Erin O'Toole

[Fair Rail Freight Service Act, May 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London for his history lesson on St. Thomas.

I would like him to address the real elephant in the room, which is the fact that our friends in the NDP are telling us that they are going to support the bill, yet they are challenging it tonight and suggesting our government should interfere more in the commercial marketplace. Could the hon. member please comment on the elephant in the room?

[Last Post Fund, May 27th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today to reaffirm our government's full support for a program that is so important to Canadian veterans and their families.

I am proud to rise today to reiterate our government's support for this program, which is so important to veterans and their families.

I am also rising in the House today with some serious concerns about the use of the Last Post burial fund and, ultimately, the motion brought to the House by the member for Random—Burin—St. George's.

On one level, as a veteran, I am very happy whenever parliamentarians express pride and support for our veterans and current-serving Canadian Forces. Part of me believes that the hon. member has that intent with this motion. She has served on the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs and I believe that she has respect for our veterans. However, I also have some serious concerns about the circumstances giving rise to the raising of this issue by the member. This has led me to believe that her intentions have not been quite as noble as she likes to represent.

To explain my concern, some important context is needed. I had the honour of joining the House after a by-election six months ago yesterday. By-elections for three vacant seats were called on October 21, 2012, which resulted in the fact that the campaigns would be taking place during remembrance week. I see my friend, the member for Parliament for Victoria, in the House and I congratulate him on his six-month milestone.

On November 6, the member called for an independent task force on the Last Post Fund and sent out a press release on this issue that she claimed she was promoting along with her Liberal colleagues. I have consulted Hansard and the member for Random—Burin—St. George's had not raised this issue previously in the House, nor had she raised it during her time in committee, from what I could find in my research.

The very next day, on November 7, the Liberal Party candidate in Durham, my by-election riding, raised the same issue as the member for Random—Burin—St. George's and launched a website under the banner Durham4Vets.org. This website had the appearance of being a grassroots third-party website in Durham at first glance, but closer examination showed that it was actually a misleading website used by the Liberal Party to raise funds for its political campaign in Durham.

The same day, just one day after the member issued her release on this subject, the Liberal Party rolled out election signs in Durham that featured an image of a soldier and further promoted the Durham4Vets website that was actually a front for raising money for that campaign. The Liberal Veterans Affairs critic, the member for Charlottetown, travelled to Durham to support this Liberal campaign strategy.

Worse still, a few days later, on Remembrance Day, the Liberal campaign laid political wreaths at cenotaphs in the small towns across my riding of Durham. These wreaths featured a slogan from the Liberal Party's website and its political campaign. In between the Brownies, Cub Scouts, schools and community groups from Durham showing their respect for veterans by laying a wreath at the local cenotaph, there was the Liberal Party of Canada and its shameful campaign.

Needless to say, veterans in Durham and, indeed, across southern Ontario were outraged by this conduct and the shameful use of remembrance week as a political tool by the Liberals. Not only were veterans disgusted by this campaign, but the Durham Liberal riding president himself actually removed the Liberal sign from his lawn. People in my riding saw this campaign for what it was: the politicization of a solemn week in our country.

Accordingly, I can never be sure whether the issue the member for Random—Burin—St. George's first raised on November 6, which ultimately led to this motion before the House, was brought out of genuine concern or part of a disconcerting political campaign orchestrated by the Liberal Party.

It is also important to note that the shameful campaign in Durham was run by Quito Maggi, a paid Liberal organizer, who is now advising the new Liberal leader. That leader, the member for Papineau, came to Durham as part of this deceitful campaign. While there, he did not disavow the tactics being used by his party, even in the face of heavy criticism from my community.

With my concerns about the underlying motive for the motion on the table, in my remaining minutes I would like to address the key issues related to the Last Post Fund, particularly because the entire funeral and burial issue being discussed is just one aspect of the fund and because it is either not well understood by many in the Liberal Party or is purposely glossed over when people are discussing this fund.

To begin with, Canadians need to be reassured that all veterans who pass away as a result of a service injury will have their funeral and burial costs covered by their country, full stop. That is an obligation Canada owes to the men and women we place in harm's way. It is an obligation that transcends politics and one that has been met by our government and, indeed, by previous governments.

The motion on the Last Post Fund then boils down to two things: first, the cost of the funeral and burial services covered by the program; and second, the means test applied to determine which veterans are in need of assistance from the fund.

Economic action plan 2013 increased the coverage of funerals from $3,600 to $7,376. This is being done at the same time that we are covering the actual cost of the burial. This level had not been adjusted in many years. The minister listened to veterans groups on this issue, it was examined by the department and the amount was doubled in the budget.

Therefore, the central thrust of the member's motion has been addressed. The issue of the means test is one the Liberals try to gloss over, as it was their government that established the present means test. In fairness to the member for Random—Burin—St. George's, she was not part of that Liberal government, nor was their current veterans affairs critic. It is critical to note, however, that many members of their caucus were part of the team that put this in place. This must be remembered amid the feigned outrage from their caucus.

The Last Post Fund was established decades ago to help the families of indigent veterans with the costs associated with the funeral and burial. That is exactly what the program does. Veterans of all conflicts are proud Canadians, and in so many ways our World War II and Korean veterans built the tremendous Canada we have today. They want their impoverished comrades and their brothers in arms who died from their injuries to be taken care of, but they do not expect this special fund to apply to all veterans. This was not the objective of the Last Post Fund funeral and burial program.

It is also important to remind Canadians that the Last Post Fund also directs other important initiatives to honour our fallen and our veterans. I would like to thank them in the House for all the work the Last Post Fund does for Canada. It manages the National Field of Honour in Pointe-Claire, Québec, a national historic site. This cemetery opened in 1930 and is a sombre reminder of the cost of war and Canada's commitment to the world.

The Last Post Fund also runs the unmarked grave program to mark the place where some of our fallen have been laid to rest. This is important work, particularly as we approach the centennial of World War I.

As someone who served in uniform, I am proud to be part of a government that supports the men and women of the Canadian Forces and our veterans. Amid very challenging economic times, our government has identified veterans as a key priority.

In the coming year alone, as outlined in our latest main estimates, the Government of Canada is planning to spend almost $785 million more in veterans affairs compared to when we took office, which was the last year before the new veterans charter was implemented.

In closing, I would like to thank the Legion branches in my riding that have steadfastly worked to support our veterans and that raise constructive input on funerals and burials, much like they do on a range of issues.

I also hope that my concerns about the origin of the motion are incorrect and that the member for Random—Burin—St. George's was not part of a shameful Liberal Party campaign strategy from last fall. Maybe she did not know about the campaign signs. Maybe she did not know about the misleading website. Maybe she did not know about the political wreaths at cenotaphs in Durham and the timing of raising this issue in that campaign. There is a lot of maybes there.

If that was the case, I would ask her to work with her colleague, the member for Charlottetown, to urge their new leader to abandon such tactics in the future. All of us in the House need to support our veterans. We do not need to use remembrance week as a tool to further political interests on either side of the House.

[Al Strike, May 23rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with a mixture of sorrow but also of celebration of a life well lived. This morning lifelong Bowmanville resident Al Strike died.

Al was the leader of a multi-generational law firm in Bowmanville that bore the Strike name for three generations. He was known for supporting local business with his intellect and service, but, more importantly, he was known for serving our community.

Without Al Strike, there would not be arenas or pools built. He helped with Community Care Durham, served on the board of Durham College and helped Valleys 2000. Al and his wife Anna, for over 50 years, supported the Lakeridge Health Bowmanville. He was a 60-year Rotarian, and two years ago he inspired me and others to help build a fish bypass with Valleys 2000 on the Bowmanville Creek.

His was a life well lived, Mr. Speaker, and our community is better for it.

My deepest condolences go to his wife Anna, and to his family and friends. The “silver fox” has passed, but his legacy on Bowmanville Creek will continue.

[Canadian Museum of History Act, May 22nd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to applaud the minister for his thoughtful comments, particularly the focus on the national network of history. I know the Bowmanville Museum, the Scugog Shores Museum and the Lucy Maud Montgomery museum in Uxbridge would be happy to be part of this national network to share our stories as a country.

My question to the member for Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher is this. There is a museum in or around his riding called Musée de la Femme. What is he going to say to the board members of that museum when he tells them that he does not feel it is important to share their stories in Ottawa and to share some of our artifacts that are in storage in Longueuil? I would suggest it is a narrow vision and I would like to hear what he will tell that museum.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Chair, I thank the leader of the Green Party for her nice remarks in welcoming me. Certainly we have shared some time at Dalhousie Law School together, although not at the same time.

Her questions are good ones. We are working with other states in the region to address the refugee crisis caused by the Syrian civil war in the last two years. Members on this side have expressed that we need to do more and to particularly watch how that evolves.

There is also security ramifications caused by a refugee exodus under these circumstances. Importantly, I have also heard some discussion in the chamber tonight about NGOs and actions by non-state actors on the ground in Syria, and I think we have to express some words of caution.

We are not even at the halfway point in 2013. I would remind this House that Syria is in a state of war, and as I said in my remarks, with very hard to identify teams within that war. There is certainly a united front against a regime, and then there is the regime. There have been five journalists killed this year in Syria, and we are only days past Press Freedom Day. Last month, two archbishops were abducted. It is a country with which we have to proceed cautiously, even with non-state actors on the ground.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague on the opposite side for her passion, and evidently her knowledge of the subject.

I would refer to my remarks where I highlighted not only Canada's unilateral effort, which is direct country to country, but our efforts multilaterally, through the United Nations and through work with our allies in NATO and around the world.

Importantly, she referenced the Security Council. The Security Council, which can authorize UN-sanctioned force in certain circumstances, has clearly already articulated that will not happen. There are two permanent members of that Security Council that will not allow the council to pursue a UN-sanctioned military effort.

This is an area where the UN is one important part of Canada's diplomatic statecraft in this effort, alongside unilateral relations and alongside direct visits by the minister to the region. There is a whole plethora of things that Canada is doing to apply pressure. The UN is one important part of that.

I would suggest to the hon. member that even a seat at the Security Council these days would not change what is coming from that.

[Situation in Syria, May 7th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight in response to the request by the member for Toronto Centre to debate the situation in Syria in accordance with Standing Order 52(9).

Our government, and indeed most Canadians, have been following the situation in Syria very closely for the last two years, and particularly in the last few months. All Canadians are extremely concerned about the loss of life, human rights abuses, the destruction of property and the destabilizing impact the civil war has had on the region.

I think all members of the House share the desire for the conflict to come to an end and to see the Assad regime toppled. Our government has expressed this sentiment consistently for the last 18 to 24 months.

In recent weeks, an already terrible situation seems to be spiralling towards the depths of barbarism. The potential use of chemical weapons is something the world must examine closely and carefully. This need for careful examination stems from the fact that the use of these weapons will likely lead to a serious response by Canada and our international allies.

By now we have likely all seen the disturbing images from Syria of patients in hospitals who appear to be suffering the effects of a chemical toxin. These weapons have the potential for mass destruction and death. They would certainly cause greater suffering for the people of Syria and wider panic and instability in the region, which will lead to a rise in the number of refugees in border states and will raise the risk level in an already unstable part of the world.

Syria is not a signatory to the Chemical Weapons Convention. Canada is a signatory to the convention and has a long track record of working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. Indeed, the United Nations and our allies in NATO have been watching the potential risk with respect to chemical weapons in Syria very closely.

The member for Toronto Centre has suggested in this debate tonight that there is some tension in the position of the government. In fact, the position of the government has been unequivocal. Assad must go, and the death and suffering needs to end.

The issue for our country and in this debate tonight is to determine what role Canada should play in the pursuit of these outcomes. In listening to the debate tonight, it is clear that the members of the House, including those from the Liberal Party, do not advocate direct military action.

Certainly, the Canadian Forces are one of the most highly trained and professional militaries in the world. However, a civilian protection mission would require boots on the ground. We are not prepared to do that.

Syrian air defence is considerably more developed than that in Libya. It is also more dense airspace, making any international multilateral military action extremely complicated and risky.

It also seems clear that most members of the House do not advocate providing arms or military assistance to the rebels. I read a quote from the NDP critic stating that this was not Canada's approach. Finally, it appears that most members acknowledge that the civil war is not clearly demarcated by a monolithic rebel force on one side and the Assad regime on the other. The rebels may very well be a coalition of various groups within Syria opposed to the regime for different reasons. Most importantly, the rebels do not appear to share aspirations for a post-Assad Syria.

With all these points of agreement in mind, I would expect that most members of the House would agree with the government's approach to the Syrian crisis. The Prime Minister and this government have advocated a strong multilateral approach, with the United Nations and our allies, to apply strong diplomatic pressure on the regime and to investigate seriously the possible use of chemical weapons.

On March 21, the Secretary-General of the United Nations launched an investigation into the alleged use of chemical weapons in Syria. Canada strongly supports this investigation. Any and all credible allegations, including potential incidents in Homs late last year, and more recently in Adra, will be pursued.

The UN has inspectors in Cyprus ready to conduct this investigation. These inspectors have been selected and trained and are ready to deploy on one day's notice. There just needs to be a cessation of hostilities or some form of security for this investigation to occur.

Canada was one of the first countries to pledge direct financial support for the United Nations investigation of the use of chemical weapons in Syria. Canada has also provided some direct unilateral assistance to neighbouring countries dealing with the threat posed by chemical weapons. Detection equipment and protective gear have been provided to the Jordanian armed forces to guard against a chemical weapons or biological incident arising from Syria.

Canada has also provided support to strengthen civilian capabilities to respond to chemical or other attacks affecting the people of Jordan. We have also pledged support for the establishment of a regional biological risk management training centre at the Jordanian university in co-operation with our allies, the U.K. and the U.S.

At the time of this debate in our House of Commons this evening, the UN-led investigation into chemical weapons use and the threat they pose is at an impasse. This is not acceptable. Canada supports the UN Secretary-General's repeated efforts to resolve the current impasse so that all credible allegations are investigated as soon as possible.

Like our UN and NATO allies, Canada continues to demand that Syrian authorities grant full and unfettered access to the United Nations investigation team immediately. In recent weeks there have been news reports and even statements by UN officials that suggest there is evidence of the use of chemical weapons like sarin gas by both the Assad regime and a section of rebel forces.

While the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria quickly distanced itself from statements related to weapons use by the rebels, the commission did state that it “has not reached conclusive findings as to the use of chemical weapons in Syria by any parties to the conflict”.

The fog of war, the increased use of media as a tactical advantage and influence operations by parties in a modern conflict show the need for a UN-led investigation to provide clear answers. Canada is pursuing a clear but careful approach to Syria. We are working unilaterally with allies and with countries like Jordan in the region to address the threats caused by the conflict.

This government is also committed to our multilateral course of action with respect to Syria as well, working with the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the United Nations. Canada has taken a principled and consistent stand on Syria. We will continue to work with our international partners to contain the threat caused by the situation in Syria, and we will continue to apply global pressure on the Assad regime.

These are very difficult times. This was a very good time for the House to revisit this issue and Canada's response. I think the careful and thoughtful deliberation by my colleagues tonight indicates that Canada cannot rush into an action engaging our military forces. We must keep this as a clear diplomatic effort on our part. We must clearly work with our allies, the United Nations, and NGOs working under the auspices of the United Nations, and our allies in NATO not only to assess the military threats on the region, but also to assess the real use of chemical weapons on the ground in Syria.

I appreciate the thoughtful comments from all sides of this debate, but I do think this government has pursued a very principled and rational approach. We are also dealing with the humanitarian crisis surrounding Syria, and we have heard tonight on all sides some acknowledgement that Canada has reacted with respect to refugees, particularly with regard to family reunification. I think even members on this side of the House have acknowledged we could do that perhaps faster and better, but it is clear from comments on the other side that those efforts are under way and that there is real and meaningful efforts by the minister to expedite family reunification, while also providing the appropriate oversight in relation to potential security risks that might be associated with widespread departures during a time of war.

[New Democratic Party of Canada, May 6th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, 25 days have passed since the leader of the NDP failed to retract his senior lieutenant's shocking and hurtful comments about Canadian veterans from the First World War. Unfortunately, his silence is leading to a disturbing trend. Just yesterday, a day honouring the Battle of the Atlantic, another senior NDP member from the federal riding for Québec slammed Canadian veterans by questioning the very need to remember their sacrifices.

We remember, because veterans fought for the Canadian values of peace, freedom, democracy and the rule of law. They gave so much in the face of unbelievable risks. In many ways, we owe our places in the House of Commons to the sacrifices of our veterans.

Enough is enough. Canadians and veterans are watching. One can only hope that it will not be another 25 days before the NDP stops slamming veterans and that hopefully the opposition leader starts standing up for them.

[Rail Safety, May 3rd, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, Rail Safety Week is taking place this year from April 29 to May 5. It is a national celebration aimed at increasing awareness of the safety around railway operations and highlighting our government's commitment to making the rail system safer for all Canadians.

While Canada has one of the safest rail systems in the world, improvements can still be made.

On Monday we announced an investment of $9.3 million at 523 grade crossing projects across Canada through our grade crossing improvement program. This program will enhance safety for pedestrians and motorists and help to save lives. In my riding of Durham, grade crossings at Baseline Road and Maple Grove Road are part of this program.

To further improve rail safety, our government also made amendments to the Railway Safety Act. These amendments came into force on Wednesday.

These investments and legislative changes show our commitment to safe and efficient rail service in Canada.

[Mental Health, April 30th, 2013]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I was pleased to join the Minister of National Defence, Bell Canada and the True Patriot Love Foundation at the announcement of a $1 million fund to deliver community-based mental health programming for military families.

Bell Canada's innovative Let's Talk program engages Canadians from across the country in an important discussion about mental health issues. Let's Talk helps remove the stigma associated with mental illness and allows Canadians to text or talk to help raise funds.

The Bell True Patriot Love fund is an extension of the Let's Talk program and will provide a series of grants to military family resource centres across Canada for programs related to improving access to mental health care for military families.

I am proud that Port Perry native George Cope has helped start this national dialogue on mental health issues as CEO of Bell Canada. He has also renewed Bell's century-long commitment to supporting the men and women of the Canadian Forces and their families.

I thank Bell Canada and True Patriot Love for their leadership.