Jim Eglinski

[Petitions, March 11th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition calling upon Parliament to establish a national strategy on palliative care.

The petitioners state that in the 41st Parliament, the House of Commons unanimously passed this motion. They therefore ask that access to high-quality palliative care at the end of life be available.

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

Mr. Speaker, throughout my 35 years in the RCMP, I was involved in many emergency situations, not in a military scope but emergencies within Canada such as major explosions, major fires, floods, etc.

One of the biggest problems in any emergency situation is a breakdown in communications. It does not matter where we are, when we have multiple agencies trying to work together, it does not work as efficiently as one agency integrally working within itself.

That is what alarms me here. We are taking away one of our strong tools, the CF-18s, that was there to protect our men and women on the ground if needed, and it was proved that it was needed. Relying on other allies to give that support to our troops will lead to a failure.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was very disappointed last week when we found out that the CF-18s had already been removed. Why are we holding a debate on something as important as this, looking at the protection of our troops overseas and having a debate after the fact? It makes absolutely no sense to me and it shows the government's disrespect for the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, when going into a foreign country initially, it is very hard to have a full plan as to what we are going to do. Once our troops arrived there, they had a better understanding of the situation that was before them, they adapted to those situations the best they could, and they provided the best allied support they could. Things change continually in those types of environments.

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

Mr. Speaker, we agree that putting extra troops on the ground will help, but why would we remove our best fighting tool that has helped our allies and is one of the strongest fighting tools to protect our ground troops that are going to be assisting our allies? It does not make any sense. Keep the best tools there. Why bring them home?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on the motion before the House regarding the redefinition of Canada's role in the fight against ISIS.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound.

First, I am proud of the men and women of the armed forces. They defend not only our country, but also protect Canadians' interests and promote Canadian values abroad. Men and women in uniform are the backbone of our defence capabilities, following a strong and noble military tradition since Canada's conception.

It is never an easy decision to send our men and women into combat, and it should not be. When Canada is attacked at home and Canadians are attacked abroad, it is Canada's fight. Yet the Prime Minister has pulled our fighter jets out of the coalition effort to stop ISIS. No justification for withdrawing the CF-18s has been provided. We are willing to paint targets, conduct surveillance, provide fuel for our bombers, but we will not drop any Canadian bombs. Withdrawing from direct combat against ISIS sends the wrong message to Canadians and to our allies.

The proposed motion increases the risk to Canadian Armed Forces members, but reduces Canada's air support. Our Conservative Party strongly believes that our CF-18s should remain in the fight against ISIS. It is my view and that of my party that withdrawal from this mission is a step backward from Canada's traditional role as defenders for human rights and international security. We have a long and proud history of defending innocent and vulnerable populations by taking on those who commit mass atrocities.

In my previous career in the RCMP, having been part of a specialized emergency response team, we provided backup to members in the field during emergencies. As inert officers, we were there to assist in the successful resolution of dangerous situations, thereby enhancing public safety and the security of our regular members. It would have been irresponsible then for our leaders to remove us from that duty, leaving our members in the field to deal with situations on their own without specialized backup. Is that not exactly what the government is doing now with our men and women in uniform?

The air strikes now grounded by the Liberal government provided the necessary air support for our troops battling ISIS. If we are to provide more boots on the ground, we need to ensure that proper protection is in place. We should not rely on our allies to protect our soldiers. Should our troops come under attack now, we will be 100% reliant on allies to provide the backup support. This will lead to unnecessary multiple channels of communication instead of one direct line to our ground troops.

Let me give a couple of examples of what I mean.

In Afghanistan, in 2002 and 2006, miscommunications led to our allies dropping bombs on our troops.

I ask everybody to recall what transpired on the Hill in October 2014. At that time, there were multiple security services on the Hill. This created issues in communications and carrying out an efficient response. In an RCMP review of the events of that day, it was concluded that:

The working relationship between the House of Commons Security Service, the Senate Protective Services and the RCMP is inadequate....All three agencies work as separate entities, with limited interaction or sharing of information.

To avoid having to go through multiple lines of communication and to more effectively and efficiently respond to future events, security on Parliament Hill has since been merged into one single unit.

The above examples prove that the Liberal government will complicate the ability of any air support to respond and assist our troops on the ground. Our CF-18s provided that direct link to the safety of our soldiers.

On December 17 of last year, if we all recall, Canadian special forces that were training Kurdish fighters came under a major attack by ISIS militants. Two of our Canadian CF-18s conducted air strikes to take out the ISIS fighting position that was supporting the extremist offensive, helping our troops dramatically. This proves that our troops are at risk on the ground and need air defence to keep them safe. The CF-18s provided that backup.

General Vance has said that by tripling the number of special operation forces on the ground, it increases the risk. That was also confirmed by the Minister of National Defence in the House. If this is the case, why is the government taking us out of the fight against ISIS and putting our troops at risk? We believe in ensuring our troops have every tool available to directly protect them and get the job done. Fighter jets are one of the best tools.

Knowing that ISIS attacks have spread beyond Iraq and in Syria and claimed the lives of Canadians recently, halting and degrading ISIS is now more critical. Canada has been a key ally in the air combat effort. Canadian air strikes have been an effective element of the coalition's campaign in destroying ISIS and providing air support to Canadian and allied ground troops. It is extremely irresponsible for the government to downplay Canada's contribution, and all for political reasons.

Canada has the capacity to continue to contribute to air strikes alongside training and humanitarian support. Instead, the government is focused solely on humanitarian and security assistance already being done. There are many times when stronger military action is necessary and fighting is necessary. It is paramount that the government stands shoulder to shoulder with our allies to defend and protect not only our troops on the ground, but the safety and security of all Canadians as well as our allies.

The Prime Minister and the Minister of National Defence must ensure our troops are protected by our CF-18s. Let us ensure they come home, and may our troops on the ground over there take care.

[The North, January 29th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, as we count down to Canada's 150th birthday, I want to share an exciting proposal from Canada's internationally acclaimed air show performers. I want to encourage members of the House to get involved.

My local Rocky Mountain House Airshow Society is proposing a 2017 Canadian Arctic aviation tour. This air show will completely criss-cross Canada's north, encompassing 41 air shows, and 47 community fly-bys, covering a total of 16,000 nautical miles, equivalent to three-quarters of the way around the world. This will not only set a world record but put Canada's north on the map.

This will be an opportunity for our northern communities to have an air show in their communities for the first time—a performance they will never forget.

Importantly, our sovereignty and our great and vast northern regions will be shared by Canadians as we celebrate Canada's 150 birthday.

[Petitions, January 25th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition representing thousands of Canadians. The petition sadly highlights the fact that 22-year-old Kassandra Kaulius was killed by a drunk driver. A group of people who have lost loved ones through impaired driving, called Families for Justice, believes that impaired driving laws in Canada are much too lenient. The petitioners therefore call for new mandatory minimum sentencing for people who have been convicted of vehicular homicide.

[Criminal Code, December 10th, 2015]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (abuse of vulnerable persons).

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I rise in the 42nd Parliament, I would like to congratulate all of my fellow members of Parliament from across Canada, and you, sir, for being elected as our Speaker. I would like to thank the constituents of my great riding for putting their support behind me to be their representative in Ottawa.

I am pleased to stand in the House today to table my first private member's bill, an act to amend the Criminal Code on abuse of vulnerable persons. The bill would amend section 718.2 of the Criminal Code by making tougher penalties for an offender who knows or reasonably should know that a person is an elder or other vulnerable person, and wilfully exploits or takes advantage of that person through financial, physical, sexual, or emotional abuse.

My private member's bill would bring further protection to seniors and other vulnerable persons to ensure that they may live in dignity and security and be free of exploitation.

In my 35 years in law enforcement, this is one of the worst segments of crime we have seen in this nation. It happens from sea to sea to sea, where people take advantage of our seniors and vulnerable persons who are handicapped, etc. We need to make sure that people who do these hideous types of crime pay a greater penalty.

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

[Taxation, June 19th, 2015]

Mr. Speaker, our Conservative government is helping families across the country by keeping more money in their pockets. Could the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Employment and Social Development please update the House on our measures to help 100% of families with children in Canada?