Erin O'Toole

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my friend, the leader of the Green Party, weighing in. I am not surprised by her position on the precautionary principle, because she came from an environmental law background as an activist lawyer. We may agree on some things. We may disagree. However, I would refer her to the fact that back when it was discussed in Rio, irreparable harm was the consideration before this non-certain, unscientific approach would be advanced, the better-safe-than-sorry approach. What concerns me now is that it is in a list of enumerated grounds, including social and economic and the intersection of sex and gender. I am not sure what those things have to do with preserving fish stocks, but it shows that the government is ideological, and it is doing things not based on science.

This is not the first time I have raised this. This is the third piece of legislation in about six months that, by stealth, is inserting a principle that is still quite controversial. I quoted the most cited American legal scholar, Professor Sunstein, who is very concerned about this approach. In fact, his latest book on the subject is called Laws of Fear, based on this principle.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy my friend, the deputy House leader for the Liberals, because he certainly has a recollection of his time in opposition that runs contrary to mine and runs contrary to Hansard. I would invite Canadians to search that member's name with the term “assault on democracy”. I think I recall him foaming at the mouth on a few occasions when he uttered that when an omnibus bill or time allocation, or sometimes both, were used.

Two weeks ago, he helped to do this three times in one day, setting a record. Finally, he suggests that we are out of touch, when we want first nations, fishers, and scientists to be the three key decision-makers in our fisheries, not an enumerated list of precautionary ideological principles: social, economic, and cultural. Why are the Liberals afraid of science? Unmuzzle our scientists. I would like that member to stand in the House and start the unmuzzling.

[Fisheries Act, June 11th, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I see that the debate is slowing tonight. I thought I had a few more minutes to prepare, but I am happy to speak about my concerns in relation to Bill C-68.

A number of my colleagues have raised the troubling situation that we are debating a fisheries bill. It has some provisions related to fish habitat. There have been some great comments, including from an NDP member who has some experience as a biologist. That is when our debates here are at their best. Unfortunately, this debate is also under a cloud, considering that the Ethics Commissioner has now added the fisheries minister to the list of ministers of the Liberal government whose actions are going to be examined. It is with respect to the awarding of a fishing-related licence. It is unfortunate, because that is a cloud hanging over this debate.

I have heard on several occasions many members of the Liberal Party suggesting that in a previous government, fisheries management and fisheries licences did not take into consideration aboriginal treaty rights and aboriginal participation in both the traditional fishery and the commercial fishery, despite the fact that evidence shows that this is not true. If we look at some of the press releases and media advisories in relation to fishery licence competitions or proposals and requests for groups to bid, the consultation with and participation of first nations communities was part of that. It is unfortunate that some members, including the member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, are making suggestions that are not supported by a cursory examination of what was happening in the last government, and that concerns me.

Bill C-68 is before the House under the cloud of yet another minister being examined for ethical conduct with the awarding of a fisheries licence to a group of proponents that did not have a boat but had a number of connections, both deep and familial, to the Liberal government. That seemed to eclipse consideration of any experience actually on the sea.

As someone who did fisheries patrols with our navy and with our air force on the Flemish Cap, I am proud of our heritage fishing and the fishers engaged in the practice. It is a hard living. As my colleague from British Columbia, our friend the fisheries critic, has highlighted the tremendous work of Canadians, they should know that any group has the ability to bid for these licences, because it is a monopoly. This is a serious power the government has, and now the fisheries minister is the third minister to be examined for how he has used that power.

The first minister to be examined was actually the Prime Minister, the first in both ways. He is the first minister. The finding of his investigation, as we know, was guilty. There is one outstanding investigation involving the finance minister, and now there is the fisheries minister. We cannot forget that in considering this legislation.

There are also two other big parts of Bill C-68 that should concern Canadians. Not only do we already think there is a cozy relationship, with some of the most recent fisheries proponents who were awarded a contract by the minister having close Liberal ties, but the government is enshrining that in Bill C-68 with paid advisory boards to advise the minister. Why is that?

The minister has a department that has done that quite well for over a century, in combination with consultations with stakeholders, industry groups, unions, and first nations. Why this new advisory board needs to be employed and paid and staffed is beyond me. It reminds us of the Liberal approach of surrounding themselves with more friends to tell them that they are doing a great job. They are not, and we are going to hear from the Ethics Commissioner on that.

The minister will have the ability to withhold critical information from bid proponents. Considering everything that has gone on, that should concern Canadians as well.

I am going to speak for the third time, with the remainder of my time, about ideological creep, once again, with the Liberal government enshrining directly the precautionary principle into legislation with very little to no debate. I have raised this before on the Oceans Act and the classification of marine protected areas and its basis. I raised it a few weeks ago with respect to the Federal Sustainable Development Act, and here we are today with the Fisheries Act, another very strategic placement of the precautionary principle.

In proposed section 2.5, “Considerations for decision making”, the first consideration is listed as “(a) the application of a precautionary approach”. That is listed along with a number of grounds. The precautionary approach and the precautionary principle are the same thing.

What is also listed in the considerations for decision-making? This is the government that, when in opposition, used to always talk about science-based and evidence-based decision-making. What does it list in decision factors the minister can take into consideration? The precautionary approach is proposed subsection 2.5 (a). The third consideration, 2.5 (c), is “scientific information”. I guess it is going to have to look at that. Proposed subsection 2.5(d) is “indigenous knowledge”; 2.5 (e) is “community knowledge”; 2.5(g) is “social, economic, and cultural factors”; and 2.5 (i) is “the intersection of sex and gender with other identity factors”.

This is about fisheries and decisions related to fisheries. Beyond science, beyond the people who fish, and beyond our first nations, that should be the factor in decision-making. There is the creeping edge of the precautionary principle, and now we have intersectionality, another political measure, being inserted into this. I am astounded.

Any time there was a decision made in relation to advancing projects related to resource development or other things, the Conservatives were accused of ideological underpinnings driving to support business and tear down environmental considerations. That was not the truth. Certainly we wanted certainty for proponents, but this is now the third bill on which I am talking about a direct ideological approach being embedded in legislation that is not even rooted in science.

I have said before that the precautionary principle being the guiding force has been criticized roundly, in fact, by one of President Obama's most senior advisers, the White House chair of regulatory affairs, Professor Cass Sunstein. He wrote, which I have quoted a few times, “the precautionary principle, for all its rhetorical appeal, is deeply incoherent.” Why is that? It is because it allows people to make decisions based on a hunch, based on a concern, based on a “we had better act”, or as some people have described it, better safe than sorry.

What was talked about when this principle was first advanced, back at the Rio climate conference? It was suggested at that point that it could only be considered when there was serious or irreversible harm demonstrated before precaution might come in. Now the government, through many pieces of legislation, without much serious scrutiny, I might add, apart from the Conservatives raising it from time to time, is embedding the precautionary principle and a list of cultural, social, and other factors where it can make decisions related to the sustainability of fisheries. It is preposterous, and it should concern people. It is giving the Liberals enough wiggle room to do whatever they want based on how they feel.

Where does this come from? One of the big groups pushing for the precautionary principle to govern and actually supersede science was the World Wildlife Fund. We certainly know where its former head is working now. He is the PMO lead. It should concern Canadians that those approaches and those things advocated for are now being systematically put into legislation without any serious discussion, and directly contrary to what science suggests. They are not even putting in an approach that irreversible harm should be the standard before this approach is used.

Liberals are, by stealth, providing an ideological approach to make decisions without scientific certainty. When it comes to our fisheries, we should be proud that under a Conservative government, John Crosbie, we remember, made a tough decision about the cod fishery, based on science, in the face of people protesting and threatening harm, because it was based on science, not on a hunch and not on ideology.

This is the third bill. Canadians should wake up to how ideological and unscientific the government is.

[Foreign Affairs, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it sounds like the government will be supporting our motion. This is contrary to its expansion of Canadian presence in Iran. It is contrary to its desire to sell aircraft to Iran. It is contrary to one of its own members hosting delegations from Iran in Canada.

Will the minister commit to supporting our motion and ceasing all dealings with the Iranian regime?

[Foreign Affairs, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, today we are debating Iran and its destabilizing influence in the world. The Iranian regime has been involved in the deaths of thousands of people, including Canadian citizens. It has been funding terror groups across the Middle East, including Hamas, which has been active recently in Gaza. Last week Iran's supreme leader openly called for genocide against the Jewish people.

My question is simple. Why does the government seek to warm relations with a regime that can only be described as tyrannical?

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member. She mentioned the speech by her colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh highlighting some of the amazing work done by human rights advocates, by protesters on the ground. The Prime Minister's silence in the face of thousands of people protesting, thousands illegally detained, does not send the right signal.

There are two things with regard to the question she has raised about engagement and the embassy. When we cannot guarantee the safety of our own personnel from Global Affairs, we should be very hesitant. People have mentioned Ken Taylor. I had the opportunity several times to have lunch with Ken Taylor while he was still alive. He was known for the “Canadian caper”, where we had to hide American diplomats in Iran, so actually there is a track record of diplomats being targeted in that country. That is the first thing.

The second is perhaps just as important. The more we normalize relations with what I would suggest is a tyrannical regime, the more we are playing into their propaganda war. By selling aircraft and having the MP for Richmond Hill hosting delegations, we are treating them like they are a friend. We have to isolate them. That is what all freedom-loving countries should do: isolate, call out that conduct. It is not just Iran. I have listed the countries where it has been proven they are funding terror. This regime, over time, has to go. When there are people on the ground spontaneously pledging for that, Canada should not be silent. We should show we have solidarity with them.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I did find it ironic that the parliamentary secretary is suggesting our motion, and by extension my speech, is a selective retelling of history. That is what he said. I began my speech talking about the Prime Minister of Canada, his prime minister, and the first comments he made in this chamber on Iran, which were that “Iran is a cause for concern”. That certainly showed a real concern about regime when he said that it was a cause for concern.

This debate is about putting in the public sphere a full debate on what Canada should be doing. I ended my speech with a number of things I think we should be doing. With regard to regret for naming people, we are hearing from Iranian Canadians, the Persian community in Toronto, who have been in touch with us. I met with them weeks ago, and they are concerned for their families. We have heard that from some of the debates in this House. They are concerned for Ms. Mombeini.

To suggest reports in the newspaper that highlight the death of Professor Seyed-Emami and the tragic case of his wife being detained is something we should not talk about, no, Canadians need to know that their parliamentarians are pushing for Canadians to be respected. The fact that Evin prison, from Zahra Kazemi to Professor Seyed-Emami, is a place where our own citizens have been tortured, and in the case of Zahra Kazemi, raped, we should not be silent but we should be shouting this from the mountaintops. I have said that we need to hold Iran to account.

[Business of Supply, June 11th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to join this opposition day motion debate on an important subject. I have long described Iran as the most destabilizing force in the world right now, standing in the way of global peace and security. We are talking about that today in bringing the debate to the floor of the House of Commons.

I would like to thank my colleague and the deputy shadow minister of foreign affairs, the member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, for helping advance the debate today, and for being an active participant in it.

I have been following the debate, and I am amused by the fact that the Liberal parliamentary secretary and even some opposition members on this side of the House keep using the word “partisan”. The government often throws this out, saying “stop being so partisan”, as if in the chamber, which is designed for opposing points of view, debate, speech, and challenging the government, we are being partisan somehow if we suggest parts of the debate should focus on the horrendous and tyrannical regime in Iran. There is nothing partisan in that. In fact, it is an absence of leadership, of how quiet the Prime Minister has been vis à vis Iran.

The Liberals were being partisan when they formed government and kept using the rhetoric “Canada is back”. Back to what, when it comes to Iran? Back to being silent in the face of the death of a Canadian, to being silent in the face of thousands being imprisoned? In February, Alex Neve of Amnesty International that confirmed thousands had been detained without charges in Iran.

The Prime Minister was one of the few global leaders absolutely silent with respect to the protests in Iran, the democratic desire for a people to have human rights, a basic level of democratic rights and freedoms that we take for granted. The Prime Minister, who loves traversing the world as the global progressive, has been very silent with respect to Iran. That is why we are here today. If those members want to suggest we are partisan, well thank goodness we are partisan. One of the Liberals' own members, the member for Richmond Hill, has been an apologist for the regime, and has hosted delegations from Iran in Canada. Perhaps that is why the Prime Minister does not want to talk much about it. Maybe there is some debate in his caucus on how much we should engage in Iran, or how much we should call out its behaviour.

Mr. Speaker, I got into a rhetorical flight so quickly that I forgot to mention I would be dividing my time with my friend from Bellechasse—Les Etchemins—Lévis.

The first time the Prime Minister mentioned Iran in the House of Commons was in January 2016. He said, “We know that Iran is a cause for concern”. Later on he said that global safety would be through “responsible engagement”; “a cause for concern.” Nothing better illustrates the fact the Prime Minister has either been willfully blind with respect to the horrific conditions facing a lot of people in Iran or the fact he has been wanting to expand Canadian presence and negotiate aircraft sales, and this shows that the Liberal government has had the wrong approach when it comes to Iran. This debate is about that.

When a regime is probably the most disruptive force to global peace and security, we have to be careful that our engagement with it is not normalizing that regime. Comments suggesting there is an elected government in Iran, as if the protests were just regular protests for tuition fees or something and they should negotiate with their elected officials, is irresponsible. The Prime Minister should condemn statements from his own caucus that will allow some Canadians to not have the proper view of a regime that is the most oppressive on earth.

We have seen this even more in recent months. The death of Professor Seyed-Emami, a Canadian citizen in Evin prison, has eerie reminiscence of the death of photojournalist Zahra Kazemi in the same prison. Now it appears that Maryam Mombeini, who went to try to investigate the circumstances of her husband's death, who was illegally detained alongside thousands in Iran, cannot return home. This is the type of regime with which we are dealing.

In the same time, over the last 30 years or since the revolution of 1979, there has been an express desire for nuclearization of an Iranian regime, which would be a direct threat not only to Israel but to global security in the Middle East and around the world.

This motion also highlights the horrific role that the Islamic revolutionary guard plays, with respect to oppressing its own people not just in Iran but around the world. It has been a direct funder and supporter of terror in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Afghanistan, Gaza, and Palestinian-controlled territories, funding Hamas, funding terror, and not wanting peace, security, and stability. Therefore, I would think that condemning that should be something all members of this House would do.

We are here today because of the general silence with respect to the current government's position on Iran. It seems that, after we pushed it, it is holding off on the aircraft sale. That is a refreshing development from us pushing the government on that. Boeing has said it will not sell any type of aircraft to the regime, at a time when more global attention is being paid to Iran, as it should be, because the international community has to condemn the actions of the regime. Just last week, the supreme leader called for genocide on the Jewish people. The Iranians have tried to normalize their positions of hate. We have to be very careful that in this rush, as the Prime Minister naively said in his first few months as the Prime Minister, of responsible engagement with the Iranian regime, we are not somehow normalizing that regime.

I would point my friend the parliamentary secretary, who is listening to this debate, to the comments made in April by Madam Shirin Ebadi, who is a Nobel Peace Prize winner for her work as a human rights lawyer. She is an Iranian woman who is championing the cause of freedom and democratic rights. In an interview in April she told Bloomberg, “Reform is useless in Iran.” She went on to say, “The Iranian people are very dissatisfied with their current government. They have reached the point and realized this system is not reformable.” Therefore, a number of the elements we are bringing to this debate are to showcase that, and to demand that the Liberal government start speaking up for the people of Iran and the families impacted, like Ms. Mombeini. It should be speaking up for the very principles that it talked about at Charlevoix. That seems to be absent when it comes to Iran.

We would also like the Liberals to correct the record, which was made fuzzy in January of this year by their own member for Richmond Hill, at a time when the Prime Minister was silent, and there was no clear direction from our foreign affairs minister. That single tweet by a Liberal member of Parliament sent a very bad signal. At a bare minimum, it was incredibly naive, or possibly worse. Therefore, I would like to see the government clearly renounce that view and not allow that member to host Iranian delegations in Canada.

What else would I like to see out of this opposition day motion now that we are shining the bright light of accountability on a government that does not like it? I would like to see the government apply Magnitsky sanctions against the supreme leader and many of the key regime functionaries who promote hate and support terrorism. The Magnitsky sanctions should be applied immediately.

I would like to see Iran put on the country control list. We have debated arms trade in this place. The Liberals seem to forget that they have the ability to stop all sales with regimes like Iran. Only North Korea is currently on that list. Iran should be immediately placed on country control list.

I would like to see Iran removed from the SWIFT financial system. We have seen it directly fund terror operations around the world, putting people at risk, and in some cases using money from the Iranian deal previously negotiated. Access to the SWIFT system has allowed this to be moved.

I would like a clear statement from the Prime Minister. Even if the Liberals support this motion today, I would like the Prime Minister to be clear in his renunciation of the regime, and to sanction the member for Richmond Hill for clouding the issue with respect to whether Iranians truly get to elect their government.

[Pension Benefits Standards Act, June 1st, 2018]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-405, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Companies’ Creditors Arrangement Act (pension plans).

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today to introduce a private member's bill to address some of the unfunded liabilities that pension funds are facing, which run into major problems when there is insolvency.

This bill seeks to truly improve pensions and to provide hard-working Canadians with certainty and equality.

This is for hard-working pensioners who are worried about their future. The bill is not a magic bullet, but it includes three concrete measures that would help address this issue of under-funded defined pension liabilities. First, it would give more options to pension administrators and monitors to maximize the value and returns for pensioners in their retirement years. Second, it would work with the chief actuary to make sure that the issue of reporting pension liabilities and unfunded liabilities would be reported to provinces' provincial securities regulators to allow us all to work on this challenge. Third is fairness. It would set fair limits on key employee retention plans, bonuses, and some of the things that have angered pensioners when they see executives receiving exorbitant payouts while they are getting less in retirement.

I truly hope this becomes public policy to make a real difference on an issue that concerns Canadians, including those in my area of Durham. GENMO and other organizations have brought this to me. This is a step forward that I hope all parliamentarians can get behind for our seniors, who have worked hard for their retirement pensions.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Budget Implementation Act, 2018, No. 1, May 31st, 2018]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the intervention from the NDP's trade critic. I have enjoyed appearing on the odd panel with her over time as we both try and speak on the issue. She knows that both parties have tried to work as team Canada, where the time permits and where we can. It is troubling. She is right. There was no plan B contained in the budget. For a budget that mentions investing and spending 456 times, there was zero allocated for risks associated to steel, aluminum, or NAFTA in general. That was not a prudent plan when we knew there were risks associated with large swaths of the economy.

As the member will know, the other parties have been trying to also supplement the government's efforts. In February, I was with the member for Prince Albert down in Washington talking about trade, security, and North American defence. All of these things are linked in the United States. Therefore, I hope we can use this setback today as a time to really leverage the strength of the team, leverage the ability to talk about that security partnership with people who have been a part of it, and to talk about the NAFTA trade agreement with the party that created it.