Erin O'Toole

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her passionate remarks here tonight and for the question.

As I have mentioned, and my colleague from Newmarket—Aurora also mentioned, Canada has strong leadership in our support for funding to end child and early forced marriage. That relates in one way to what is going on here. Really, it is the terror of the kidnapping and the coercion involved in this case that needs to end, and really, the perversion of a faith in the process that I tried to also address in my remarks and how Canada can bring our respected approach to diversity and pluralism as we go forward and talk about these important subjects.

The challenge for this region and the challenge for civilized countries trying to address global terror networks, whether it is al Qaeda or Boko Haram, which is an al Qaeda affiliate, but is probably centred mainly in Nigeria, but is in Niger, Chad, and Cameroon. We have to have a global response working with our allies, but also working with countries in the Maghreb in Africa to make sure there is a coordination and to make sure that they just do not go on to a failed state and regroup. We really have to have a coordinated global response.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, certainly as someone who served in the Canadian Forces, the initial reaction as a father and a former military person is to send in special forces, send in JTF2. We need to get these girls back. That is the gut reaction.

We have to work with Nigeria to see how Canada can offer our assistance best, recognizing the sovereign territory of that country and trying to work with them and our partners in the U.S. and the United Kingdom on giving them the tools that would best help them root out these terrorists and provide security within their own country. We believe in the early stages that surveillance to localize Boko Haram is the first step, but perhaps training and additional resources, if called for, alongside our allies would be the next step.

Certainly I think our government has a number of programs, including the one he mentioned that we support on a global basis, whether through the United Nations or on a bilateral basis with countries to promote education, because really, the terror here is not just the physical threat that groups like Boko Haram provide; they are actually trying to keep repressed by taking education from them, especially young girls, and that is particularly abhorrent.

[Kidnapping of Girls in Nigeria, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I join my colleagues in the House tonight with a mixture of emotions, in this critical debate on this profoundly disturbing subject. First, I stand in solidarity with my colleagues on all sides of this place, who find the events of April 14 and the weeks since, abhorrent and repugnant. We feel the need to do something.

I echo the sentiments of many of my colleagues tonight. On April 14, terror was struck in the hearts and minds of young girls, but also their families, with 100 to 300 young girls taken from a school in Nigeria. Even that report is concerning because it took weeks to truly ascertain the number, and for the government of Nigeria to start talking publicly about this brash kidnapping, the snatching of girls, and their potential sale. The events are so abhorrent to any civilized society in any democracy.

It is also unfortunate that it took so long for the global community to become attuned to this act of profound terror. In fact, some commentators have said that throughout April there was more time spent on a missing airliner, of which everyone knew the people on board could no longer be saved. There was more time and attention paid to that, and that puts it in perspective. I am glad that the member for Ottawa Centre and others have put this on our national agenda, where it should be.

I also stand before the House as a father of a young girl of seven years old, Mollie. She is the apple of my eye, someone I left at home before school this morning because I had to leave early to come to Ottawa. The very principles of safety and security of our children is probably a common theme among parents, from Canada to Nigeria. I can only empathize with the absolute terror that the families of these girls must be feeling, and the profound sense of impotence they have in not being able to provide basic security to their children.

It is also important to note that these girls were taken from a school. Their parents have sought the best for them. They were pursuing the goals that are universal human rights in this world. Not only was their right of liberty stolen from them, but the message being sent by Boko Haram was one of terror, not just in physical threat, but to cast fear in those pursuing the best for their children, including our girls. These are so fundamental to our principles as Canadians that they truly shock us to our foundations.

I stand as a member of Parliament in this place and am proud that our government and Canada have joined with the U.S., the United Kingdom, France, China, and other nations, that have pledged support to the government of Nigeria, to try to not only locate and bring these girls back to their homes, but to deal with Boko Haram, the group that took them.

As many members of the House have noted, our government immediately offered surveillance equipment in helping to track this terror organization. Beyond that, we also have provided training and operators to help bring that expertise to the ground immediately. Our expertise, particularly on some of the things related to surveillance and intelligence gathering, has been instantly brought to bear on the ground in the country and, I would say, in bordering countries. Boko Haram has also been a threat to Cameroon, Niger, and the whole region. We stand willing to work with our allies and with the government of Nigeria on that.

It is good to note that Canada has a strong relationship with Nigeria. We are the tenth-largest donor to that country on a general annual basis. There has been $66 million in aid delivered in the last fiscal year to that country, on a variety of fronts. That has included education, so that young girls like the ones who were snatched can pursue their full potential as young people in that country, but also in our worldwide fight to end child, early, and forced marriage. Sadly, these issues have been interspliced, as these girls were taken and then forced into horrific relationships and unspeakable harm.

It is also important to call out Boko Haram for what it is. It is a terror group that strikes at the basic fundamentals of our society. We should pursue organizations like this with unrestrained vigour until they are eliminated. It is terror.

It is ironic that just on Friday, at our National Day of Honour, we paid tribute to the 40,000 men and women of the Canadian Forces who spent time on the ground in Afghanistan. That was part of the initial war on terror after September 11, when a failed state allowed al Qaeda to train within it, to a point that it struck not just at western values, as in this case in Nigeria, but at the western world itself. It is sad that sometimes it takes us to be shaken out of our complacency, from the lovely distance we have from some of this terror.

Here we have been thrust into it, and we should say it for what it is. Boko Haram takes its name from the term “forbidden”. “Haram” means “forbidden”. Locals have called it Boko Haram because they feel that western education is forbidden. That is the root of the term. It is a perverse group that uses terror not just to strike fear, but to actually keep people in that country subjugated. It is terrible.

It is a group that has attributed 10,000 deaths to its activities in Nigeria and countries in the region. Canada placed Boko Haram on its list of known terror organizations in 2013. It is important to reiterate that wherever there are groups such as this, Canada should play a role, alongside our allies, and of course in this case working directly with the Nigerian government, to ensure that these groups cannot operate with impunity. As we have seen, from 2009 to today, this group has escalated in its violence and its acts of terror.

Another interesting development is “hashtag diplomacy”. Some have suggested that it does not play a role and it is just raising awareness, but it is doing more than that. From the First Lady of the United States to the Pope, the awareness has helped shake the complacency that sometimes sets in in the western world, thinking that we are far removed from these gathering threats of terror that occupy developed or challenging states.

Hashtag diplomacy not only affects prominent people like popes and presidents, it also impacts people in my riding of Durham. I would like to compliment the grade seven and eight students at the Good Shepherd Catholic School, in Port Perry, who asked to meet with me on this very subject to ask what Canada can do to help save our girls.

In some ways, hashtag diplomacy seems so far removed from the terror that many Nigerian families are feeling. However, if it raises this issue, much in the way that my colleagues and I are debating this tonight, we will hopefully get to a state where groups like Boko Haram cannot operate in such fashion because the global community will condemn the conduct.

I also want to urge this House and the people watching this debate to remember that tolerance and education are Canadian values. It is appropriate to conclude with the remarks that His Holiness the Aga Khan delivered in this House just a few months ago, in February. It is important to show that Boko Haram has twisted a religious faith and does not represent the faith of Islam. The Aga Khan said in this place:

It has become commonplace for some to talk about an inevitable clash of the industrial West and Islamic civilizations. But Muslims don't see things in this way. Those whose words and deeds feed into that point of view are a small and extreme minority. For most of us, it is simply not true. We find singularly little in our theological interpretations that would clash with other...faiths — [...]

He went on to add:

Yet sadly, what is highly abnormal in the Islamic world gets mistaken for what is normal.

Let us not mistake the abhorrent actions of Boko Haram as we move forward to shut down this terror group, and recognize that diversity, tolerance, and strength, which are Canadian values, should be global values.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the Neufeld report showed that vouching is extremely difficult to administer. That is what led to the 42%, or higher, error rate. In fact, if we look at multiple errors, 80% of vouching transactions had errors. Why is that? Mainly because Elections Canada officials are well-meaning, on the ground in the ridings, but they tend to work one or two days every few years. Vouching is very complicated and, really, comes from an era when people did not have as many forms of ID on them as they do on any given day.

What our amendments to Bill C-23 would do, to answer the second part of my friend's question, is address the fact that, yes, not enough of the 39 forms have ID. Even though there is the ability for attestation letters to satisfy certain groups, like students or those living in shelters, that sort of thing, we feel that the added safeguard would maximize voting by allowing someone to take an oath as per their residence that would be verified at the polls. They would still need to show identification as to who they are, so that no irregularity or fraud could result, but if they were not able to satisfy the residency requirement, an oath could be administered and they could proceed to mark their ballot. I think it is a good balance.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, the member clearly did not listen to the final moments of my remarks where I showed that Elections Canada's move to the 39 forms of identification, with specific attestation letters for those on first nations reserves, would actually allow a template that could be used now to raise turnout and participation by that community. It is interesting to note that turnouts are higher at some band council elections. There is the ability to run localized and provincial elections. We would now have a better way to do that federally.

I would invite the member to look at the Supreme Court decision that I think sets the stage to show that Bill C-23 would improve our system. The majority opinion there said it would be better to keep the inherent confidence in our system to ask someone to return to the polls with the proper registration materials than it would be to allow somebody to vote who may not be entitled to vote.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to offer my voice in this House of Commons on Bill C-23.

I did have the privilege of spending a lot of time, as I said, with colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee. I also had the ability, particularly as a by-election winner, to follow this issue as it evolved to the present state that is before this House of Commons, which is Bill C-23.

In my brief time that I have, I am going to try to dispel a few myths that still linger out there on Bill C-23.

I have been having great conversations with people in my riding of Durham, and I know people in my riding have been patiently waiting for me to speak on this today. I have also heard from passionate Canadians on all sides of this issue, from people in coffee shops, some passionate University of Toronto professors talking about modernizing our elections law, critiques, positive comments, and that sort of thing. However, the echo chamber and politics around Bill C-23 led to some myths that in many cases still remain out there. Therefore, in my remarks today, I am going to try and dispel some of the myths.

The biggest myth that we still hear in debate in this place is that Bill C-23 came from out of nowhere, with no consultation, no contribution from expert opinion, and that sort of thing, that this was foisted upon Canada, and that it was done with strategic brilliance to favour Conservatives.

The reality is that Bill C-23 comes from the need to fix our antiquated system of administering elections. The “antique” comes from the Elections Canada expert charged with making recommendations on the forum. In fact, Harry Neufeld, at page 24 of his report, said: “...an overhaul is urgently required”.

Why did Elections Canada ask Mr. Neufeld, who served as the B.C. Chief Electoral Officer with distinction for many years, for this report?

Well, Elections Canada asked for it after the calamity of the election in Etobicoke Centre in 2011. We have a fine member for Etobicoke Centre in this place who won a narrow win by 26 votes. However, a lower court in Ontario overturned that result. All election observers recognize that if small margin elections can be overturned so easily, it could lead to a margin of litigation and in fact further lack of confidence in our election results.

Fortunately, in that case, the overturning of the result was reversed and the Supreme Court of Canada held that the member for Etobicoke Centre won. The Supreme Court decision also demonstrated that the system of running elections in Canada was profoundly broken, which led to Mr. Neufeld. In fact, that decision led to a national audit of elections with thousands of polls examined to see where there were errors in the system, including some polls in my 2012 by-election in Durham. That audit allowed Mr. Neufeld to examine the cases of errors in registration, in vouching, and make an urgent plea to modernize our elections law.

Mr. Neufeld was also prescient. We warned that there would be radical resistance because we live in a great parliamentary democracy. Our system seems to run quite well and so a lot of people do not feel there is really a need to reform. However, the Supreme Court of Canada case showed that fraud and irregularities can be considered on par if they result in an election result being overturned. Serious irregularities can lead to that result. We saw that in Etobicoke Centre.

What did Mr. Neufeld's report say about irregularities? On average, there are 500 irregularities per riding. Historically, there are a lot of politicians at the provincial and federal levels with the nickname “landslide”, and they usually get that nickname by winning their first election with a very narrow result.

In fact, most general elections have between 5 and 15 seats decided by 500 or fewer votes. Well, the audit showed that there are at least 500 irregularities or errors per riding. There was a real risk to the margin of litigation and no end to an election result in a community. It is unfair if that community has to wait months for litigation to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine who it is sending to the House of Commons.

Another myth I would like to address is vouching. I asked my hon. colleague a question on that because it was portrayed by some voices in the media that the elimination of vouching was the decline of our democracy as we know it. People were going to be disenfranchised and their constitutional right to vote was going to be struck from them. That is not the case. In fact, there were numbers quoted by some learned people, even before committee, suggesting that hundreds of thousands of people would lose their right to vote because of the elimination of vouching.

The fatal error with that logic is the fact that they did not ask the question to determine whether the person who vouched had any ID. I would note that only a few provinces allow vouching and no municipalities in the province of Ontario allow vouching. To suggest that everyone who used a vouching approach to voting would not have any ID to satisfy the basic registration requirements is simply erroneous. That number was thrown out and repeated many times, even by good members of this place, without any basis in reality.

What was the reality from the audit? Mr. Neufeld looked and 120,000 people in Canada vouched in the 2011 general election. There were 120,000 vouching transactions and he found 95,500 errors. It is hardly something that inspires confidence in a G7 country. They were serious errors. Often there were multiple mistakes made in the vouching process. Someone vouching several times for one person is not allowed, and that sort of thing, but Mr. Neufeld found that 42% of all vouching transactions, almost half, were serious errors. When we connect that with the Supreme Court that showed that serious errors and irregularities are as bad for our system as fraud, clearly something needed to be done. Mr. Neufeld, at page 28 of his report, said that it would be very difficult to fix vouching.

Therefore, we think it is reasonable to ask Canadians to show identification when they vote. Our amendments have also recognized that some people may have difficulty with the address component at registration, so there will be some flexibility built in for those people. However, I sincerely hope that in the future that ambiguity is eliminated so that we can have absolute certainty.

I would also refer people on this subject to the 2007 “Electoral Participation of Electors with Disabilities” report commissioned by Elections Canada. Dr. Prince ran that study that looked at specific groups that were under-represented on voting day. That report from Elections Canada, as well as people who appear before committee, confirmed that voter participation, low turnout rates of students, members of first nations, or the homeless, are not related to identification or registration issues. Their participation challenges are totally distinct and something we should address, but when it was being connected with vouching, it was done in a way to cause unnecessary concern among Canadians.

Finally, we have heard a lot in this place about the 39 forms of identification that Elections Canada provides. I found many people, even media commentators, thinking that those 39 pieces were in Bill C-23. Those forms of identification are outlined by Elections Canada after specific consideration for groups with low participation rates. I have suggested that attestation letters used by first nations, schools, and shelters could actually improve turnout. Those are there now. They were there in the last election.

Bill C-23 is an approach that we feel would modernize a system that has demanded modernization for a generation. Our modest amendments are as a result of having listened to the concerns and would strengthen the bill. I think we are going to have better results, in the future, in our elections.

[Fair Elections Act, May 12th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member wanted me to get up and ask a question after her impassioned speech earlier, so I will certainly oblige. I enjoyed my time on the procedure and House affairs committee with her, and everyone who spent a lot of time on Bill C-23.

My question stems from public opinion research that came to light, ironically the day before our government and the minister accepted substantial amendments to the bill based on commentary in this place and based on people who appeared before committee.

My question relates to vouching. It appears that the vast majority of Canadians, 86%, I believe, including the vast majority of NDP supporters, I might add, agreed with our government that it is reasonable to require someone to show identification when they are voting.

My question is for the hon. member. After all the hyperbole we heard with respect to the decline of democracy with the elimination of vouching, are the NDP keeping that strong position, does it feel that Canadians got it right, or does it agree with the majority of Canadians?

[Offshore Health and Safety Act, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, I could not resist but to get up for two reasons.

I thank my friend and colleague for his remarks, particularly talking about the tragic Cougar helicopter crash. A good friend and former air force colleague of mine, Tim Lanouette, was on that aircraft, which had a catastrophic failure. We have to ensure that lessons are learned from such incidents, as they are through Transport Safety Board investigations. The health and safety of our workers is important. I am glad the NDP sees that is at the heart of this bill.

I do have to comment on my hon. friend's final remarks about the global market action plan. He listed how many witnesses have been heard, and how many groups have been engaged. Would it not be fair to say that employers themselves, and we have heard from literally dozens of employers about how we need to grow new markets, also have the interest of their workers at heart?

By growing their businesses and becoming productive, it allows them to hire more, secure those jobs and hopefully raise the standard of living and salaries. Would it not be fair to say that consulting employers also addresses some of these concerns?

[International Trade, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, what we see today, sadly, is the true NDP. In some circles NDP members praise trade because they know one Canadian job in five is directly attributable to our exports, yet when they are in other places or at national meetings of unions, they bash trade and try and oppose all of our agreements, whether it is with Europe or whether it is with Korea.

Our government has launched the most ambitious diversification of our trade relationships in Canadian history. One job in five is now attributable to trade. We want to see those jobs secure and we want more in the future. It is time for the NDP to get behind it.

[International Trade, May 8th, 2014]

Mr. Speaker, as the member knows as a colleague of mine on the trade committee, this agreement is historic, and all of the fundamental principles, including reduction of tariff lines, including phase-in years, including a region-by-region breakdown on how beneficial this agreement will be, were all released. In fact, the European ambassador to Canada praised Canadian documents outlining the details of the agreement and said that in Europe they use the Canadian details to showcase the agreement.

The final agreement will come before the House, which is a precedent our party established in getting agreement for these trade agreements.