Erin O'Toole

[Public Safety, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the only elaborate efforts made are the elaborate efforts to cover up the disastrous trip of the Prime Minister to use a national security adviser to spin the media on a conspiracy theory against our friends in the Indian government. We learned that they wanted to actually collaborate with Canada on security, but they refused, and now the Prime Minister is blaming India by saying what his national security adviser said was true.

Will the Prime Minister or the minister apologize to our friends in India for this scandalous accusation?

[Public Safety, February 27th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is really quite astounding that today the Prime Minister of Canada confirmed that the claims are true that the Indian government conspired on the Atwal affair. He said that in the House today. Media reports reveal that the Indian government actually asked Canada to review the invitation list ahead of time, but the Prime Minister's Office said no.

Can the minister confirm that they refused to collaborate with the Indian government ahead of this trip?

[Public Safety, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the public safety minister is answering these questions, so the government knows how serious this security breach was.

My question is very simple. Can the Prime Minister confirm that his office set up a media briefing with the national security adviser, where the Indian government conspiracy idea was floated?

[Public Safety, February 26th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on his sightseeing trip last week, the Prime Minister saw a lot of India, and it is clear that after a week, India had seen enough of our Prime Minister.

After scrambling to lay the blame at the feet of many people, the Prime Minister's Office trotted out the national security adviser to come up with a conspiracy campaign with respect to the trip. The Canadian Press is reporting that the Prime Minister's Office set up a briefing with the national security adviser to raise the conspiracy theories. Can the Prime Minister confirm this fact?

[Veterans Affairs, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary cares. I know she has family members who serve, so I would ask her to put down the talking notes, stop talking about hypothetical veterans, and make this pledge to the House. There are real veterans that the Prime Minister is forcing to go to the Supreme Court of Canada because of his broken promises.

Will the parliamentary secretary commit to the House to end the Equitas lawsuit?

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Jonquière for her question.

When I was minister of Veterans Affairs, I announced new benefits at the Valcartier military base because there are lots of veterans in Quebec.

We should be very proud of the men and women from Quebec who serve, and continue to serve. I went to Valcartier because throughout Afghanistan, the members of that base and their families paid a very heavy toll. Bagotville is another very busy base. Some of my colleagues from Quebec served in reserve regiments. We have a very proud history going back to Talbot Papineau, as I referenced in my remarks.

I will say something about the offices, because this is often widely misunderstood. Do we use offices that were opened after the war when there was no health care in Canada and the Government of Canada had no presence across the country? Those offices were helping pay doctors, who at that time were private practitioners. Today, many of those offices are not being used. We have Service Canada, where in those cities we had a dedicated desk to handle the five or six people who might come in every few days. It was literally that low. As a veteran, what I wanted to see happen in the towns and cities across the country if we were opening an office was that it needed to be for mental health. The Chrétien government opened the first operational stress injury clinic in the early 2000s. We more than doubled the number of operational stress clinics to help deliver services to veterans, not just administration.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I know that the member for London—Fanshawe knows the file well. The historic Royal Canadian Regiment and its museum are in London, and I hear from my friends that she has a lot of interactions with veterans.

The member is absolutely right. This is about leadership or the absence thereof. The Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet make choices. It was a choice in the first 100 days of his government to spend billions of dollars on a variety of programs, much of them outside our country. It was his choice to settle with Omar Khadr for $10 billion. It is his choice what goes into the budget and what does not. It was his choice not to keep his promise to veterans.

The question I asked in a funny little debate we had a few weeks ago was whether the Prime Minister knew the cost of a return to the pension. The vast majority of the injured who leave the Canadian Armed Forces have sustained low injuries to their knees and backs. Combat arms NCMs or officers leave injured, beaten up, but not all of them will need transitional help. To return to the pension, with people living to 100, and the $30 billion was for low injuries generally, its lump sum top-up was bad policy, because the Liberals spent over $1 billion for people suffering from hearing loss who might be lawyers on Bay Street. The smarter thing is for the retirement income security benefit to go to the people who need it, the moderate to severely injured.

With respect to the enhancements to the permanent impairment allowance, I wanted to see the family caregiver benefit go to all PIA recipients. Those are the people that Talbot Papineau alluded to. They should not want if their future has been harmed serving our country.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I joined the Canadian Armed Forces and learned leadership skills in the hon. member's riding at the Royal Military College. I am proud to say on flag day that our flag was based on the RMC flag. The member knows that, but he certainly does not know what happened in the last Parliament.

In less than a year, with Bill C-58, which I referenced in my remarks, we brought in the retirement income security benefit, the critical injury benefit, the family caregiver benefit, and expanded the permanent impairment allowance. When the minister referred to building upon existing programs, those are the existing programs.

Spreading out the lump sum or the disability award for life already happened with a predecessor. It was a living document. We saw that Paul Martin's new veterans charter, which all parliamentarians agreed with, was not working to its intended purpose. The only parliamentarian who spoke on the new veterans charter was Roméo Dallaire, a good friend of mine. The iconic Liberal senator and veteran was the only parliamentarian to speak to the bill. It was rushed through because its focus on wellness was considered by parliamentarians to be better than the old system.

People look longingly at the old system now, but it failed so many people. Let us get it right. Let us build on the programs I started. The minister has put more money into them, but he certainly has not lived up to what the Prime Minister promised.

The member comes from a political family and he is pretty smart. An indication of a broken promise is a press conference a few hours before Christmas. Nothing shows the Liberals' inability to defend their broken promise than trying to hide it on Christmas Eve.

[Business of Supply, February 15th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate brought by my colleague today, because it highlights one of our most important duties as parliamentarians. As I have said in debates in this place, before Canada sends our men and women into harm's way, whether it is fighting ISIS or in other deployments, decisions related to the Canadian Armed Forces, those Canadians who serve us, are perhaps the most important decisions, debates, and questions we have as parliamentarians.

We should be very deliberative and thoughtful in our decisions with respect to deploying our military. We need to apply that same deliberate, compassionate, and honest approach in how we treat those men and women who come back with a variety of service injuries.

Unfortunately, in the last decade-plus, there has been a lot of rhetoric with respect to veterans' issues and veterans' care, but very little deliberate language trying to explain and understand how we best provide for our men and women. They are often used as political tools and I want to see that end, so I am going to devote most of the time I have for my remarks today to setting the record straight. Even some of the language I see from the minister's office shows he does not understand how programs and services are delivered to the people he serves, the same with people in his office. I hope they are tuning in.

I am also going to try to take a balanced look at the new veterans charter, and why, as minister, I tried to improve it, fix the problems, fill in the gaps, as opposed to making irresponsible promises that the Prime Minister and the Liberal Party, in the last campaign, either did not understand, did not cost, or did not care whether they fulfilled them. I certainly hope it is not the last one of those reasons. I certainly hope not. I think, at a bare minimum, all politicians, when talking about care for those who serve us, have to have honesty and respect underlying all of our comments, all of our promises, and all of our commitments.

We hear a lot about quotes from our past with respect to our obligation. I have often talked about the Royal Canadian Legion, and once a Liberal member mocked me for suggesting the Legion has a role, but the Legion has been serving veterans far longer than Veterans Affairs Canada. In fact, they were given a mandate to help veterans and help commemoration through an act of Parliament in this place in 1926. They still, in many ways, are at the forefront in their 1,400 locations across the country, where each branch has a veterans' service officer.

I want to start my remarks by saying, veterans started taking care of veterans first, and they still do. I spoke with many of them on the Hill today, because they are trying to take care of their comrades and in some cases, themselves. As I said, we owe them honesty and respect. That is why we are having this debate today. The Prime Minister has not provided honesty or respect in all of his commitments with respect to veteran pensions and veteran care.

We saw that first-hand two weeks ago in Edmonton, where an injured veteran asked him about his commitments, and the Prime Minister told that veteran that he was, in many ways, asking for more than the government could give. However, he was only asking for the Prime Minister to live up to his promise.

Let us talk about this pension for life charade from Christmastime. Even in the minister's own remarks, he suggests building upon programs in place. That was one of his responses. Many of the programs put in place where put in place by ministers of the Paul Martin government, when they started the new veterans charter. Then under the Harper government, we modified and enhanced benefits, including in my time.

When I introduced Bill C-58 in the last Parliament, which outlined a number of new enhancements, new benefits for veterans after direct consultation with veterans, I embedded into that legislation language with respect to the just and appreciation and the obligation we had to our veterans. This comes from a 1917 quote from Sir Robert Borden given to our men overseas who were injured in and around the campaigns of 1917.

Yesterday, Liberal members voted down a private member's bill put forward by my colleague from Barrie to enshrine that sacred obligation, that enhanced social covenant, that we owe to our citizens who we ask to serve with the risk of unlimited liability. That is why our veterans are in court. That is why they are asking for such a covenant. Their comrades in the United Kingdom have it. I is talked about it in Bill C-58.

One of the members from British Columbia brought forward an opposition day motion on it in the last Parliament. I am quite sure the Prime Minister voted for it then as third party leader. He whipped his members to vote against it yesterday, even though I know a lot of those members deeply care, including some who are in the House now. I wish their voices would be heard in their caucus, because right now veterans do not feel they are getting honesty and respect from the Liberal government.

We often quote Sir Robert Borden, who happens to have been my favourite prime minister because of his leadership during the Great War and the toll it took on him.

Here is a quote from a veteran who died 100 years ago, Talbot Papineau. Ironically the Prime Minister is also the member of Parliament for Papineau, but he is referred to as Prime Minister because he leads the government. Everyone in the House has a right to speak as members of Parliament.

The Papineau family, going back to Talbot Papineau's grandfather, has been so important for Quebec life that the Prime Minister now represents a riding named after the Papineau family. The Prime Minister also played Talbot Papineau, the Great War soldier, on television, so there is a direct connection there.

What did Talbot Papineau say to his troops days before he died in the Battle of Passchendaele? He said, “For those who have been disabled, who cannot carry on the good fight — it is certainly for us to see that they want for nothing.” He died on the day his regiment lost six of its junior officers on one of the worst days of fighting in Passchendaele. We honour Passchendaele. I know the parliamentary secretary was in Passchendaele.

The Prime Minister needs to do more than just act in the form of Talbot Papineau. He needs to live up to those words. This debate is about that. The fact that he whipped his members to vote against this concept yesterday is troubling.

We do owe a special, a sacred, a profound obligation to those who are injured while serving us. That is why the Conservative Party has brought this opposition day forward today. Veterans heard the Prime Minister of Canada, in my view, disrespect a veteran with his response in Edmonton because that veteran was asking the Prime Minister to live up to his promises.

Where did the Liberal government go wrong with veterans in its first two years? It boils down to two central pledges in the Liberal campaign. I was still veterans affairs minister during the campaign. During the 2015 campaign, unions were paying people to protest in front of my office. I was still trying to help veterans in need.

I remember very well when the Prime Minister, then third party leader, leader of the Liberal Party, had a rally not far from CFB Trenton in Belleville. The party flew in its star veteran candidates. The Minister of National Defence was there. The parliamentary secretary for U.S. relations was there. The parliamentary secretary for transport was there, all wearing medals, all behind the Prime Minister. It was very impressive form, very impressive people individually..

The Prime Minister said two things in those remarks that day. He said that he would never allow a circumstance where the Government of Canada forced veterans into court to be heard in their fight for benefits. He also made a commitment that day to return to the Pension Act, not make up a modified pension for life, which even the minister admits only 10% or so of people will see any enhancement whatsoever. He made a commitment to return to what veterans know as the old system, the Pension Act, where everyone got a pension for life.

I never made that promise as minister because the old act had inherent problems with it. Many people forgot that. My old friend, Peter Stoffer, the long-time critic for the NDP, agreed with me that the old system had problems and we had to fix the new system, the new veterans charter, because it was based on overall wellness of the veterans and their families. Honesty is not making a promise one will likely not keep.

Then there was the court decision. I have not told the House this before, but I will inform members of it today. I think the people involved with Equitas would be okay with my talking about this level of disclosure.

The previous Government of Canada, and I was minister at the time, and the Equitas veterans, who were in court because of their frustration, built a level of trust. As a veteran myself and with veterans on my team, I hired a new lawyer. I replaced the Department of Justice lawyer who had brought an argument suggesting in a pretrial motion that the Government of Canada owed no special duty to our veterans. I found that repugnant as a lawyer, as a parliamentarian, and as a veteran. We learned from the Equitas veterans. The family caregiver benefit, the retirement income security benefit, all the benefits the Liberals are now renaming and trying to claim as their own, a lot of them came from advice I received, and we virtually had Equitas settled. Why was it not settled? Because the Liberals dangled the promise of a return to the old Pension Act.

I said that if that was indeed the promise, I could not meet it. I asked whether we could turn our settlement into an abeyance agreement, or at least call time out on the litigation. I told the veterans that if they trusted the Liberals and wanted to go with that deal, as their friend now and not just as minister, I would respect that. I had told Prime Minister Harper at the time that we were close to settling Equitas. I looked at it as a failing of mine. Why did it fail? Because a promise was made, a deception was sown, and the Liberals need to take accountability for it.

I would much rather the Minister of Veterans Affairs admit that the Liberals have broken their promise than to dress it up in a press conference a few days before Christmas. It was shameful. They should step up and say they cannot meet their promise.

The Prime Minister in his town hall in Edmonton basically admitted the government could not afford it. Why did he promise it? We are looking at a return to the old system, a cost to the federal government of somewhere between $20 billion and $35 billion. That is because the old system wanted veterans to just quickly go on a pension. It was not about wellness. It was not about transition. If veterans had an operational stress injuries under the old system and because with mental health injuries they could have good times and bad times and they could respond to treatment, they did not get a permanent disability of 100% a lot of the time. If they were assessed at a 40% disability, they had a pension for life that committed them to poverty, or addiction, or family break-up or homelessness.

That is why the old system does not work. We need to focus on the wellness. For those who cannot transition, because of physical or mental injuries, give them lifetime financial support. I did that as minister, with the retirement income security benefit, with the critical injury benefit, with enhancements to PIA, all the things the Liberals are building on now, to ensure the moderate to severely injured, who could not transition, were supported for life. All Canadians want to see that.

Here is what is wrong with the Liberal system. The Liberals throw this number around, which I know they do not even understand. They said they spent $10 billion on veterans. That is not true. Some of that is accrual accounting, and they are not even forthright on it. It is not a cash accounting spend. It is an accrual. It is a commitment of the federal government to maintain a lifelong benefit. I would like them to break that $10 billion down into how much is in accrual accounting and how much is cash out the door. We will know in a couple of years when lapses in public accounts come in. The reckoning is coming. Why can they not just be forthright?

Here is what was not smart about the government's first act. The retroactive top-up of the disability award was very bad public policy. Every dollar I had from the treasury, working with Prime Minister Harper at the time, I wanted to go to the moderately to severely injured and their families, those who were struggling. The vast majority of the $2 billion or so the Liberals spent retroactively topping up the lump sum went to people with disability assessments in the 13% range. They spent at least a billion dollars on hearing loss. If they were more forthright, I would know exactly how much. Those funds should have put toward families.

Expand the permanent impairment allowance and give family caregiver benefits to everyone on PIA. That is where I was going. That would be sound policy because those are the people who have had trouble transitioning. Those are the people Talbot Papineau, 100 years ago, said, “it is certainly for us to see that they want for nothing.”

I know veterans with lower level injuries, such as musculoskeletal and hearing. Some of them go on to work on Bay Street, or in government, or are deputy ministers. Do they need the transitional support? Generally, not. Therefore, any funds should go to the ones who need it.

To say I am profoundly disappointed to be having to debate this here today is an understatement. As I stated at the outset, the two things that veterans deserve are honesty and respect. They did not get that.

If the Prime Minister wants to show those things, he should admit he did not understand the cost of his pension promise, instead of suggesting the veteran in Edmonton was asking for too much. The Prime Minister did not know what he promised. That is shameful. He should admit that.

The other thing he should do is meet with the Equitas veterans. They are wonderful people. They have served us. I know a lot of the Liberal MPs have met them and like them. Why is he forcing them to go to the Supreme Court of Canada? I agreed with his promise. Veterans should not have to face off against their government in court. He is making them do that. The lawyers from the Justice Department, who I removed from the case, he reappointed. They went back to their old argument that we had stopped them from making.

This is about owning leadership. Leadership is not just photographs, or as the Prime Minister suggested to the Ethics Commissioner, he is like a networker-in-chief for Canada. He owes it to the veterans of our country to tell them why he has broken his promises on a return to a pension for all injured, and for returning Equitas veterans to court. Until I see responsibility from the Prime Minister and the minister, the Conservatives will continue to fight in this place for those who serve us.

[Foreign Affairs, February 14th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada has been silent on the Iranian protest, which Amnesty International yesterday confirmed has led to thousands being imprisoned. He has been silent on drones and missiles financed by Iran facing our ally Israel. He has been silent even on the death of a Canadian, Professor Seyed-Emami, in an Iranian prison on the weekend.

Instead of silence from the Prime Minister, when can we have him stand up for human rights, for democracy, and for Canadians, instead of cozying up to the Iranian regime?