces three crises. One is a political crisis, which we hope will now be addressed with the road map and the path toward elections, and Canada applauds that. The second is a humanitarian crisis, which my colleagues, the other parliamentary secretaries, addressed and in which we have invested by building on a foundation of very generous investment and contribution over years, even decades, in good times and bad in Mali. However, the military crisis remains. There has been progress, as members on the other side have acknowledged. The largest population centres in the north are now back in government hands. The Tuareg are leaning the government's way once again as al-Qaeda pulls out of the cities and withdraws into the mountains and other difficult to reach places.

However, what will they do? Who will reach out and touch them there? What will the capacity of the Malian government be to bring them to justice? We still do not know. Much depends on investments to come and much depends on the AFISMA mission. It has a complex demanding mission, to contribute to building Malian defensive security forces and support national authorities in recovering areas in the north under the control of terrorists and extremist groups. That means combat if necessary. As well, it is to help stabilize the country and consolidate state authority, support authorities in protecting the population, contribute to a secure environment for the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the return of displaced populations, protect personnel and the mission, and it has only be authorized for one year.

At the request of the Malian government and in accordance with the mandate of resolution 2085, France launched a military operation on January 11.

Canada joined the international community in supporting this initiative instigated by France in order to act quickly and put an end to these attacks by Islamist groups.

Let us be clear: France acted as an African power, a country that has military resources based in Africa. The only forces that France has sent into the theatre in any African countries so far were already based in Africa.

The United Kingdom, the United States, Germany and Canada have not sent troops into combat, because we did not have the necessary resources on the ground in Africa. It is a very simple explanation.

Our support to our ally, France, is very much appreciated. We have—

Business of Supply February 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say that I agree with the hon. member. Across the country, there is a movement of young people, the unemployed and others, but not the kind of movement he is talking about. People who want to work, whether in the Gaspé region, in Ontario, in Quebec or elsewhere in the country, are on the move. They support the changes that we have introduced because they improve their chances of finding work in their preferred field.

I have a question for the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine concerning the speech by his colleague from Hochelaga. She implied early on in her statement that a job at Tim Hortons did not amount to much. But if a young person who has no experience in another field thinks that a job at Tim Hortons is suitable for him simply because he wants to work, is working there not better? Does the hon. member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine agree with me, or does he side with his colleague?

Business of Supply February 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I was just checking with several of my colleagues because the hon. member for Malpeque has asked exactly this question on several occasions. He has had precisely the answer I am about to give him because it is the truth.

The answer is the person can stick with the current system, as it works, or the revised system, which we think has advantages for many unemployed Canadians and will help them find new work.

The real question is this. How can the member for Malpeque and all members in his party and the NDP characterize the changes we are making as an attack on the unemployed and working Canadians, when in fact it is the exact opposite? It is an effort to give them information about jobs that exist in their region, to help them find out what skills they should acquire to get a better job, to get a second job if they want to have two part-time jobs, which is absolutely possible, to put people back to work.

The member opposite would have us sit with an unchanged system, reflecting the reality of the past. That is never the way Canada has moved forward and he knows it.

Business of Supply February 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, we will never force anyone who already has a job to accept another one. If a person is receiving employment insurance, that person is required to find employment.

If there are no opportunities other than seasonal employment, the person will be required to accept that job.

It all depends on the economic conditions of each region and the experience of the person in question. A nurse will not be forced to work as a machinist. Conditions will have to be set for each sector and each region.

The changes we are making are not revolutionary. They are improvements. We are providing information. We want people to be aware of the opportunities in their region.

Business of Supply February 5th, 2013

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to rise in this House to respond to the motion from the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles and to emphasize at the beginning of this speech, as my colleagues will be emphasizing, that we will not be supporting this motion.

It is unfortunate that, once again, the opposition is attempting not to debate an important government program, a vital government program in need of updating, in need of change, but rather to mislead Canadians.

We on this side are asking ourselves if it is deliberate or whether the opposition simply misunderstands. Having listened to the debate this morning, we fear that it is deliberate. We will take this opportunity to clarify the changes that were made to remind Canadians of the need for these changes. We will focus on what is actually being implemented so that those Canadians with work who fear that one day they might lose their jobs, as many of us do from time to time in our careers, and those without work, will understand these changes and how they could help them return to work more quickly when they need employment insurance.

First, let us look at the big picture, at the overall economic climate.

Our country's economic performance continued to be strong in 2012. In fact, between July 2009 and March 2012, more than 900,000 new jobs were created. That is often mentioned.

However, what is not universally recognized in the country is that this represents by far the strongest employment growth among G-7 countries. Under the Conservative government, Canada has become a driver of job creation among the leading economies of industrialized countries.

A recent feather in our country's economic cap is that the OECD and the IMF have recently provided analysis that offers very encouraging long-term views of the Canadian economy. What they tell us is that, in the coming decades, if we continue to update our current policies, we have every chance—perhaps the best chance in the world—to create hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of jobs for future generations.

When we listen to the opposition, we often lose track of the sectors that have been creating the most jobs in the last three years. In the last 18 months alone, the manufacturing, financial and metal-producing sectors have been among the biggest and strongest job creators in Canada. Despite their best efforts, our partners and our competitors in other countries have much less positive records for their own economies.

Our economic prosperity therefore depends on our ability to meet emerging and growing labour market challenges.

That is why this year's economic action plan continues the hard work of implementing a long-term plan for jobs, economic growth and long-term prosperity. What does that mean? It means making sure that our capital markets function well, that they are competitive and that we attract capital from around the world. However, let us also make sure that our labour market functions well, that people are able to switch sectors when they have to, and that people requalify or retrain for new jobs when they lose jobs or businesses go bust, as sometimes they do. Let us continue to find the right people with the right experience to fill the skills gap and the labour shortages Canada faces today.

These are not challenges for the future in decades to come. These challenges are affecting us now. If left unchecked, they will hinder our ability to prosper as a country. Chief among these challenges is the growing skills shortage. It is a paradox that is of great concern to our government. We have too many unemployed in Canada, yet we have tens of thousands of jobs, hundreds of thousands according to some estimates, going unfilled.

Matching Canadian workers with available jobs in their local area is critical to supporting growth and productivity as well as quality of life for Canadians.

This is what we have always done in our country. The jobs of today are not the jobs our parents or grandparents had 50 years ago or 80 years ago. We have always adapted. We have always changed. We have always moved from the sawmill to the manufacturing plant to the digital software producing enterprise. That is the way the Canadian economy stays strong. This is why our common sense clarifications to EI ensure that the program remains fair and flexible and helps Canadians find jobs in their local labour markets.

What we are trying to do is make the labour market work better. We know that Canadians want to work. At the same time, we know that there are Canadians who are having difficulty finding work, particularly in the off-season in parts of the country that rely on seasonal industries. For those unable to work, we have good news. Employment insurance will continue to be there for them, as it always has been, despite what the opposition alleges. We will say it as often as we need to, inside or outside of the House. Fear-mongering will not work on Canadians.

In many cases, Canadians are not aware of the jobs available in their areas or of what types of jobs are relevant to their skills. That is the key part of this reform: giving Canadians more information. How can the opposition oppose that? We will help connect available workers with suitable work in their local areas.

Starting in January, just last month, we began sending job alerts twice a day to Canadians receiving EI. It is working.

I sat in a taxi the other day and made the driver, a young Canadian, who just finished his Bachelor of Arts and is not working in the field he would like to work in, aware of this website, www.workingincanada.gc.ca. Across the way they should mark it down. It deserves to be checked, especially after 2015. He went on that website, as I sat there, and found three or four jobs in his field, in his area. I do not know if he has taken one of those jobs. He is driving a taxi. It is his choice.

The system works. The information is out there. It is online. We have consolidated it. If people are unemployed and are receiving employment insurance they will receive that information and will be required to look at it and work through it. It is a good thing. It is going to make the labour market work better.

We have also introduced a connection between the EI program and the temporary foreign worker program to ensure that Canadians have first crack at jobs in their local areas. We are all grateful to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration and Multiculturalism for his efforts in this area.

However, we also recognize that in many areas of the country there are legitimate labour shortages that are threatening our economic recovery. I can tell the House, from personal experience, that there are many areas experiencing chronic labour shortages in skilled and low-skilled occupations. Therefore, in addition to providing more information to Canadians on local jobs, we have also clarified what constitutes suitable employment and a reasonable job search. This is assisting Canadians currently collecting EI benefits in understanding their responsibilities while on claim.

Better utilizing Canada's workforce and making Canada's labour market more adaptable will help ensure our long-term economic growth.

To be clear, it has always been a requirement of the EI program that Canadians be looking for work while receiving benefits. We understand that every region of our country is different, with varying levels of economic opportunity, depending on the season and the business cycle. It has changed from decade to decade, from century to century, throughout our history. We also know that every individual has unique circumstances, and we will also take these into account. We are not asking EI claimants to uproot their families to find work in another part of the country or even another part of the province. We are not asking them to work at jobs that are far below their skill level. We are not forcing people to accept low wages or bad working conditions.

If one looks at GDP per capita in the country over the last six or seven years, while our government has been in office, it has gone up. The Gini coefficient income disparities are not deteriorating, as they are in other parts of the world. They are actually holding steady and are improving in some areas. We are creating opportunities. We are lifting people up to higher levels of opportunity and to a higher quality of life. We are not forcing people to accept low wages. If they cannot find work, EI will be there for them, as it always has been. What these changes are doing is ensuring that every EI claimant will be better off working than not working. The fact is, Canadians collecting EI have to look for work.

The extra-five-weeks pilot program was created in 2008 and extended in 2010. It was always meant to be a temporary measure to support Canadians through the worst of the recession. Once economic conditions began to return to normal, the pilot was allowed to lapse. In fact, in a couple of regions covered by the pilot, it was ended early, because they had 12 continuous months of unemployment below 8%. One of the regions in the pilot had almost 5% unemployment for a significant period of time, so we took account of that.

We will continue to forge ahead with policies that matter to Canadians, focusing on their priorities, which are jobs, growth and long-term prosperity and, especially in the case of today's motion, a better functioning and more responsive labour market.