Erin O'Toole

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, the simple answer is yes. That office was structured to provide support for the government and to point out the plight of people.

I will end with this. The rally cry of the Prime Minister following his election was that Canada is back. There is an absence of Canada when our leader does not even mention this at the United Nations General Assembly. There is an absence of Canada when we close down and shutter an office that was meant to speak up when people are being oppressed. I hope that a lot of Liberal MPs who I know care about this issue will push the government on it and push this new office to take up the work where Ambassador Bennett left off.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I applaud the government on its pronouncement of aid. I applaud the minister for speaking so clearly on the plight of the Rohingya. I compliment the Prime Minister on his letter to Aung San Suu Kyi.

The challenge is this. I do expect the Prime Minister of Canada not to just have meetings in the margins of the United Nations General Assembly. Rather, I expect him to use the privileged platform of that general assembly to raise a few areas of the world where Canada and Canadians have concerns. Myanmar is one of those. As the critic for foreign affairs, my concern is that the Prime Minister's desire to have a temporary seat on the Security Council may mean that Canada has been more silent on these issues than normal. I hope that is not the case. However, the fact that the Prime Minister did not mention a single foreign affairs issue of concern at the UN General Assembly has me concerned that the pursuit of that seat could mean that Canada is a bit more silent on issues when it comes to the persecution of peoples around the world. If we add to that the fact that the Prime Minister cancelled the Office of Religious Freedom, which was just starting to take up the case of the Rohingya, it means he will have to prove to us that his intentions go beyond just sending some letters.

[Situation in Myanmar, September 26th, 2017]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank all participants in this emergency debate tonight. I would like to thank my colleague from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston for his submissions. In particular, I would like to thank my friend and deputy critic, the member of parliament for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for bringing this emergency debate to the floor of the House of Commons.

In the last few weeks and months, a lot of Canadians have probably learned a lot about Myanmar and the plight of the Rohingya people. That is part of what our mandate as parliamentarians should be. Our comfort in Canada, our remarkable freedoms, are often displaced from those suffering. Parliament can be used to bring the plight of some of these people to light.

I would like to comment on what the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan did. He did not just bring the debate here this week, after several weeks of front page coverage in The Globe and Mail and other sources. The first time he advocated in the House for the Rohingya was March 2016. That is an important note to raise. I know some of my other colleagues in the House, particularly those on the Subcommittee on International Human Rights, have been raising the plight of these people for some time. A tragic situation has gone from dislocation and profound discrimination to death, dislocation and, as we have heard in this debate tonight, to ethnic cleansing and extreme violence.

I will use my portion of time to in the debate, in part as the shadow cabinet member for the opposition for foreign affairs, to talk about why we should be helping the Rohingya of Myanmar. They are a religious minority in that country. They make up approximately 1.1 million in a country of 53 million. They are a Muslim minority population confined largely to the Rakhine province of the country that borders southeastern Bangladesh. That is why we have heard so much about refugee and dislocation into that country. People have been fleeing persecution and violence, trying to escape what appears to be a sustained effort by the government to suppress a people, a religious minority.

Going back several years to date, approximately half a million people have been displaced either on a semi-permanent or permanent basis, including tens of thousands in camps run by the government, and almost entirely made up a minority Muslim population. It is not confined to poverty or areas within the province. It is clearly defined to an identifiable minority group. That is what leads to the concern.

It is hard to get verified reports. I know my colleagues have been working on this. Thousands have been killed or are missing. We have seen reports of 3,000 to 10,000, but it is easy to say that thousands have been killed, displaced, or are missing. Then of course the terrible crimes against humanity, including rape as a weapon, have been engaged as well.

This week in the House we heard the minister raise the term “ethnic cleansing”. We have heard the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees use the same language. My friend from Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston suggested that “genocide” was the better term. Regardless of the term, Canadians should be shocked and deeply concerned by what is happening to a religious minority people, particularly in a country that has as its State Counsellor one of five recipients of honorary Canadian citizenship.

I hope with this debate that Aung San Suu Kyi can see Canadians and Canada united are calling for intervention and a succession to this displacement and ethnic cleansing that appears to be going on with respect to an identifiable minority religion in that country.

It troubled me that this figure of the world, Nobel laureate, and honorary citizen did not appear at the UN General Assembly last week. Rather, she sent a note. I will quote from the diplomatic letter, which states:

There has been much concern around the world with regard to the situation in Rakhine. It is not the intention of the Myanmar government to apportion blame or to abnegate responsibility. We condemn all human rights violations and unlawful violence. We are committed to the restoration of peace, stability and rule of law throughout the state.

That is not happening. Those are empty words if a State Counsellor cannot control the military and the machinery of a government that has clearly been involved in targeting a minority population, and not just in the last few weeks, when a lot of Canadians have been attuned to the issue.

I will point to a report, on an office the government cancelled, on the great work done by ambassador Andrew Bennett, the former ambassador for religious freedom. The headline from CTV online, in May 2015, is entitled, “Canada's religious freedom envoy denounces treatment of Rohingya Muslims”. That was the first time I became aware of this profound state of long-standing discrimination, where over a million people in that country are not granted the same rights that others in Myanmar are granted. Mr. Bennett began advocating for that religious minority population back in the final months of his mandate.

What is great about Mr. Bennett is that last month he was still writing editorial opinions challenging Canadians, and challenging the world, to take the plight of the Rohingya seriously. All Canadians, including the Liberals in this House, should be concerned that the office was cancelled by the government, an office that was meant to defend the defenceless, an office that was beginning to raise the plight of the Rohingya before the former minister Stéphane Dion turned the lights out.

I am glad that we are asking some questions, because I have been looking for this new Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. Remember that the government said that it was not just closing the office of religious freedom but was expanding it. However, there has been absolute silence from this quasi-office of Global Affairs Canada.

Who else was silent? Canada's Prime Minister was last week at the UN General Assembly, where the plight of the Rohingya was not mentioned.

As my friends in this place know, I think there are times when we can work together, such as in this debate. However, I dislike the fact that this non-partisan, specialized, ambassador-level office, which was meant to fight for religious minorities, was cancelled out of petty politics. It is refreshing that an ambassador who was politically let go is still advocating for the Rohingya. I hear more from Andrew Bennett the citizen than I do from this Office of Human Rights, Freedoms and Inclusion. That has to change.

I think the Prime Minister had an opportunity at the UN General Assembly, with his second appearance as the Prime Minister in the mid-part of his term, to use some of his goodwill, which the Liberals love to talk about, as leverage to show Canada's role as a traditional leader of middle powers.

I am refreshed by the fact that Rohingya who have come to Canada for the safety and security we offer have been emailing me, and I want to thank them. Before coming here, I read the latest letter from Syed Hussaini, who has challenged the government and all parliamentarians to work together to have matching funds, to accelerate refugees, and to provide technical assistance, and a number of other smart recommendations, but also to call for change.

Canada should leverage the aid Global Affairs Canada provides. We should leverage and push our honorary citizen to not just send diplomatic notes to the UN General Assembly but to make assurances that ethnic cleansing or the targeting of a religious minority population in Myanmar comes to an end. That is what the Parliament of Canada can do. It can educate our fellow citizens on the plight of the oppressed and then serve as the leader of a middle power to try to help those in need.

[Venezuela, September 26th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to stand today in debate on Motion No. 128, following great speeches on both sides of the chamber on an important issue that should and does bring all parties together.

I want to particularly compliment my colleague the MP for Calgary Nose Hill, who spoke on this issue and has advocated for it and, of course, my friend, colleague, and seatmate, the MP for Thornhill, who has long been an advocate for the oppressed around the world. He has seen it first-hand, in his career both as a journalist and as a parliamentarian. He uses the privilege we have in this place to bring forward the cause of people that most Canadians will not be able to see or encounter first-hand. As parliamentarians, we have an obligation, especially in Canada, one of the most free, diverse, and wealthy nations of the world to point out where there is abuse and suffering. This is why we are here today on Motion No. 128.

In fact, the motion's title is the official recognition of the suffering of the people of Venezuela. I think all parliamentarians have heard from the diaspora of Venezuelan Canadians who are greatly concerned about family members still there, about the tragedy, the corruption, and the loss of life, which has been staggering since 1999.

What makes it a true tragedy is that Venezuela is a country of immense potential. It is rich in so many ways, starting with its people, but of course extending to resources, agriculture, and the ability to produce and trade with the world, which that country was doing.

Parliamentarians need not go far from here to see the statue in Ottawa of Simón Bolivar, the big liberator of that part of the world. He helped establish the independence of Venezuela in 1830. The government of Venezuela dedicated that statue to its friendship with Canada in 1988. Many of us have seen that statue not far from here, down Wellington Street.

How sad that things have changed from 1988 to today, and how unfortunate that the sad situation of the plight facing the Venezuelan people did not make the Prime Minister's speech at the UN last week. There is a lot to speak on, and he did speak of challenges we have here inherently in Canada, but that general assembly is an opportunity to point out areas of the world that need global attention and global pressure to make sure that the oppression, corruption, and denigration of a people and a country will stop.

We need only look back to the start of the regime of Hugo Chávez in 1999. He had previously been a mercenary and someone trying to bring a coup forward in that country, and was able to form government. The dictatorial leanings of that person showed through immediately. Institutions started being eroded and filled with his cronies from his revolution. The constitution was changed to allow him to further his own personal interests, to suppress democratic debate, and to really crush his opposition. He then began to nationalize businesses and the economy in a way that has really seen the potential of that great country squandered through neglect, corruption, and evil in many ways. We should call it what it is.

We saw a rich, oil-producing country for a few years able to use the wealth that was created on a nationalized basis, but when the United Socialist Party of Venezuela took over a lot of levers on the economy, as we saw the economy falter, we saw hunger increase. As we saw foreign investment to that country dry up, we saw inflation begin to rise. As we saw a once strong quality of life and earning potential for that part of the world start to decline, we saw the rise of murders, crime, and the disappearing of opposition people. These are all hallmarks of a brutal regime that was intent on enforcing its will, suppressing dissent, and creating a corrupt state. It truly is a tragedy of epic proportions.

A stunning memory I have of our Canada 150 year was the day after Canada Day, when I took my children and a few of their cousins to WE Day on the Hill. I was coming down before the festivities began to see how we could get on to the Hill, and I ran into a family of Venezuelan Canadians wearing their proud Canadian gear. They recognized me and they asked me what Canada is doing to help the people of Venezuela. It struck me. We were on the lawn and about to celebrate the amazing parliamentary democracy we have here in Canada, the immense wealth, the immense opportunity, and this family, who was visiting from outside Ottawa, Canadians now, festooned in Canada 150 gear, wanted to talk first about how a parliamentarian could help their family back in Venezuela. This family is worried, because when the Chávez regime ended, it was picked up in 2013 by his lieutenant, his right-hand man, Nicolás Maduro. The Maduro regime has continued its corrupt and destructive path for those people. This family that stopped me on the Hill knew that Canada welcomed it and many others, both as immigrants and refugees, but wanted to know what Canada is doing to apply pressure.

I am proud to say that, in the last government and in this current government with some of its recent moves, we are trying to apply that pressure through the Organization of American States, with debates like this that my friend from Thornhill brought to Parliament, and by the sanctions announced by the minister last Friday with respect to freezing assets of people related to the regime. I want to see that continue, and there are a number of key ways we can see that continue now.

First is the debate we are having today on Motion No. 128. Second, and my friend from Etobicoke who spoke just before me supports this suggestion, is a rapid passage of the Magnitsky Act, which is a tool that would allow this pressure to continue on corrupt regimes by freezing their assets, by doing what the international community should be doing, which is calling out the despotic rule of the Maduro regime, freezing its assets, trying to root out corruption, and showing our support for opposition leaders who in some cases are being detained and imprisoned. This motion starts the debate today. I would like to see quick passage of the Magnitsky Act.

I saw first-hand, when I worked for Procter & Gamble in Canada, how even a lot of the companies in Venezuela have been slowly moving operations from that country—companies like General Mills, Colgate, Pepsi, Ford, and others. It is not just the oil nationalization that started ruining the economy. The nationalization of the economy led to investment fleeing that country, to talent fleeing that country. Let us not lose sight of the fact that there is potential to bring that back if we see democracy in the future.

I will end by moving an amendment, seconded by the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. I move:

That the motion be amended by replacing the word “referendum” with “election”.

[International Trade, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the minister. I am proud to shadow her.

This is the third round of negotiations, and I am not at the table, so I have to see what the government is saying in public. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister stand up for our auto industry. I have yet to hear our Prime Minister stand up for our softwood lumber industry. I have yet to hear the Prime Minister stand up for jobs in our resource sector. It is time for the Prime Minister to pull up his fancy socks and start fighting for Canadian interests.

[International Trade, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is creating a crisis of confidence. Tax changes have small businesses up in arms, farmers are worried, and tech start-ups may see capital dry up. Now, with NAFTA negotiations, the government has not even placed the auto industry as a top priority, and 140,000 jobs are at risk. When will the Liberal government start fighting for jobs in Canada rather than driving them away?

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hate interrupting my friend in full rhetorical flight, but he is referring to the Liberal leader's Bill C-613 in the last Parliament and suggests that it was about proactive disclosure. He has been saying this in the House, when the bill, which I quoted in my speech, does not take that approach--

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan. Normally we would bring modernization forward in such a way as to see the improvements that are recommended either by officers of Parliament, such as Madam Legault and others, or by aspirational politicians of the past, such as the member of Parliament for Papineau when he was in opposition and wanted to see far more from government. Now he is not fulfilling that.

I would also direct my friend to an interesting comment. I quoted at length my friend from Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, who was the democratic reform critic in the last Parliament, when the Liberals were the third party. He also suggested in question period to my friend from Muskoka, who was the minister at the time, that salaries and full contract details for members of the Prime Minister's Office should be disclosed. I would like the member from Newfoundland to go to the PMO and suggest to the senior officials that full details on salaries, contracts, and the email correspondence should be accessible under access to information, because certainly that is what the Prime Minister sought as modernization through his bill, Bill C-613. It is also what the member from Newfoundland asked the Conservative government to do with respect to open government. I hope the modernization my friend asked about, the aspirations of the Liberals when they were in opposition, will slowly start meeting the reality of the Liberals in government.

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, when we are giving our speeches or asking questions or making comments here, we all focus on elements of our own past. I quoted the Information Commissioner and how she responded to how the government had responded to her recommendations. She said, “I am very please that most of these recommendations over the years have been implemented by the government.” I know that the member was not in the previous Parliament. However, she can refer to Madam Legault's comments.

Did the Conservative government do all of what was in Bill C-613, or in Pat Martin's private member's bill? No, it did not. I remember debating Pat Martin about one of his versions of the bill and suggesting that he bring the same disclosure he aspired to in government to his legal defence fund. Members might remember that from the last Parliament. He actually had unions contribute in a roundabout way, which I felt went around the rules for fundraising, to pay some of the bills for a libel action he had. I remember that debate. To his credit, Pat Martin did bring it regularly.

However, what I am highlighting today is the acute hypocrisy of the Prime Minister, because not only did we all see it in the “Real Change” document, and we have all referred to the Liberals' promise, but he brought a private member's bill forward in the last Parliament as the member of Parliament for Papineau. Just as we all bring bills or motions forward on areas we care the most about, that is what the Prime Minister said he cared the most about.

As I said, if we compare Bill C-58 to what he brought forward in Bill C-613 in the last Parliament, one cannot even recognize it. Certainly, at an absolute minimum, of the 31 broken promises, I think we all would agree that with respect to the Prime Minister's Office and all the cabinet offices, this is the most egregious of the broken promises. I am highlighting, based on my experience here in Parliament, where I think this falls short the most.

[Access to Information Act, September 25th, 2017]

My colleague is right, Mr. Speaker. Opposition members of Parliament, of course.

Maybe we charge more for access to information requests from commercial enterprises that might be preparing to do a merger or are preparing due diligence documents for a deal. Lawyers and accountants are billing hundreds of dollars per hour and the Government of Canada is charging them $5 for something that costs at least $1,300 to do. That approach would be far superior from what we see.

The broad language in the bill right now further erodes the grandstanding promises made by the Prime Minister in the last Parliament and in the election.