Randall Garrison

[Southern Resident Killer Whales, April 22nd, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I rise once again today to call for action to save the southern resident killer whales. These whales have great spiritual significance for first nations. They are an icon for Vancouver Island and an important part of our local tourism economy.

Despite the recent baby boom, they remain on the edge, especially as newborn orcas have a mortality rate exceeding 50%. The whales are doing their part, but our Canadian government, not so much. The southern residents were listed as endangered in 2003, and therefore the Species at Risk Act requires the Government of Canada to implement an action plan for their recovery. Thirteen years and three governments later, we still have no plan in place.

In 2013 I introduced a motion laying out the elements necessary for an effective recovery plan. In 2014, the Conservative government put forward a draft plan missing most of those elements, but even that weak plan is still sitting on the shelf.

I call on the Minister of Environment to act quickly to adopt an action plan for the southern resident killer whales that includes real action and the funding necessary to make sure that these orcas will continue to be here to inspire generations to come.

[Public Safety, April 19th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, 10 years ago the NDP passed a motion calling on the government to establish a compensation fund for fallen firefighters. The Liberals again promised this fund during the election, yet the Prime Minister spoke to firefighters yesterday and failed to act on the public safety officer compensation fund.

Firefighters are deeply disappointed. When will the Liberals honour this promise and set up this long-overdue fund? How much longer will firefighters have to wait for a fund that will protect their families should they make the ultimate sacrifice while protecting the rest of us?

[National Defence, April 18th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, last week Canadians were alarmed to discover that the Liberals' defence review included consideration of privatizing search and rescue. Now we have learned the Liberals are also reconsidering Canada's participation in the Star Wars missile defence scheme.

I have a bad feeling about this. Canadians thought this debate was put to rest more than a decade ago. Would the minister tell the House, and this is a yes or no question, are the Liberals reconsidering Canada's participation in this dangerous U.S. missile defence scheme?

[Bullying, April 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, today marks the day of pink, a day to raise awareness about bullying and a day to stand up to call for an end to bullying.

New Democrats wear pink today to stand collectively with the victims to say no to homophobia, transphobia, racism, sexism, classism, ableism, and all forms of discrimination that provide tools and targets for bullies.

Bullying, in all its forms, has a detrimental impact not just on its victims but on our society as a whole. We have all heard the stories and seen the statistics that show increasing rates of youth self-harm and suicide.

Studies have concluded that bullying is not a behaviour that bullies outgrow but rather is a behaviour that matures into more serious issues of harassment and abuse.

Bullying can be stopped. It's not simply a part of growing up. We need to get to the root of the problem of bullying and work to put an end to the cycle of bullying.

The New Democrat team is committed to taking action on the issue of bullying in Parliament not only today but every day and doing so in ways that actually get results.

[Search and Rescue, April 12th, 2016]

We have now learned that the Liberal government is looking at privatizing search and rescue as part of the defence review. This was an idea that was first raised by the Conservatives five years ago, and finally abandoned only after a public outcry. At that time, the current Minister of Public Services said she was “appalled by the government's notice to companies that the government would be exploring the privatization of search-and-rescue operations”.

Privatizing search and rescue would clearly put Canadian lives at risk. Will the government do the right thing and abandon this plan?

[National Defence, March 9th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the National Defence military foreign service instructions define a combat mission as, “where the use or threatened use of force, including lethal force, is...[used] to accomplish a mission”.

Yesterday, Canada's Chief of the Defence Staff admitted that, in the Liberals' new expanded mission in Iraq, Canadian troops will be authorized not only to use lethal force but also to shoot first. To everyone, except the current government, that sounds exactly like the definition of combat.

Why is the Liberal government continuing to try to disguise the nature of this mission and its risks?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, earlier the member for Scarborough—Guildwood suggested that at this late hour of the debate maybe we need a little comparison.

For New Democrats who think we would be more effective in cutting off the flow of funds, arms, and foreign fighters to ISIS, I look at the core of this motion. It is a military mission that looks very much like the old Conservative military mission.

In terms of the bombing, we are doing everything except using CF-18s to do it. We are using refuelling aircraft, surveillance planes, and we are painting targets on the ground. In terms of the training missions, it is an expansion of what the Conservatives had already started.

My question to the Conservative members is, do they actually support the other part of this military mission? Do they support the expansion of the training on the ground, which will put more Canadians at risk of direct combat with ISIS? Apart from what we have all heard from the members, that they are opposed to taking out the CF-18s, do they support the part of the mission that expands the training?

[Canada's Contribution to the Effort to Combat ISIL, February 24th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the member from Niagara Falls and the other Conservatives. It is certainly quite clear that on this motion, they object to withdrawing the Canadian fighters, although one could argue that we are still very much involved in bombing, because we are using the Aurora surveillance aircraft, we are refuelling, and we are painting targets on the ground. They seem to have hooked their whole argument around the withdrawal of the CF-18s.

My question is on another part of the military mission. Do the Conservatives support what is proposed here, which is the expansion of the so-called training mission, which is in fact an advise-and-assist mission, that will put Canadian Forces members on the front lines and in danger of direct combat confrontations with ISIS? Do the Conservatives support that part of the Liberal motion?

[National Defence, February 22nd, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, let us go through this one more time. Last year the Liberals complained about the former prime minister's tinkering with the definition of combat missions.

Back then, the man who is now the Prime Minister's senior foreign policy adviser said that the Iraq mission was combat and that the government should be honest with Canadians about such a serious matter.

The Prime Minister may have changed, but the mission has only expanded, and Canadians are still not getting a straight answer.

Will the minister finally admit that, despite Liberal campaign promises, Canada's troops are still engaged in a combat mission in Iraq?

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

Mr. Speaker, I think it is a cul-de-sac we have run into. We are clearly in a combat zone where Canadian troops are at the front lines. They will inevitably be drawn into what most people would call combat.

Rather than spend a lot of time debating whether it is or is not combat, I am going to go back to General Vance who said it is a hybrid mission somewhere between traditional combat missions and some kind of peacekeeping mission, but there is no doubt at all that Canadian troops will be on the front line. They will do their best when they are there and we will all support them in those efforts. What we are questioning is whether this is the best way to defeat ISIS.