Erin O'Toole

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague from Foothills for his passionate advocacy in the House. He is one of the hardest working members and one of the by-election club members that a few of us belong to.

I had the privilege of working with some of his constituents years ago as they recovered from the horrible flood in the High River area. His constituents are passionate and hard-working folk.

He mentioned the social safety net. A lot of NDP members in their speeches here today talk about people who have suffered from accidents and a whole range of things. There is a whole range of social safety net programs, including CPP disability, both at the provincial and federal levels, for that. The EI program is about job insurance for long-term jobs that people have lost.

Could the member speak for a moment about how some members are talking about programs that help in other circumstances, that EI should not be the catch-all, and how the number of qualifying hours of work proposed by the NDP would change the system?

[Business of Supply, February 25th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, given that there has been so much reminiscing about a former colleague, Yvon Godin, I say it was good to see former colleague Jeff Watson, the former MP for Essex, who was in town last night. I know he mixed it up on occasion with my friend from Windsor West, but he was a tremendous advocate for working people, particularly in Windsor.

I agree with a couple of the comments by my colleague in the NDP. Certainly the stress of the waiting period and uncertainty related to EI is something that all members of Parliament hear in their offices from people, and if there is a problem, we all like to try to help people access the program.

Where I disagree and where it seems this opposition day motion is really missing the mark is that this program is an insurance program. As the member said, it is their money, but they have to pay into a program to then receive from it. A threshold of 360 hours ends up being only 45 days of work, and that would not be a positive incentive for an insurance program that is to be there for people when they lose a permanent job, people have paid into the insurance program for that purpose.

I would ask the member how it would help our economy and the sustainability of the EI program to have a threshold that is really far too low.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the immigration minister told Canadians that less than half of the Syrian refugees are now in homes. In December, he told the House that we should look to the private sector for solutions for the Liberals' lack of planning to meet their election quotas. For Conservatives, these are people, not numbers or photo ops.

When will the minister come clean and admit that the Liberals did not have a plan in December and they do not have a plan now? How long will he continue to treat refugees as numbers rather than people?

[Nuclear Energy, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to thank the men and women who work in Canada's nuclear energy industry, and to welcome the scientists, researchers, workers, and companies here to Ottawa for their annual meetings.

Many Canadians do not know that $7 billion in economic activity comes from this industry, and there are over 70,000 jobs from coast to coast.

In my riding of Durham, the Darlington generating station produces clean, reliable, and affordable electricity. Combined with the Pickering and the Bruce, it gives Ontario over half of its electricity, greenhouse gas emission-free.

While the new government talks about greenhouse gas reductions a lot, it never mentions the nuclear energy industry and its contribution. Canada was the second country to have controlled nuclear fission. We have high tech and important jobs. It is time for the government to stand up and all Canadians to recognize the role nuclear energy plays in Canada.

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, February 23rd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last fall, the Minister of Immigration travelled to Lebanon to a refugee camp so that, in his own words, he could see the people we were helping with his own eyes. At the Zaatari camp in Jordan, he was joined by his two seatmates, left and right, where they told refugee families that Canada was there to help.

However, last week at the public safety committee, we heard from government officials that virtually none of the 25,000 Syrian refugees came from those camps.

Why has the minister misled Canadians and, more important, why has he offered false hope to those families for the purposes of a photo op?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I am quoting Liberals and now I am agreeing with the NDP. What is happening to me lately?

I can assure the hon. member that, in fact, the Conservative members of the public safety committee have been trying to get the issue of deradicalization on the agenda of that committee. Her NDP colleague will inform her of that and also tell her that each time it has been blocked by the Liberal majority on the committee, even though the minister is giving interviews and talking about setting up a deradicalization coordinator. They took the UN's Ban Ki-moon on a tour through a centre in Montreal. Why should parliamentarians not debate that very important issue as well? The Liberals are blocking it. Once again, the third pillar of the Liberals' plan, clear and transparent debate, is not happening on this issue.

Deradicalization and the terror networks, the use of social media, and these sorts of things need to be examined by parliamentarians, and I hope the government will soon open up and allow all sides of the House to explore important issues facing the safety and security of Canadians.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I noticed my friend made sure to clarify that his riding is Saint John—Rothesay, not “St. John's”. I know in Atlantic Canada it is a big thing. I served on HMCS St. John's, and I am very proud of that time.

I know he was involved with the hockey team there, the Sea Dogs, which had a big Memorial Cup win a few years ago, but I am concerned. This is the second sports analogy I have heard today. I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade use a number of them, saying he was a coach in hockey and soccer. This is not a game. This is an important debate, in which sports analogies do not apply. I have been quoting former leaders to show how Canada has a responsibility.

The member talked about the clear debate and said that Conservatives are confusing the debate. No, we are talking about what the previous government did and what the current government is changing. This debate is being held when it has already withdrawn the CF-18s. How is that a transparent debate? Canada has the ability to play a multi-faceted role—humanitarian assistance, aid, and an active military role—with our allies, just like Kosovo, which the Liberal government promoted and supported without a debate.

We play a role commensurate with our size, abilities, and values. Why has that now changed?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour for me to rise in this House to speak on important national debates, and the threat to Canada posed by ISIS or ISIL is one of those issues facing Canada and facing our Parliament. In fact, this is my fourth speech in the House on this issue, and I divide my time with the hon. member for York—Simcoe.

In the first debate on this issue that the previous government brought to this House, the Prime Minister, who was then the third party leader, laid out four elements that the Liberal Party would consider in deploying the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces.

I have to say at the outset that all members of this House are tremendously proud of the professionalism and dedication to service of our men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is a given, and I am fortunate to have met and spoken with all of them, given my former role and given my 12 years wearing the uniform of our country. I thank the people, even those on their way home, for what they have done. We are all very proud of them, and the debates here in no way diminish the pride of anyone in this House, I would think.

At that time, the Prime Minister, who was then the third party leader, laid out four criteria: first, was there a role to play in the threat; two, was there a clear mission and a clear role; three, was there a clear and transparent debate; and four, how could Canada best help in this international mission.

Let us look at those things. In his speech in this House last week, the Prime Minister said that ISIS is a direct threat to Canadians; and that is when we deploy our military, when there is a threat to Canada or our allies or our values around the world, but in this case the Prime Minister agrees that it is a direct threat to Canadians and we have seen that.

Second, is there a clear mission and role? Yes, there was. The previous government, in conjunction with our allies, brought that clear mission and role to the House. The air strike mission that our six CF-18s have been participating in has been tremendously successful. With our allies we have limited ISIS to about 25% of the territory it once held. We have weakened it and degraded it, and that is why in fact our allies are stepping it up, because there has been success with this clear mission of which Canada was part, until the Prime Minister's election promise pulled us out.

Third is clear and transparent debate. We are failing on that rung as well. The CF-18s are already en route back home. We are still debating this in this Parliament, so it is actually not a transparent debate. The government had already said, originally, that today was to be the last day, February 22, but we learned last week that the final mission was flown and our men and women are on their way back home before we have even finished the debate in this place. The Liberals are not even meeting their own standard. Canadians expect more, and particularly our men and women in uniform, who cannot speak up with respect to their opinion, expect the debate to at least be completed and voted on before we hightail out of a fight our allies are still in.

The fourth pillar was how we can best help. I will spend a few moments on that, because I have heard ridiculous statements in this place that only Canadians are uniquely suited to provide humanitarian aid or training. The United States military would probably train more people in its own armed forces in one year than we could ever possibly train in the next two decades. Our allies in NATO in other countries are equally as professional in the training. We were playing that role before and we will continue to play that role, but suggesting that is the only role Canada is uniquely suited to is disingenuous.

We are also one of the largest per capita aid donors, but we cannot deliver aid until there is stability. That is why military force is required at times, to bring that stability so that humanitarian assistance can reach the people it needs to reach.

We have not had a clear, transparent debate, and we are not helping the way we could. Our men and women of the Royal Canadian Air Force are some of the best pilots and aircrew and technicians in the world. We have a history, from the early days of World War I and Billy Bishop to today, of being some of the best and most professional in the world, and what “most professional” means is that we assess our missions to make sure that strikes are appropriate and that there is minimal collateral damage.

We are able to interoperably work with our allies, namely, the Americans, the British, and some of the other participants. We seamlessly operate with them as members not only of NATO but of our Five Eyes relationship. This is an area where Canada is uniquely suited to play a role to ensure there is no collateral damage or death. I will quote U.S. Marine Corps Brigadier General Tom Weidley, who said this last year, on the Canadian participation. The CF-18 war planes are:

...an absolutely capable platform in this environment. They provide a great deal of flexibility in the ordnance they can carry in order to address different targets. They have a tremendous array of sensors and data sharing capabilities.

We are used to working alongside our allies. Canada is never usually the first nation in, but when our friends or our values are at risk, we are always, or have been in the past, standing alongside our allies and can work with them better than any other nation.

The previous government launched us on a mission of training, aid, and military force with our allies. This debate really is not about increasing the number of trainers. It is not about increasing the amount of aid. I am sure this debate would have come to the House anyway because our previous government set a timeline. We probably would have bumped those numbers up too. This debate rests solely on the decision to withdraw from the active combat role in this mission at a time when our allies are stepping up. That leads me to the subject of my previous three speeches in this place and an essay I wrote online that was called “The World Needs More Canada”.

Our foreign policy since our early days has been to align our interests on the security of our country, threats to our allies, and promotion of values and human rights and security for others around the world. I have quoted so many Liberals lately that some of my colleagues may start questioning my Conservative bona fides. I am using those examples to underscore how this was never a Conservative versus Liberal proposition. This was an essential vote that usually Parliament was unanimous on because it was greater than ourselves.

MacKenzie King said within Canadians there lies a deep-seated “instinct for freedom”.

Lester Pearson said that whether Canadians fire their rifles in Korea or in Germany, they are protecting Canadians just as if they were firing them here at home”. That is what our crews have been doing in their sorties.

I quoted John Manley and his inspirational words after the 9/11 attacks, saying we just need to look to the cemeteries of Europe to see if Canada's history is one of taking an active role.

Today I will continue in that vein and quote a few others.

Lloyd Axworthy last year said how disappointed he was about the then third party leader's position. He said:

You've got to realize that diplomatic niceties are not going to work, humanitarian aid is not going to work if people are going to be shot in their beds.... At times, you have to toughen up.

I hope the Prime Minister is calling Mr. Axworthy, who was our foreign affairs minister during the Kosovo air strikes of 1999.

Last week, I spoke with a Canadian veteran who fought as a CF-18 pilot in those Kosovo missions. I was struck by the fact that in Kosovo, the Liberal mission, we flew 2% of the sorties and we were the fourth- or fifth-largest overall contributor to the air strike mission. What are the numbers over the last year? We flew 2% of the sorties and we were the fourth- or fifth-largest contributor. That is our traditional role.

Art Eggleton, who was minister of defence at that time, said about Kosovo that it “is in every way consistent with our traditional approach to international security threats and the protection of human rights”.

What did their boss, my old legal colleague, former prime minister Chrétien, say about the Kosovo air strike mission? He said in this place:

We have entered into the campaign to stop President Milosevic and the ethnic cleansing, raping and murdering that are going on.

However, we are a member of a team and as a member of a team we have agreed on a strategy that the best way to...resolve...[this] was to have air strikes. That is what is going on....

The final quote is from the now Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, who said in 2002:

So what does sovereignty mean in this context [of being minister of defence]? It means that our government must be able to deploy forces overseas to reflect Canadian priorities and values, to help Canada achieve its foreign policy objectives....

Those objectives have been sound throughout our history until this debate. I hope the government sees the light.

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my friend and colleague for her passionate remarks and her almost two decades of advocacy in this place for the men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces and, particularly, the base and military family community in Petawawa. There is no greater champion than that member of Parliament.

She also has a unique role, having done a lot of work internationally as a NATO parliamentarian. So, my question for the member would be related to her experience internationally.

Our participation in NATO was forged in Canada's active participation and sacrifice in World War II. What do our NATO allies really feel when Canada pulls back, as she said, like we did in the mid-nineties in the decade of darkness, and like we are doing now, withdrawing our active combat role fighting ISIS? What do our allies really feel about the absence of a traditional Canadian part?

[Business of Supply, February 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Vancouver Kingsway for talking about racism. Canada has to learn from our past. I am an Irish-Canadian. Probably the first group to be discriminated against was the Irish: “No Irish need apply”. Then we saw it with Ukrainians, Japanese, Italians and Sikhs. We have seen discrimination, and that is something we should all condemn, which is sort of the language of the motion.

However, with the BDS movement, we see groups that really want to promote hate dressing it up. We saw similar efforts to tarnish the gay pride parade in Toronto by entering a float related to attacking the State of Israel. It had nothing to do with celebrating diversity, and the parade was about that. These groups are trying to use legitimate organizations, or covers, to promote their underlying objective, which is anti-Semitism and a rejection of the right of the State of Israel to exist. We should call these things what they are.

We have a tolerant and open society. People can have opinions on a whole range of things, and that is encouraged. However, when it is creeping into hate and discrimination, and we do not go so far in the motion to do anything like banning it, as some in the NDP suggest, it is a responsibility of parliamentarians to condemn a conduct that is fuelled at anti-Semitism and rejection of our ally.