Erin O'Toole

[Nichola Goddard, October 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, this morning in Cobourg, Ontario there was a small but poignant ceremony alongside the Highway of Heroes. A bridge on the highway was named in honour of Captain Nichola Goddard who gave her life serving Canada in Afghanistan in 2006.

Nicknamed Care Bear by some or Nic by her comrades, Nichola was destined to serve in the uniform of the Canadian Armed Forces and also as a Scout leader, mentoring young people. She grew up in many parts of our great country before joining the military, graduating from the Royal Military College and serving with the RCHA.

Sadly, Nichola was our 16th casualty in the Afghanistan war, and she was the first female Canadian soldier to die in combat. Her legacy lives across our great country, and now a part of our Highway of Heroes bears her name.

I want to thank the True Patriot Love Foundation, John Carswell and Canso Funds, and especially her family and friends for ensuring we preserve the memory of this extraordinary Canadian.

[Canadian Jewish Heritage Month Act, October 3rd, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to rise today to discuss Bill S-232 respecting Jewish heritage month. I want to recognize the work of my friend the member of Parliament for York Centre and Senator Frum for her work with respect to bringing this to Parliament to recognize Jewish heritage month and, more specifically, to recognize the important contributions that Jewish Canadians have made to Canada's social, economic, political, and cultural fabric, and to remember, celebrate, and educate Canadians about that contribution.

One might ask why an Irish Catholic MP from Ontario is rising on this. It is because throughout my own life, and certainly in my passion for political life in really all my adult life, I have seen first-hand the critical contributions of Jewish Canadians to the Canada we all enjoy today. Therefore, I will speak to that, much like my father John O'Toole who, as an MPP in the Ontario legislature, introduced a bill to recognize Irish Heritage Day. I think the fabric, the tapestry, of Canada is made better when we celebrate and acknowledge what produced it, which is a cross-section of people who have come here for the tremendous opportunity that Canada represents: the opportunity for them or their children to form critical parts of our political, cultural, and social history. Therefore, I want to congratulate my friend from across the way and my good friend from the Senate for bringing this today.

I also want to recognize a very important person in my life, my late uncle, Paul Goodman, for educating me on Jewish traditions, for allowing me to join them for Passover and a number of special celebrations in the community, and for being my first relative to really challenge me to think about the world and Canada's place in it. I am thinking of him as I stand here today, and my Aunt Jane, who remains a very important part of my life.

I think all parliamentarians have to have a great respect for Herb Gray, the first Jewish cabinet minister from the Liberal Party, who became a cabinet member in 1969 and by the time he left Parliament was the longest-serving parliamentarian. The “Gray fog”, as someone reminded us, was very effective at dispersing any criticism of the Chrétien government because he would get up and just dispel the Gray fog to much effect. I had the personal privilege of helping organize a dinner in Toronto a decade ago with the Churchill Society for the Advancement of Parliamentary Democracy to celebrate him as our Churchill award winner for his tremendous contributions to our parliamentary democracy. I think his impact is still felt in this place. I am sure I can say that my friend from York Centre probably draws some inspiration from the life of Mr. Gray.

This is how it has impacted the Irish Catholic kid from southern Ontario. At that dinner I got to meet a hero of mine, Mr. Barney Danson, who was the first Jewish defence minister in Canadian history, very appropriately so as he was a veteran of the Normandy landings and fought with the Queen's Own Rifles of Canada, our oldest regiment in continuous service. I just happened to be in its armouries last week as part of the Invictus Games. To have storied veterans like Mr. Danson serve with that regiment I think makes it and our country better. Like many veterans from World War II, he returned to Canada injured, with loss of vision in one eye. However, one did not see that impact his business career or certainly his remarkable public service as an MP or as a defence minister who understood the file from having worn the uniform of his country.

As a Conservative MP, it is important for me to say how proud I am that two parliamentarians, Senator Frum and the member of Parliament for York Centre, are bringing this forward, because the history of the Jewish community, like that of all Canadians, is not confined to the Liberal, PC, Conservative, or NDP parties.

I had the honour of meeting Larry Grossman before he died far too young, an MPP in the Ontario legislature and the first Jewish leader of the PC Party of Ontario. He assumed that mantle in 1985.

Of course, our Parliament saw David Lewis, leader of the New Democratic Party in 1971.

Last week, I joined many from the business community at the launch of Nuit Blanche at Toronto City Hall. Where did we see that exhibit? It was in Nathan Phillips Square, the namesake for a very important civic leader from Toronto, Mr. Nathan Phillips, a Jewish mayor of that city.

Also, I am very proud to say in the House that the first leadership vote I cast as a young PC, while still in the military, was for my friend Hugh Segal. He was not successful in his leadership bid, kind of like I was not successful most recently. However, he ran with honour and integrity, and with ideas for the future of the country. I was proud Prime Minister Martin later appointed him as a Conservative senator to our upper house.

We need only look at the wonderful investiture of our new Governor General yesterday to see how the arts community in Canada and around the world reverberate. Perhaps my favourite part was the spectacular rendition of Hallelujah, by Leonard Cohen, someone from the Montreal Jewish community.

My previous experience with that song was hearing it sung at the opening of the Vancouver Olympics. It is now one of the most iconic and covered songs in the world, with its origins in Montreal.

Also out of Montreal, another contributor to the arts community, one of my favourite actors, is William Shatner. We were investing an astronaut as our Governor General. Who was the first space traveller we all looked to but Canada's own William Shatner.

I remembered when preparing this speech, my sendoff to my friend Arnold Chan, who passed and left us, was an exchange between Mr. Nimoy and Mr. Shatner and his famous Star Trek line, “I have been, and always shall be, your friend.” I was glad to see the Prime Minister also used it when he eulogized our friend Arnold.

Certainly, that iconic friendship was from a Canadian Jewish actor and an American Jewish actor. It resonates with me still to this day.

How else has it affected me? The tremendous business success that some members of the Jewish community have enjoyed has often led to outstanding, in fact trail blazing, philanthropy.

I am a graduate of the Schulich School of Law, the Dalhousie University law school. That is just one of five schools Mr. Schulich has endowed to ensure we educate Canadians, be they here for many years or a few weeks, to give them the tremendous opportunities many Jewish immigrants had when they came to Canada, to have success in our country.

Indeed, culturally, politically, from a philanthropic and business standpoint, we cannot look around modern Canada and not see the tremendous impact of Jewish Canadians on our country. That is why I am so happy my friends have brought Bill S-232 to this place to ensure we mark each year with a month for Jewish heritage.

My friends have have said this is a celebration, but it is also important to remember and educate. Those are critical. I applaud, as my colleagues did today, the Minister of Heritage who said in this place that the Liberals would rectify the designation at the Holocaust memorial.

I was proud, alongside my friend from York Centre and others, to condemn the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in the House, in which members of Parliament can try to show the creeping edge of anti-Semitism. If we look at recent statistics, it is still the Jewish community and anti-Semitism that ranks as the highest hate crime in Canada.

Therefore, as we honour, remember, and celebrate, let us also educate. It is important for Canadians to realize that this form of discrimination, anti-Semitism exclusion, can still creep into our society. It must be called out when we see it. Parliamentarians have a special duty in that regard for all types of intolerance.

Reading the newspaper, I learned that the Prime Minister may honour and remember the merchant ship St. Louis. We must remember that terrible episode from our past, from the one is too many era, where we denied 900 Jews fleeing Europe at a time we should have opened up to protect them.

We have much to celebrate. I have tried to touch on this, but as my friends have said, celebrate, remember, and educate. I am very glad we will be able to do that each year as Canadians, whether Jewish or Irish, to celebrate the tremendous contribution of Jewish Canadians.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, my most poignant connection to this issue was when I was with my friend from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman and MLA Jon Reyes in Winnipeg, where we met small business owners from the Filipino Canadian community.

There was a woman there with three children, who had started her own physiotherapist practice. She is heavily leveraged because, like any smart entrepreneur, she bought the building she is in. She is leveraged to the hilt, and she volunteers with her church and community, and she is now going to volunteer with the Canadian Armed Forces reserves. This person is not a tax cheat. This type of person is the bedrock of our community whom we should be supporting. We should be applauding her risk-taking while raising a family and giving back to her community. These are the types of people they are stymying. At a minimum, let us hear them out.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Now he seems to forget that, Madam Speaker. All we are asking is that the Canadians who are emailing and phoning the Minister of Finance get at least a few more weeks to receive the apologies of their MPs for this tax plan.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, in response to the member's raising of the issue of tax fairness, I will quote what his colleague, the MP for Whitby, said about the Liberal government's approach to tax changes. In an email to probably hundreds of entrepreneurs, she said, “Let me start by apologizing to each and every entrepreneur, small business owner, physician, and constituent in the Town of Whitby for the tone and the language that was used during the roll-out of these proposals.”

The rhetoric of my friend from Winnipeg in this place is legendary, but when he has one or two dozen members of his own caucus disagreeing that this is about tax fairness, apologizing to entrepreneurs, farmers, and to employers for the tone used by the Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, that should be the signal to the deputy House leader of that party that consultation should be extended.

I remember that when that member was in the third party and there were a time allocation motion speeding things up, he called it “an assault on democracy”.

[Business of Supply, October 3rd, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise with my colleagues in the Conservative caucus today to point out the hypocrisy of the government when it comes to the changes it is making to how small businesses in Canada are taxed.

Our opposition motion is calling for the consultations to be extended, because of the outrage we are hearing from farmers, small businesses, tech start-ups, and entrepreneurs and their employees across the country. We have been talking about some of the farming families and small business owners affected by these changes, who are outraged, but there are hundreds of thousands of employees who are also caught by these changes as well.

The consultations need to be extended because of the subterfuge by the government on the issue. Announcing the most comprehensive changes to how our CCPCs, small private corporations, are taxed in a generation in the dead of summer when the consultation period would end only a few weeks into the House of Commons' sitting is shameful. For a government that came in on a platform of open and transparent governance, to do this in the midst of the summer was outrageous. That is certainly why we are hearing the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, chambers of commerce, and Liberal members of Parliament agreeing that it is outrageous.

At a bare minimum, I would like to see the hon. member from Toronto, the finance minister, extend the consultation period to at least allow those people who are very fearful of these changes to be heard. He started a call list a few weeks ago, and called one or two farmers. However, now that other people have been calling him, the finance minister has been leaving them hanging.

We have seen the staged consultation round tables, where the finance minister repeats his talking points in the midst of rooms where people are emotional, because they feel they are under attack by a government that is claiming, or setting up this debate to suggest, that they are not paying their fair share.

This finance minister and Prime Minister owe it to Canadians to at least hear them out. I think this is a modest request by the opposition today, and I hope that some members of the government caucus will see the extension of consultations as such.

We remember the big walk up to Rideau Hall, but in the two years since then, what has the government, with all its openness and transparency, done in that time?

It has raised taxes more than any government in the history of our country: an income tax increase; a small business tax increase with the end of the phased-in reduction for small business to 9%, which it had promised to maintain, as the MP for Carleton raised in the House of Commons today; a CPP payroll tax increase that taxes employers; changes to tax-free savings accounts, which many Canadians have relied on in their own tax planning for their future; and beer and wine taxes, so that if people have to drown their sorrows in the age of Liberal tax increases, the government is taxing them too; and a tax on ride sharing via an Uber tax; and now the CCPC small business tax changes.

That is seven substantial tax increases in less than two years. In the Canada of this Prime Minister, if something moves, it gets taxed. In fact, the rate of tax increases and the creation of new taxes is truly astounding. It is the centrepiece of the government. While it is breaking dozens of promises from electoral reform to support for our military, the one thing the government has not stopped is raising taxes.

What concerns me, as someone who worked in the private sector and with entrepreneurs, the engine of growth in our economy, is the way the government is framing this debate. I have never seen such a divisive approach to taxation and relations within our country when it comes to the government's suggestion that small business owners and farmers are somehow tax evaders. I was writing an essay a few weeks ago on this and the most common two-word phrase the Prime Minister uses is “wealthiest 1%”. When I researched this some time ago, he had used that phrase 65 times as Prime Minister, a phrase that is only surpassed by his most common expression, “the middle class and those working hard to join it”. I know, Madam Speaker, you probably join us in groaning when we hear the use of that term in the House, but why is he juxtaposing those things with each other and now bringing farmers and small businesses into it?

The Prime Minister is suggesting to Canadians that there are people who are not contributing. He is suggesting that the small business owner, the entrepreneur, the tech start-up, or the sixth generation farming family are somehow making things harder for middle-class Canadians. That is shameful. We have a progressive tax system in Canada that has long ensured that people making more will pay more and that those consuming more will pay more because of the GST. The Harper government cut the GST because it impacted lower-income people the most, so it was reduced.

I neglected to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Perth—Wellington. I got so passionate that I left that out at the beginning of my speech.

One can see that the Prime Minister is juxtaposing the people who he is claiming are causing the middle class to be held back, when in reality a lot of middle-class Canadians are employed by these same people, such as the manufacturers in my riding of Durham, the tech start-ups that I visited in Waterloo, and the farming families and processing businesses related to it. This is whom he is attacking. I have never seen such an approach in Canada, and it is shameful the way the government is framing it and limiting debate when proposing to make the most substantive changes to the small business tax rate in a generation.

The issue is that there is no revenue problem in Canada. We should not be raising taxes at all. The government and the Prime Minister have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. In fact, in 2015-16, there was almost $300 billion in revenue. When the Harper government had to run a deficit in the midst of the biggest global recession since the 1930s, revenues were $233 billion. If it had had the revenues the government now has, there would have been no deficit. That is a difference of over $60 billion, but the problem is that the Prime Minister is spending more than the government is bringing in. It is bringing in more, but it keeps spending more.

When the Liberals asked Canadians for their trust in 2015 and promised that they would never run a deficit of more than $10 billion, they broke that promise in a few months. They cannot even get a deficit under $20 billion, and most of the money has not gone to infrastructure, as they like to suggest it has to Canadians. It is just over-spending. Why do they think they can get away with that? It is because, as I said, they have raised taxes seven times in under two years, and now they are targeting entrepreneurs and businesses, our employers.

What the finance minister does not tell the middle class and those working hard to join it is that entrepreneurs do not have EI, do not have maternity leave, do not have pensions, and do not have paid holidays. They are employing people in our communities and saving for their future. Female physicians are making sure they have enough to provide for their families while they take care of their own maternity leave. I am glad that a doctor in B.C. informed the Prime Minister of this, who is making tax changes while admitting that he does not even understand how they will impact the people he serves.

The Conservatives have a modest proposal: let us extend the consultations. This opposition day motion is not asking to shut down the whole thing like thousands of Canadians are asking. The Liberals should at least have the dignity to hear Canadians out.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of questions for her in relation to an emergency debate.

I think we have been united in our concern for the tragedy taking place in Myanmar. We are debating that. We are educating Canadians who are following this debate. Does the member not agree that if we feel as parliamentarians that the government could do more, that is what a debate is? This is not just to all agree and point out the issues. This is to ask if we can do more.

I think there is goodwill on all sides. In that vein, I would like to ask the member, who often seems reticent to criticize the government, a question. We agree that aid has been good. There have been some very good, passionate pleas from Liberal members here tonight. However, does the member not find it unusual that last week when the Prime Minister spoke at the United Nations General Assembly, he did not mention the plight of the Rohingya?

To me, that is somewhere we could go further to advance this debate when our Prime Minister has the world stage. Could we not also propose, as the member for Windsor—Tecumseh did, a Liberal commitment to a UN mission of some sort? Could we push toward international consensus to perhaps allow a mission like that to let civil society and NGO organizations into the country, which she is advocating?

In an emergency debate like this, is it fair to suggest there are ways we could do more as a Parliament?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills for her work on this issue in the human rights subcommittee. She should be commended for being one of the early voices, along with my colleague and deputy critic, in raising the plight of the Rohingya.

My question is based on her comments that we cannot be silent. She mentioned that the Human Rights Council of the United Nations could be tasked with looking at this issue. She suggested that perhaps the Security Council could as well.

I have two questions.

First, was the member disappointed that in his speech to the General Assembly, the Prime Minister was silent on this specific issue, at a gathering where the very nations of the General Assembly gather to discuss issues of concern?

My second question relates to the Office of Religious Freedom. As I mentioned in my speech, in May 2015, Ambassador Bennett specifically raised the case of the Rohingya. In fact, it was my first real familiarity with how persecuted this minority population had been in Myanmar. That office has since been closed. It has been replaced with something else. Could the member assure the House that the new office is at least tracking and looking at these violations of the basic human rights of the Muslim population in Myanmar?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Windsor—Tecumseh for her detailed and thoughtful remarks tonight and the clarion call near the end of her speech for global leadership. I agree with large portions of that part of her speech.

I have a twofold question for her. First, does she think global leadership means, to quote a parliamentary secretary in the debate tonight, a terse letter being written to the head of government in Myanmar, or would it have been a better opportunity for Canada to have publicly raised concerns about the Rohingya at the UN General Assembly?

Second, the member had some detailed remarks on UN peacekeeping. The government does have an outstanding commitment to deploy 600 peacekeepers, but it has to indicate where that will be. It will be hosting a global or multi-country summit on peacekeeping. Does the member feel that this situation in Myanmar could be an opportunity for Canada to offer to deploy peacekeepers there? Does she think Myanmar might be the solution and that the government should announce this while hosting the summit?

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend from Parkdale—High Park for his experience as a war-crimes prosecutor and his Canadian experience as a Somali Canadian who came to this country for religious freedom and the opportunity we provided when a minority was being attacked. His family and the family of my best friend, Riyaz Lalani, have made Canada a better place.

What is Canada's opportunity or potential here? When the Aga Khan addressed our Parliament, he said that cosmopolitan, civil societies like Canada can be “voices of hope for people living in fear”. I agree. Canada's responsibility is to be that voice of hope.

The member mentioned the terse letter that the Prime Minister wrote to State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi of Myanmar, but should there not be a voice of hope at the United Nations? Should not Canada be using our privileged platform to do more than just write terse letters? Can the member tell the House that he will push the minister and the Prime Minister to make sure that religious freedom and particularly the plight of the Rohingya people get more attention in the Prime Minister's trips and speeches overseas?